|
Post by Admin on May 23, 2024 21:48:35 GMT
So instead you assume I can read your mind? Nope but still hoping that you are not that dumb... Ok then, I'll presume you underscored the point while hoping nobody noticed. lol
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on May 23, 2024 22:01:31 GMT
Nope but still hoping that you are not that dumb... Ok then, I'll presume you underscored the point while hoping nobody noticed. OK then; I will unfortunately have to presume too. Take a look, and hope it helps. Everyone else, including me now, will move on,
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 23, 2024 22:08:09 GMT
Ok then, I'll presume you underscored the point while hoping nobody noticed. OK then; I will unfortunately have to presume too. Take a look, and hope it helps. Everyone else, including me now, will move on, "These definitions can help more babies be born healthy..."Seems even you aren't on your side. Moving on is prudent.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on May 24, 2024 21:40:14 GMT
OK then; I will unfortunately have to presume too. Take a look, and hope it helps. Everyone else, including me now, will move on, "These definitions can help more babies be born healthy..."Seems even you aren't on your side. Moving on is prudent. I have no idea what you are on about, sorry. I said "A woman's reproduction rights are affected if she is obliged to carry to full term just as they are if she not allowed control over her body in having access to legal abortion services." since " reproductive rights include the right to reproduce at a time of one's choosing." And so they are. If a woman wants a baby to be born with the best chance of being healthy then, yes a full term is the best choice. But the point here is, as always, that some women want the freedom to choose not to have a baby at all (ie not that they want to give birth early). A freedom I understand we both agree with. Glad you now understand what a 'full term' is though. Always glad to help.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 24, 2024 21:56:12 GMT
"These definitions can help more babies be born healthy..."Seems even you aren't on your side. Moving on is prudent. I have no idea what you are on about, sorry. I said "A woman's reproduction rights are affected if she is obliged to carry to full term just as they are if she not allowed control over her body in having access to legal abortion services." since " reproductive rights include the right to reproduce at a time of one's choosing." And so they are. If a woman wants a baby to be born with the best chance of being healthy then, yes a full term is the best choice. But the point here is that some women want the freedom to choose not to have a baby at all. Something I understand we both agree with. Glad you now understand what a 'full term' is though. I remember how much you struggled with the subject of cervical mucus on a previous occasion, or how a miscarriage has on occasion been called a "spontaneous abortion." especially in earlier times. Others will appreciate why the better-informed want to move on. Is this what moving on looks like? That's weird, but whatever. Any way you slice it, banning abortion has no bearing on a woman's right to reproduce, and it certainly doesn't interfere with her freedom to choose not to have a baby at all. Again, abortion is not contraception.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on May 24, 2024 22:09:33 GMT
I have no idea what you are on about, sorry. I said "A woman's reproduction rights are affected if she is obliged to carry to full term just as they are if she not allowed control over her body in having access to legal abortion services." since " reproductive rights include the right to reproduce at a time of one's choosing." And so they are. If a woman wants a baby to be born with the best chance of being healthy then, yes a full term is the best choice. But the point here is that some women want the freedom to choose not to have a baby at all. Something I understand we both agree with. Glad you now understand what a 'full term' is though. I remember how much you struggled with the subject of cervical mucus on a previous occasion, or how a miscarriage has on occasion been called a "spontaneous abortion." especially in earlier times. Others will appreciate why the better-informed want to move on. Is this what moving on looks like? That's weird, but whatever. Any way you slice it, banning abortion has no bearing on a woman's right to reproduce, and it certainly doesn't interfere with her freedom to choose not to have a baby at all. Again, abortion is not contraception. Well I don't like to leave you wasting all that sarcasm (at least you are not swearing at me in this exchange). And as already said, thrice now, a woman's reproductive rights includes the right to have a baby at a time of her choosing. It is called planned parenthood. But taking abortion off the table certainly does remove the freedom not to have a baby since, well, just think about it, that is just a choice a miserably pregnant woman would want. Such a claim is nonsense. And, once again I agree that, duh, abortion is not contraception. But now since you and I are just repeating each other, I will indeed move on.
