Nun excommunicated for saving a woman's life

Cyberwulf wrote:: And ostensibly pro-choice liberals are in here having shit attacks because I dare to suggest that men don't have an automatic right to be informed that their sacred sperm is being scraped out of somebody's uterus.

Not exactly; I'm having a gigantic shit-fit because there should be no 'right' to begin with; no right for the man to know, and no right for the woman to withhold information. I'm having a gigantic shit-fit because of how complicated you are making things, when each and every healthy, trusting couple should handle it in their own terms [again, those exist!]. Not the terms of somebody with a grudge against the outdated and repulsive political views that are happening in that person's country.

Quote :

Just Chipper wrote:

Quote :: But I'm the ... emotional ... one.

Nope, you're the one whose only real emotion in serious matters like these is anger. Due to your paranoia. Which is childish. Still good for two out of three, though.

Hysterical, deluded and childish.

I like how you just insult instead of actually giving reasons as to why I may be these things. Let's review the insults in question:

Hysterical - of course, my posts have been INCOMPREHENSIBLE SPLUTTERINGS AND RANDOM INSULTS GUIDED BY OUTRAGE AND NOT LOGIC OR RATIONALITY HERF DERF DEERFFWFR DCVAFV VREFC WD

1 out of 3 insults with no basis, next:

Deluded - I think you're confusing 'delusion' with 'not being a judgemental jackass'.

2 out of 3 insults with no basis, next:

Childish - Looking for a middle ground and some common sense is childish? As opposed to stating extreme opinions as fact and hurling more insults than explanations if questioned?

3 out of 3: STRIKE. You're OUT.

Quote :: Are you like this with every woman who gets pissed off or is it just me?

[Actually, I think you're pretty cool, and think that 99% of people's complaints regarding the posts and points you make are merely butthurt cries of 'SHE'S SO MEEEEN Nun excommunicated for saving a woman's life - Page 4 309696

Nun excommunicated for saving a woman's life - Page 4 309696

'. I just disagree with you on this topic. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]]

However, there you go again with the grouping, and the subtle victimising. I'm like this with every woman or man who is over-complicating things in any subject of discussion [not just a man's right to dominate his woman's womb!] by trying to grab any form of unnecessary higher ground in situations that require compromises and happy endings, as opposed to victories. I'm not trying to set any rules in this matter at all, just looking for a sliver of common sense and rationality.

Quote :: I want to decide if you're an asshole or a sexist asshole.

Can I ask the studio audience, please?

Quote :

Quote :: In that situation, not telling the man would certainly be a douchy thing for the woman to do

... If a woman is completely untrustworthy

See it's all about how it affects the man.

Because, the moment you started spewing shit about withholding information from certain people, those certain people become the topic of discussion at hand. I'm not neglecting how a woman is affected, I just don't feel the need to elaborate on things I think we're both on the right track about: that being a woman's rights to have the final say in the matter, and for the woman to withhold any information she wants should the man be a negligent, unfit father/partner. What else is there to discuss? Would it please you if I included a picture of myself brandishing a makeshift flag of green, white and violet at the end of every post I make just to let you know that I still care about the wimmins?

Also, you forgot to include the rest of my quote:

Just Chipper wrote:: then she's douchy.

Douchy, guys. Nothing more. Just a bit of a douche if a person's feelings are completely ignored.

Quote :: She betrayed him by having an abortion behind his back, the untrustworthy cow.

MORE VICTIMISING HOORAY

Quote :: There's no consideration given to the notion that maybe, just maybe, when it came to the crunch she was scared to death.

Oh, I would take consideration for the woman if the husband is a negligent asshole, but I'm sorry, I keep forgetting that in your universe no man is capable of being anything other than evil, and scary woooo~ [there's that basis I have for your reasons of delusion, in case you were wondering]. The reason I keep poking at your argument is that there's no consideration from you. You do not deserve consideration if you don't take the consideration of others to heart yourself.