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on May 24, 2024 22:39:32 GMT
Is this what moving on looks like? That's weird, but whatever. Any way you slice it, banning abortion has no bearing on a woman's right to reproduce, and it certainly doesn't interfere with her freedom to choose not to have a baby at all. Again, abortion is not contraception. Well I don't like to leave you wasting all that sarcasm (at least you are not swearing at me in this exchange). And as already said, thrice now, a woman's reproductive rights includes the right to have a baby at a time of her choosing. It is called planned parenthood. But taking abortion off the table certainly does remove the freedom not to have a baby since, well, just think about it, that is just a choice a miserably pregnant woman would want. Such a claim is nonsense. And, once again I agree that, duh, abortion is not contraception. But now since you and I are just repeating each other, I will indeed move on.
So what services does PP offer to women who DON'T want to kill their babies? especially all the poor young girls who don't have much to start a family with but don't think that's an excuse for murder, if they're just as much PRO baby as pro KILLING baby, shouldn't they offer women free diapers and formula and wipes like they do free birth control?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 24, 2024 22:49:53 GMT
Is this what moving on looks like? That's weird, but whatever. Any way you slice it, banning abortion has no bearing on a woman's right to reproduce, and it certainly doesn't interfere with her freedom to choose not to have a baby at all. Again, abortion is not contraception. Well I don't like to leave you wasting all that sarcasm (at least you are not swearing at me in this exchange). And as already said, thrice now, a woman's reproductive rights includes the right to have a baby at a time of her choosing. It is called planned parenthood. But taking abortion off the table certainly does remove the freedom not to have a baby since, well, just think about it, that is just a choice a miserably pregnant woman would want. Such a claim is nonsense. And, once again I agree that, duh, abortion is not contraception. But now since you and I are just repeating each other, I will indeed move on. I hate to be the one to tell you this, but abortions are only for those who are already pregnant. I see your back, but it isn't getting any smaller. Your moving on skills need some work.
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on May 25, 2024 11:56:06 GMT
Seems someone forgot to install your empathy mechanism. Why don't you go out and hassle some women at a Planned Parenthood clinic, might be good therapy for you. At any rate, it's becoming clear why you've shut down the Block User function. You obviously like the drama. Makes a pretty good stand-in for real life, I suppose. It's very hard if not impossible to be simultaneously empathetic and objective. And besides, the former wouldn't even apply for someone who has no regrets. I've done nothing with the Block User function. You should know this given your recent announcement that you have Novastar on block. However, if you're referring to the inability to block an Administrator, that's a Proboards limitation that can't be toggled. Try blocking the admin on V1 and let's see if you say the same about him. Meanwhile, I'm still wondering why it's such a hard decision... I haven't attempted to block you; as Amin, you should certainly be aware of this. And the block function is not functioning. I placed NS6 on block about a week ago, a day or two later the block was removed, and I've been unable to re-block since. Once again, as Admin, you must be aware of that. As to the rest of your post, I answered your question as best as I could. This isn't a star chamber enquiry, and I have no intention of covering the same ground repeatedly. If the answer wasn't satisfactory to you, that's unfortunate, but it's also your problem. If you don't like this, you can always ban me from the site. Once again, as Admin, you aren't being told anything you don't already know. As for myself, I find your ongoing hammering at this subject to be nothing more than an exercise in pointless harassment, since I feel fairly sure you have no actual interest or investment in any further answers I might give. It's also taking a bit of unfair advantage of your position as Admin, since, if you're bent on engaging in activity of that sort, there's no one to really report your actions to apart from ProBoards...which would likely be an exercise in futility, even if I were arsed enough at your actions to feel it was worth the bother to report them.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on May 25, 2024 20:42:15 GMT
Well I don't like to leave you wasting all that sarcasm (at least you are not swearing at me in this exchange). And as already said, thrice now, a woman's reproductive rights includes the right to have a baby at a time of her choosing. It is called planned parenthood. But taking abortion off the table certainly does remove the freedom not to have a baby since, well, just think about it, that is just a choice a miserably pregnant woman would want. Such a claim is nonsense. And, once again I agree that, duh, abortion is not contraception. But now since you and I are just repeating each other, I will indeed move on.