Quote :: No consideration given to the idea that maybe, just maybe, if your partner has been raving about babies babies babies, you might feel unable to tell him that you're not ready for this. Because that's just childish.

If it's accidental, then the woman has the final say. However, a woman who tells her partner that she's not ready right now and stands up for her right to control her own body, and a woman who just goes behind her partner's back because she's a coward, are two completely different people, and one of them is jeopardizing what could be a good thing and setting the movement of her people back. Guess which one you are supporting? [PROTIP: It's the "untrustworthy cow" option, in case you're wondering]

Quote :: Only Nihl approached the scenario with any kind of nuance.

In what way? Did you actually consider my points [Oh wait, I'm a nasty little man, therefore I'm not worth considering], or did you see nasty words along with opposing views and think "WELL, HERE WE GO AGAIN [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]"?

So he elaborated on the middle ground's viability in a more friendly manner than I did. In what way does that warrant disregarding my argument?

ZoZo wrote:: Everybody think for a moment about why a woman might not want the "father" to know. Off the top of my head, I can think of plenty, and only one is that "she's a cold, unfeeling bitch" (as many of you guys would appear to believe might be the main reason that women would do that).

I don't believe it's the main reason, however I have a problem with a somebody trying to preach to us all that her inconsiderate views should be acknowledged as the only viable option regardless of the people involved.

Just Chipper wrote:

ZoZo wrote:: Everybody think for a moment about why a woman might not want the "father" to know. Off the top of my head, I can think of plenty, and only one is that "she's a cold, unfeeling bitch" (as many of you guys would appear to believe might be the main reason that women would do that).

I don't believe it's the main reason, however I have a problem with a somebody trying to preach to us all that her inconsiderate views should be acknowledged as the only viable option regardless of the people involved.

So, what you're saying is that a woman must disclose a pregnancy to the man? Unless he's abusive, and or a rapist, or likely to be coercive, etc etc? Think about how that would work out: would the woman perhaps have to pass a test in order to maintain her privacy? Just because there might be some EVUL WIMMINS who might not tell their husbands they had an abortion?

There's a reason that for the most part human rights are universal: where would you draw the line? How would you draw the line? (Speaking of human rights, the right to privacy is usually acknowledged. The right to information is not generally counted as a basic human right).

God damn it people, if you keep going back and forth misconstruing each others' words no one will get anywhere in this argument.

It is so frustrating reading this thread.

I don't think anyone wants to get anywhere, Bloof.

Just Chipper wrote:

Cyberwulf wrote:: And ostensibly pro-choice liberals are in here having shit attacks because I dare to suggest that men don't have an automatic right to be informed that their sacred sperm is being scraped out of somebody's uterus.

Not exactly; I'm having a gigantic shit-fit because there should be no 'right' to begin with; no right for the man to know, and no right for the woman to withhold information.

If the man has no right to know, then the woman can withhold information. If the woman has no right to withhold information, then the man has an automatic right to know. WHICH IS IT?

Quote :: I'm having a gigantic shit-fit because of how complicated you are making things, when each and every healthy, trusting couple should handle it in their own terms [again, those exist!].

Except that's what I HAVE been saying all along, except you're too busy having a testerical fit at the very notion that there might be ONE THING in this universe that men have no say in.

Quote :

Just Chipper wrote:

Quote :: But I'm the ... emotional ... one.

Nope, you're the one whose only real emotion in serious matters like these is anger. Due to your paranoia. Which is childish. Still good for two out of three, though.

Hysterical, deluded and childish.

I like how you just insult instead of actually giving reasons as to why I may be these things.

That's me paraphrasing what YOU'RE calling me, you fucking illiterate shitstain. You can't even be bothered to address anything I've said because you're too busy pathologising my view.

Quote :: However, there you go again with the grouping, and the subtle victimising.

It's a question, douchebag. Answer the fucking question. There's a long history of women being silenced by being written off as hysterical, overly emotional, or otherwise mentally unstable. That you were apparently unaware of this doesn't change the fact that you're doing it to me.