So what services does PP offer to women who DON'T want to kill their babies? especially all the poor young girls who don't have much to start a family with but don't think that's an excuse for murder, if they're just as much PRO baby as pro KILLING baby, shouldn't they offer women free diapers and formula and wipes like they do free birth control?
I think you are confusing planned parenthood (which as a last resort can include a termination) as a concept with Planned Parenthood the reputable organisation. I can't speak for them. Also, "killing babies" is a dog whistle. By far the most number of abortions are early on where the target is just a mucoid mass of cells. Hey, Admin is talking behind my back now and his words sound tetchy and confused. Do you think your friend is alright lol?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 25, 2024 21:59:01 GMT
It's very hard if not impossible to be simultaneously empathetic and objective. And besides, the former wouldn't even apply for someone who has no regrets. I've done nothing with the Block User function. You should know this given your recent announcement that you have Novastar on block. However, if you're referring to the inability to block an Administrator, that's a Proboards limitation that can't be toggled. Try blocking the admin on V1 and let's see if you say the same about him. Meanwhile, I'm still wondering why it's such a hard decision... I haven't attempted to block you; as Amin, you should certainly be aware of this. And the block function is not functioning. I placed NS6 on block about a week ago, a day or two later the block was removed, and I've been unable to re-block since. Once again, as Admin, you must be aware of that. As to the rest of your post, I answered your question as best as I could. This isn't a star chamber enquiry, and I have no intention of covering the same ground repeatedly. If the answer wasn't satisfactory to you, that's unfortunate, but it's also your problem. If you don't like this, you can always ban me from the site. Once again, as Admin, you aren't being told anything you don't already know. As for myself, I find your ongoing hammering at this subject to be nothing more than an exercise in pointless harassment, since I feel fairly sure you have no actual interest or investment in any further answers I might give. It's also taking a bit of unfair advantage of your position as Admin, since, if you're bent on engaging in activity of that sort, there's no one to really report your actions to apart from ProBoards...which would likely be an exercise in futility, even if I were arsed enough at your actions to feel it was worth the bother to report them. That's an impressively hypocritical ad hominem, but I'll bite anyway. As Admin, I'm aware of none of that. Admins of PB forums don't have access to anyone's privacy settings but their own, just like any other member. I can't see your privacy settings, change them, or even see when you change them. If the Block User function isn't working properly for you, I advise speaking to PB Support since they're the only ones who can help with it. As for your weird belief that you're being harassed, you'll need to talk to PB's abuse department. If they agree with you, they'll take action. Don't fool yourself into thinking I'm above PB law because I'm an admin. There is no blue wall here. Back on topic, it's a hard decision because it isn't just a meaningless clump of cells. I won't respond to you again. Thanks for the chats.
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on May 26, 2024 0:46:14 GMT
I haven't attempted to block you; as Amin, you should certainly be aware of this. And the block function is not functioning. I placed NS6 on block about a week ago, a day or two later the block was removed, and I've been unable to re-block since. Once again, as Admin, you must be aware of that. As to the rest of your post, I answered your question as best as I could. This isn't a star chamber enquiry, and I have no intention of covering the same ground repeatedly. If the answer wasn't satisfactory to you, that's unfortunate, but it's also your problem. If you don't like this, you can always ban me from the site. Once again, as Admin, you aren't being told anything you don't already know. As for myself, I find your ongoing hammering at this subject to be nothing more than an exercise in pointless harassment, since I feel fairly sure you have no actual interest or investment in any further answers I might give. It's also taking a bit of unfair advantage of your position as Admin, since, if you're bent on engaging in activity of that sort, there's no one to really report your actions to apart from ProBoards...which would likely be an exercise in futility, even if I were arsed enough at your actions to feel it was worth the bother to report them. That's an impressively hypocritical ad hominem, but I'll bite anyway. As Admin, I'm aware of none of that. Admins of PB forums don't have access to anyone's privacy settings but their own, just like any other member. I can't see your privacy settings, change them, or even see when you change them. If the Block User function isn't working properly for you, I advise speaking to PB Support since they're the only ones who can help with it. As for your weird belief that you're being harassed, you'll need to talk to PB's abuse department. If they agree with you, they'll take action. Don't fool yourself into thinking I'm above PB law because I'm an admin. There is no blue wall here. Back on topic, it's a hard decision because it isn't just a meaningless clump of cells. I won't respond to you again. Thanks for the chats. Ah, well. Have it your own way, and thanks for the...insight. G'day.
|
|
|
Post by transfuged on May 26, 2024 1:41:16 GMT
I looked up the penal code and the code were the legal abortion right is written... And now I wonder what to do, because technically, I’m not sure I can refrain from telling about Novastar6 on the record to the local authorities and not get into troubles myself. Interfering with legal abortion is not a crime, and harassing and attempts at disinformation in the matter, can be prosecuted. As novastar would probably won’t note, right is not something that must always be enforced. So usually I don’t bother. But penal law is a mix of public law and private interest. Someone above provided a link to Amnesty and reproductive rights. There is a small word in that definition that rule it out of basic women’s right and that’s : ”couple”, imho. Nobel prize be damned, couple can’t get precedence over individual right in that one occurence. Something is taught in basic legal training as it come to civil law about marriage. Couples can wed for the reason they choose. A marriage can get voided if no intercourse occurred, but reverse logic is not valid. Familly is not the sole purpose of marriage, despite the fact that this definition is provided by many reference books. The code version of Veil’s law I referred to above in legal abortion matters refers to the civil code in its first article. Civil rights are usually individual rights, and the law here notes that there is a double kind of individual rights to consider. As I did not wrote, baby to be born have rights, justice must consider their interests and rights. But that’s a point that belongs to matters of financial substance, technically its inheritance matter, if I recall right, it’s about rare unlucky accidents were husband and pregnant wife got killed together, in times when the wife would not inherit from the husband when the other children would. (And paternity lawsuits, Bottom line, financial matters. Identity, yeah, like your father’s or mother’s name matters ! In a pig’s eye !) Financial business in the civil code sometimes requires sharing ”by virile parts”(and, well, guess what, sisters... yes, it refers to which part of the human male body you think, definitely!*) Civil sharing, eg in matters of a.1382, when multiple liability is found, requires sharing by ”civil parts”, which means equal parts. I had not the opportunity to check if this still applies, but de viris being the Latin way to say civil, imho that won’t change before long. (Meanwhile n6 and her counterparts are not free to prevent female individuals to clearly and soundly know about abortion, despite how much misogynistic civil law still can be.) Bottom line, imho, again, finance matter is not a matter of death and life, but death in childbirth does sometimes occurs. Back to women’s rights link to post aboveI wrote there that forcing a woman to conceive an unwanted child is a rape. Technically, and as a wild guess, I’d say that, as the civil code quotation includes dignity, interfering with individual female right in the matter of abortion should be prosecuted in reference with art 222_1 of the penal code that is applied to torture and acts of savagery. Not sure the coding of Veil’s law does not prevents that from happening. Glad to read that despite their arguments, Admin and film flaneur agree on the point that abortion is not contraception. So does the coding of Veil’s law. *NOT their brain, Admin. So much for fact.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on May 26, 2024 22:00:33 GMT
I answered your question as best as I could...I have no intention of covering the same ground repeatedly. If the answer wasn't satisfactory to you, that's unfortunate, but it's also your problem... you aren't being told anything you don't already know...your ongoing hammering at this subject to be nothing more than an exercise in pointless harassment... I know how you feel, now you point it out. Unfortunately, sometimes this is what his replies ultimately add up to, down to just recently, mocking me personally. I'm a patient guy, but such tactics can be tiring and fruitless - and moreover boring, at least to those who still bother to follow things. It could of course be a means to extending the life of a discussion but introducing new points would be more effective.