Quote :: I'm like this with every woman or man who is over-complicating things

How is it over-complicating things to say that a woman doesn't have to tell a living soul that she's having an abortion?

Quote :: I'm not neglecting how a woman is affected

If you gave two shits about the womb-bearer involved you wouldn't be screaming the house down about how unfair it is that a man doesn't have a right to know that a woman is aborting his foetus.

Quote :: I just don't feel the need to elaborate on things I think we're both on the right track about: that being a woman's rights to have the final say in the matter, and for the woman to withhold any information she wants

...FULL STOP. It's not contingent on the man being ANYTHING other than not the person who has to undergo the pregnancy.

Just Chipper wrote:

Quote :: There's no consideration given to the notion that maybe, just maybe, when it came to the crunch she was scared to death.

Oh, I would take consideration for the woman if the husband is a negligent asshole, but I'm sorry, I keep forgetting that in your universe no man is capable of being anything other than evil, and scary woooo~ [there's that basis I have for your reasons of delusion, in case you were wondering].

Aah, a delusion you invented out of whole cloth. A delusion you assigned to me (there you go, pathologising my viewpoint in order to conveniently write it off) because I listed off other reasons than "rape or incest" to Mr. Threats as to why a man doesn't have a right to know if a woman is aborting his foetus.

Quote :: If it's accidental, then the woman has the final say.

So if it's planned, suddenly she doesn't have the final say?

Quote :: However, a woman who tells her partner that she's not ready right now and stands up for her right to control her own body, and a woman who just goes behind her partner's back because she's a coward, are two completely different people, and one of them is jeopardizing what could be a good thing and setting the movement of her people back.

So a woman who aborts an unwanted pregnancy without doing exactly what you think she should do beforehand is DESTROYING THE STRUGGLE FOR WOMEN'S EQUALITY

Thanks for revealing your true colours, you worthless piece of shit.

SO FRUSTRATING.

Sporkbender Join date : 2009-06-17 Age : 40

Blooferlady wrote:: SO FRUSTRATING.

It is, unfortunately. Way, way back in the GAFF days of debating this topic, I'd get involved by throwing in my perspectives, then get frustrated because it never went anywhere (no one really wanted what I had to offer--the religion arguments for and against). Now, I grab a bag of chips and sit back and watch. It's like Face the Nation, except those folks almost never call each other "shitstains." Save yourself the frustration: sit back, relax, and take in the show. Because you're never going to change the argument styles or perspectives of anyone in this thread.

Blooferlady wrote:: SO FRUSTRATING.

That's why I'm steering clear of this one, Bloof. I haven't the mental reserves atm to construct an argument either way. I barely have the reserves to read the thread.

I get the feeling I'm being ignored here.

Cyberwulf wrote:: *valid points*

Thanks for revealing your true colours, you worthless piece of shit.

Cy, the last thing I want in this thread is for myself to express uneducated and ignorant opinions so haphazardly in a topic I know little about. Looking back at posts I've made, I realise that I'm not thinking things through properly and am disregarding both yours and the opinions of other posters, which I sincerely apologise for. I'll stop threadshitting now, and reread everything that's been said with a more open mind.

There's more to the man knowing than just 'rights'. There's the situation the couple is in.

Are they a couple? Do they want a baby? Will there be illnesses or complications? Was it an accident? A result of rape?

It's complicated enough without bringing 'rights' into it.

It's illiegal for me to rob a shop but that's not why I don't do it.

Somath Cegem wrote:: I get the feeling I'm being ignored here.

It's cool, me too. Come join me and Nil in the ignored corner. I brought smoothies. And buffalo wings. Because those go perfectly together. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Tip for Jesus and Somath: you need to say something more outrageous (e.g. YOU ALL HATE MENS! YOU LIKE KILLING BABIEZ, etc).

ZoZo wrote:: Tip for Jesus and Somath: you need to say something more outrageous (e.g. YOU ALL HATE MENS! YOU LIKE KILLING BABIEZ, etc).