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on May 26, 2024 23:09:12 GMT
I answered your question as best as I could...I have no intention of covering the same ground repeatedly. If the answer wasn't satisfactory to you, that's unfortunate, but it's also your problem... you aren't being told anything you don't already know...your ongoing hammering at this subject to be nothing more than an exercise in pointless harassment... I know how you feel, now you point it out. Unfortunately, sometimes this is what his replies ultimately add up to, down to just recently, mocking me personally. I'm a patient guy, but such tactics can be tiring and fruitless - and moreover boring, at least to those who still bother to follow things. It could of course be a means to extending the life of a discussion but introducing new points would be more effective. He demonstrated that to the fullest in the whole 'man from ape' brouhaha of a few weeks back. I get the feeling that the somewhat circular argument, with an occasional ad hom thrown in for good measure, is his go-to debating style. It doesn't surprise me overly much to find that he's a believer (of some sort at any rate). This kind of endless tail-chasing I've often enough found to be a hallmark of the more defensive variety of Christian; it seems to derive from the notion that endless repetition of a signal point is sufficient to carry an argument successfully, and also seems to indicate that no new points are likely to be introduced, because of the idea that the base argument is meritorious enough not to require the rigor of thinking one's way through to more substantive ones. This notion isn't unique to, or confined to, the theologically inclined mind, but it does seem to be something of a staple of their mode of discourse.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 26, 2024 23:35:27 GMT
I answered your question as best as I could...I have no intention of covering the same ground repeatedly. If the answer wasn't satisfactory to you, that's unfortunate, but it's also your problem... you aren't being told anything you don't already know...your ongoing hammering at this subject to be nothing more than an exercise in pointless harassment... I know how you feel, now you point it out. Unfortunately, sometimes this is what his replies ultimately add up to, down to just recently, mocking me personally. I'm a patient guy, but such tactics can be tiring and fruitless - and moreover boring, at least to those who still bother to follow things. It could of course be a means to extending the life of a discussion but introducing new points would be more effective. When I chase your red herrings, you accuse me of being off-topic, and when I don't, you accuse me of stagnating progressive discussion. The classic "heads I win, tails you lose" strategy might secure your coveted QEDs, but it resolves nothing. In this particular case, changing the subject to me doesn't make those wads of snot meaningless, and it certainly doesn't explain why it's such a hard choice to have them removed, let alone "the sorrow that surrounds the decision and its aftermath." When all you (and apparently Amy) have left are desperate ad hominems, it's you who isn't contributing to the actual discussion. So with that said... Thanks for the chats.
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on May 27, 2024 6:07:40 GMT
I know how you feel, now you point it out. Unfortunately, sometimes this is what his replies ultimately add up to, down to just recently, mocking me personally. I'm a patient guy, but such tactics can be tiring and fruitless - and moreover boring, at least to those who still bother to follow things. It could of course be a means to extending the life of a discussion but introducing new points would be more effective. When I chase your red herrings, you accuse me of being off-topic, and when I don't, you accuse me of stagnating progressive discussion. The classic "heads I win, tails you lose" strategy might secure your coveted QEDs, but it resolves nothing. In this particular case, changing the subject to me doesn't make those wads of snot meaningless, and it certainly doesn't explain why it's such a hard choice to have them removed, let alone "the sorrow that surrounds the decision and its aftermath." When all you (and apparently Amy) have left are desperate ad hominems, it's you who isn't contributing to the actual discussion. So with that said... Thanks for the chats.
That double standard is an endless puzzle, the same side claims both 'hardest decision a woman EVER has to make!' but likens the baby to a. a tumor, b. a parasite/tapeworm, c. an appendix, d. a clump of cells, none of which any woman would be wracked with anything about deciding to have it removed, none of which would ever be summed up 'hardest decision ever made!' Then, the side that's claiming science on their side tells us that women can be guilted and shamed into keeping these so called 'non-alive, non-human, non-sentient, non-babies' by being told how far along they are, the sex it is, or listening to its heartbeat. Now since none of those things can be offered for a tumor or a parasite, which many of the same people have likened the baby to, how could that suddenly convince a woman, 'falsely' of course since that's not SCIENCE!, to keep her non-alive, non-sentient, non-human, non-baby, on the 'false' belief that it suddenly is a baby? Barring extreme mental issues, what woman has ever decided to keep her tumor or a parasite on the grounds of it's a human, it's a baby, it's her child?
And since a woman could JUST get pregnant again at any time, and that's certainly another argument made, 'don't feel bad about killing THIS baby, since it's not a person UNTIL it's born, you can just have more later' (and just ignore the issues many women face trying to conceive and carry to term after abortion, oh that's just a coincidence, there's no link, it's not like there's anything unnatural about surgically poking around a woman's uterus to remove her baby in little pieces, it's not like that could harm HER or her chances of reproducing again in any way), again, where does the hardship come in?