But but, rational debate, sharing of opinions, why lord! why must you taunt me so! Nun excommunicated for saving a woman's life - Page 4 309696

Somath Cegem wrote:

ZoZo wrote:: Tip for Jesus and Somath: you need to say something more outrageous (e.g. YOU ALL HATE MENS! YOU LIKE KILLING BABIEZ, etc).

But but, rational debate, sharing of opinions, why lord! why must you taunt me so! Nun excommunicated for saving a woman's life - Page 4 309696

Because I don't like you. ;D

j/k <3

Armbiter of Good Fanfiction Join date : 2009-06-10

Cyberwulf wrote:: That's me paraphrasing what YOU'RE calling me, you fucking illiterate shitstain. You can't even be bothered to address anything I've said because you're too busy pathologising my view.

It seems like you intentionally bury your points under insulting, rabid and patronizing rhetoric to scream that no one addressed them later.

Cyberwulf wrote:: There's a long history of women being silenced by being written off as hysterical, overly emotional, or otherwise mentally unstable. That you were apparently unaware of this doesn't change the fact that you're doing it to me.

Completely unjustly of course, as you were always level-headed, calm, and civil in your posts... wait...

Nihilist wrote:: Don't you know, telling someone how much of a shit-encrusted cockbowl they are is far more effective to getting the thread to produce discussion than debating points without talking down to anyone.

Posts, yes. I'm not convinced there's much actual discussion going on here.

It might sound snide of me to delurk from the thread for a x2 post, but my views on this are pretty much the same as Cyberwulf's. A woman should have the right to an abortion without being demonised or somehow being made to feel that she's representing the whole of womankind and should therefore be on her best and most womanly behaviour (I wish we had a deadpan quote smily to express how I feel about 'womanly'). She should never need anyone's permission to do have an abortion, nor should she required under any circumstances to report it to another person.

And This is Why I Need Medication Join date : 2009-06-10

Okay, I realize this is probably not going to make the slightest bit of difference to Kel, but I feel the need to say it.

First of all, I could never have an abortion myself. However, that's my personal feeling, based to a large part on my upbringing, and it applies to no one but me. I would never consider telling another woman she CAN'T have an abortion, no matter how I feel about it for myself, because I am not her. I know nothing about her situation, the circumstances under which the child was conceived, etc. The point is, it's her body; ergo, it's her decision. I don't believe men have to have a note from their wives saying they can get a vasectomy if they want one, so insisting that the woman have a permission slip from the man who fathered the child to get an abortion is what we here in Iowa call a double-standard.

Secondly, my oldest sister has worked for going on 40+ years as a labor and delivery room nurse. She's crazy about babies, but she has, nonetheless, helped doctors do abortions because the law says it's legal. This doesn't mean she approves of abortions, but if she's going to do her job, she can't pick and choose what parts of it she finds distasteful. It would be akin to refusing to assist in the delivery of black babies because she's racist and thinks blacks have too many kids they can't support.

Thirdly, call it a fetus all you want. Up to around 23 weeks, it is simply not a viable candidate for being born (and even then, if it's born, it will likely suffer severe respiratory and other problems and die when it's a few days old). In the first four weeks, it is nothing but a clump of cells that has the potential, assuming everything goes right, to become a human being (did you know you can't tell the difference between a human embryo and a dog embryo at four weeks? They basically look the same). The mother probably isn't even aware she's pregnant. A lot of women miscarry and don't realize they've done it; they just think their period's late. Are we going to pillory them for their bodies deciding that the child's not viable? Because a study of miscarriages has revealed that, in most cases, there's something wrong with the baby that would keep it from developing properly.