Now maybe not ALL pro-aborts claim 'science' on their side, but many do, they claim they have the science, the education, the intelligence, the facts, and anybody opposed to killing helpless babies just hate sex and believe in fairy tales, etc., but if you stack all their inconsistent arguments on top of one another, it's hard to take their side as a whole serious at all. One argument for abortion proceeds to kick the legs out of the next argument, you can't have it both ways.
I've seen a lot of arguments made to justify abortion that don't deal in anything remotely resembling science. One I saw once and it always bothered me, somebody actually justified abortion 'because gestational diabetes!', oh that's the baby's fault? Actually it isn't, because I actually know how to look things up. The risk factors for gestational diabetes are exactly the same risk factors for NON-gestational diabetes, which include poor diet, no exercise, merely being a woman, being over 30, etc., oh and here's a little surprise for people, the CDC and the FDA, legitimate websites, everybody can look it up, says smokers are 30-40% more likely to develop Type 2 Diabetes than non-smokers. But sure, blame the baby who didn't do anything, not your own lifestyle.
And people will justify abortion because 'childbirth complications!', very extensive history of women dying in childbirth, must be the evil crotch goblins' faults, right? Actually not so much. These days the 2 most common causes of childbirth deaths are doctors and nurses failing to monitor the mothers' blood pressure, AND how heavily they are bleeding. They're supposed to be TRAINED to watch this stuff, they don't, nobody blames them, people blame the babies. How about historically? LOTS of women died in childbirth throughout history, again, must be the babies' fault because women's bodies just simply WEREN'T made to carry and deliver infants. Actually it's known now that MOST cases of women dying in childbirth from hundreds of years ago, were a result of doctors who didn't wear gloves, and proceeded to deliver babies with their bare hands right after they got done dissecting corpses, in a time when doctors didn't believe in washing hands. Oh but back then they didn't think dead people had germs, so there was no need for sanitary or hygienic precautions. Wouldn't people today just jump at the chance to get medical care like that?
There's something very ironic about people screaming 'science' and 'intelligence' and then making blatantly false arguments to support their viewpoint, which can be debunked with actual facts, all the while calling themselves 'choice'. What is a choice when it is an uneducated one?
|
|
|
Post by transfuged on May 27, 2024 6:31:16 GMT
N6, Why don’t you call the police, then ?
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on May 27, 2024 11:50:12 GMT
I know how you feel, now you point it out. Unfortunately, sometimes this is what his replies ultimately add up to, down to just recently, mocking me personally. I'm a patient guy, but such tactics can be tiring and fruitless - and moreover boring, at least to those who still bother to follow things. It could of course be a means to extending the life of a discussion but introducing new points would be more effective. When I chase your red herrings, you accuse me of being off-topic, and when I don't, you accuse me of stagnating progressive discussion. The classic "heads I win, tails you lose" strategy might secure your coveted QEDs, but it resolves nothing. In this particular case, changing the subject to me doesn't make those wads of snot meaningless, and it certainly doesn't explain why it's such a hard choice to have them removed, let alone "the sorrow that surrounds the decision and its aftermath." When all you (and apparently Amy) have left are desperate ad hominems, it's you who isn't contributing to the actual discussion. So with that said... Thanks for the chats. For someone who keeps signing off on a topic, you surely do appear to have a lot more wall o' texts to put up regarding it. Which may say more about your emotional investment in those wads of snot than you intend ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/wink.png) .
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on May 27, 2024 17:23:53 GMT
it certainly doesn't explain why it's such a hard choice to have them removed, let alone "the sorrow that surrounds the decision and its aftermath." I am not sure what this refers to, neither is that quote mine, and moreover is unrecognised by Google - and so could well be a strawman. Like when you asked me three times what 'full term' meant instead of doing the Google? Like when you swore at me lately? Any ad hominem lies in attacking the person rather than what they say. Read my last careful reply again with this in mind. Done? So, wrong again then. You are welcome.
|
|