What does any of this have to do with abortions? Simply this-we know nothing about the woman getting the abortion. We don't know her circumstances, we don't know the circumstances under which the child was conceived, we know absolutely nothing about her except that she's pregnant, and she decided she doesn't want to have the baby. Most Pro-Lifers view these women as being hell-on-wheel bitches who've radomely had sex with dozens of strangers and don't want a kid intruding in their life. Having had several friends who got abortions in high school, I can tell you that's probably the farthest from the truth you can get. These girls agonized over making the decision. In the case of one of them, she was pregnant by her father, who'd been raping her repeatedly (while her mother looked the other way) since she'd turned 12. Should we condemn her to bring a child into the world she associates with nothing but pain and humiliation, and expect her to embrace it with open arms? Or is it all her fault, the little slut-she was probably leading him on in the first place?

Anti-abortionist tend to think the worst about women who have abortions. Pro-lifers tend to give them the benefit of the doubt. The truth likely lies somewhere in between, and no one has any right to tell a woman they don't know and have never met before in her life what she can and cannot do with her body. Period.

And, before I get jumped, I will add in the addendum that this does not apply to marriages or relationships where the couple have discussed having children. Discussion, however, is different from actually giving birth, and if the woman is having second thoughts, she and her partner need to set down and talk it over. Running off and getting an abortion and never telling him, or having him find out after the fact, virtually guarantees the relationship isn't going to last long.

Armbiter of Good Fanfiction Join date : 2009-06-11

I'm just here for the popcorn and smoothies. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Any bets on how long this thread is going to get?

I'm just here for the Badger love.

Someone's abortion or pregnancy is none of your business unless they'd like you involved. End of story.

I find it annoying and stupid that people make comments like "TIME FOR WANK" and "LOL POPCORN" and "HAHA GO ME I STARTED WANK" and "LET'S HAVE A PARTY IN THE CORNER," especially after posts like the one Badger just made, which are reasonable, encourage discussion, and actually make me think about what's being talked about here.

Could you guys, if you're gonna be idiots, like... do it elsewhere?

Welcome to the thread, sane people. This is the point that has been repeatedly attempted throughout the thread to no avail. Good luck, and welcome to the circular argument hell.

Sporkbender Join date : 2010-01-20

KelinciHutan wrote:

Cyberwulf wrote:

KelinciHutan wrote:: a brief disagreement with the Catholic decision on pro-life grounds

unsupported opinions about human value presented as fact with no supporting philosophical legs on them in a lame attempt anger me into being pro-abortion

Look, two things.

One, stop using these arguments. Because they suck.

Two, saying "NO UNBORN CHILD IS VALUABLE BECAUSE I SAY SO!" over and over is still a bald assertion, only now you've stuck it on a loop. You are asserting, without support, that there is a segment of humanity that it's okay to devalue (that Human A ≠ Human A, and that there is, in fact, a such thing as "Human B"). And then you have the gall to accuse me of assigning arbitrary values to things.

Either support your assertions or stop making them. Because you saying "These human beings aren't valuable!" over and over and over is not exactly what I'd call "compelling."

Just thought I'd point out that your definition of "human being" isn't compelling either. Cyberwulf isn't saying "These human beings aren't valuable!" because she doesn't count them as human, and there's no reason why she should. The idea that existing as a distinct life form is dependent on being able to survive as one is legitimate, and the best that pro-lifers can do to counter this is essentially "I disagree with you". If it isn't a distinct life form, then arguably it shouldn't be considered a human being and therefore doesn't get the rights that go with being one.

On that site you linked to it goes on about the "level of development" argument being flawed and asking why it should matter, well the above is a brief summary of the answer. Also, science has nothing to do with this. If you try to use science to "prove" abortion is wrong then you clearly don't know what you're talking about as the issue is purely philosophical.

Harley Quinn hyenaholic wrote:: Whenever I feel depressed, I go here: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

(Not reccomended for Americans)

That was as helpful as fuck.

Armbiter of Good Fanfiction Join date : 2009-06-10

For those who can't update their flash.

Spoiler:

» Lifeguard is fired for saving a life
» The Life Zone
» man arrested for saving girls from the inevitable beef
» 'Solar suitcase' is saving mothers and newborns
» The Life Zone