Another rape victim denied morning after pill

[trashpony]

angry bob:

I have a question for you. I'm curious as to why you (and some others too) post on this board which, if you bother to read any of the forums, is essentially a left-leaning liberal place and then act shocked and surprised when the majority disagree with your stance. What did you imagine might happen? And why do you post here? Do you think you'll change people's views? Would you rather engage with people with diametrically different standpoints on life than with people who share your view of the world?

I'm genuinely curious.

 

[angry bob]

angry bob:

I have a question for you. I'm curious as to why you (and some others too) post on this board which, if you bother to read any of the forums, is essentially a left-leaning liberal place and then act shocked and surprised when the majority disagree with your stance. What did you imagine might happen? And why do you post here? Do you think you'll change people's views? Would you rather engage with people with diametrically different standpoints on life than with people who share your view of the world?

I'm genuinely curious.

Hi. Honestly I genuinely appreciate hearing opposing views. And believe it or not I often change my mind and adjust my position accordingly

I don't think I have the world figured out. The older I get the less sure I am about almost everything.

I don't mean to give the impression that I am shocked or surprised that people don't agree with me. Because I'm not.

It wouldn't be very interesting or educational to engage with people who already hold the same views as myself.

As to this being a liberal and left-wing place ... tbh I'm not sure what those labels mean anymore. For instance, I can't understand why a particular stance on the abortion issue should be considered liberal or left-wing.

And I've also learnt in my short time here that anarchism is considered left-wing. Which I just can't get my head around. But I'm eager to learn!

As to this issue. I consider my own views in line with the traditional 'liberal' views on the subject. That is to say I value the woman's right to choose. That said I still see problems with my POV. So it is valuable to me to debate with people about thge subject.

 

[spring-peeper]

angry bob:

I have a question for you. I'm curious as to why you (and some others too) post on this board which, if you bother to read any of the forums, is essentially a left-leaning liberal place and then act shocked and surprised when the majority disagree with your stance. What did you imagine might happen? And why do you post here? Do you think you'll change people's views? Would you rather engage with people with diametrically different standpoints on life than with people who share your view of the world?

I'm genuinely curious.

Maybe to exchange ideas, to learn about other pov, any multitude of reasons I would guess.

Why, do you feel that this boards should only be made available to people who think and act as you do?

That really would defeat the purpose, don't you think?

 

[angry bob]

the whole differentiated/undifferentiated cells problem.

I did some searching. It's hard to seperate the whaet from the chaff so to speak.

Do you have a link that would explain this (to someone with extremely limited knowledge og biology)?

I'd appreciate it.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I did some searching. It's hard to seperate the whaet from the chaff so to speak.

Do you have a link that would explain this (to someone with extremely limited knowledge og biology)?

I'd appreciate it.

No problem.

This link sets out in fairly "layman" terms how the fertilised egg, from conception until around a month, is merely a cluster of developing cells, none of which have had the genetic switch that tells them what type of cell (liver, brain, bone for example) they should become. hence they are "undifferentiated". When cells differentiate the different internal and external component parts of the human body begin formation, but although the "template" is there, full development (and hence viability as a living being) isn't achieved until around 20 weeks at a minimum (+ or - perhaps 2 weeks).

 

[trashpony]

Hi. Honestly I genuinely appreciate hearing opposing views. And believe it or not I often change my mind and adjust my position accordingly

Thank you for your candid response.

Spring peeper - I'm not interested in your POV. Anyone who posts links to such despicable nazi websites as you do is a waste of space.

 

[spring-peeper]

Thank you for your candid response.

Spring peeper - I'm not interested in your POV. Anyone who posts links to such despicable nazi websites as you do is a waste of space.

Either prove this or retract.

Sweetheart - this is p&p - support your claims!!!

 

[trashpony]

Either prove this or retract.

Sweetheart - this is p&p - support your claims!!!

Your post 626 on the 'Women to blame for rape' thread. You quoted from, and linked to, a site which I'm not going to post a link to for obvious reasons.

 

[spring-peeper]

Your post 626 on the 'Women to blame for rape' thread. You quoted from, and linked to, a site which I'm not going to post a link to for obvious reasons.

iirc, I linked to a christain monitor site. That is not a nazi site.

 

[trashpony]

iirc, I linked to a christain monitor site. That is not a nazi site.

It advocates repatriation of african americans, denies the holocaust, quotes from Hitler and says women, blacks, jews and everyone else are more stupid than white christian men.

I call that nazi - you may call it something else. It's certainly deeply offensive.

 

[spring-peeper]

It advocates repatriation of african americans, denies the holocaust, quotes from Hitler and says women, blacks, jews and everyone else are more stupid than white christian men.

I call that nazi - you may call it something else. It's certainly deeply offensive.

I call it something else.

Sorry it offended your pedestrian views.

Now, retract your nazi comment.

 

[editor]

I call it something else. .

Sure sounds fucking iffy to me.

 

[trashpony]

I call it something else.

Sorry it offended your pedestrian views.

Now, retract your nazi comment.

No. If you believe that white christian men are superior to everyone else, that the holocaust was a sham, that blacks should be involuntarily exiled and jews are scum, then you're a nazi. That's what they believed.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I call it something else.

Sorry it offended your pedestrian views.

Now, retract your nazi comment.

Take it from me, if you support the stuff on that site you posted, then "nazi" is an aposite tag.

 

[trashpony]

Take it from me, if you support the stuff on that site you posted, then "nazi" is an aposite tag.

Indeed. Gone very, very quiet in that quarter now. I wonder why ...

 

[angry bob]

No problem.

This link sets out in fairly "layman" terms how the fertilised egg, from conception until around a month, is merely a cluster of developing cells, none of which have had the genetic switch that tells them what type of cell (liver, brain, bone for example) they should become. hence they are "undifferentiated". When cells differentiate the different internal and external component parts of the human body begin formation, but although the "template" is there, full development (and hence viability as a living being) isn't achieved until around 20 weeks at a minimum (+ or - perhaps 2 weeks).

Thanks. It certainly seems as though undifferentiated cells would not constitutes a human being. Seems like a good place to draw the line.

By the fourteenth week, all the major characteristics of the embryo have more or less developed, and possesses all the requirements of a fully functional being.

Is the embryo considered viable at this stage? If it has all the requirements of a fully functional being does that make it one?

 

[trashpony]

Is the embryo considered viable at this stage? If it has all the requirements of a fully functional being does that make it one?

Depends what you mean by viable. If you mean capable of survival, then no, it isn't

It's still really tiny (about 2 inches long) and hasn't got a hope in hell of surviving outside the womb. Organ development is still very rudimentary and although limb development has started, they are not fully formed.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Thanks. It certainly seems as though undifferentiated cells would not constitutes a human being. Seems like a good place to draw the line.



Is the embryo considered viable at this stage? If it has all the requirements of a fully functional being does that make it one?

From what I researched when I was doing my "Biological Science" degree back in the mists of antiquity, viability is variable. It is mostly dependent on lung development, which is variable but doesn't reach "end stage" (where the lungs are capable of functioning, even with assistance) until weeks 16-24 (I was born around 25 or 26 weeks and had respiratory problems for the first 3 years of my life due to poor foetal lung development ).

TBH I think that the best measure we have for "life" is the most fundamental one: Would that organism be self-sustaining (by which I mean functional, not having to find its' own food!) in our environment without massive intervention? IMHO probably the very earliest this would be the case in terms of being developed enough to function would be 18-20 weeks. before then there is statistically (by which I mean the percentage is so small so as not to register) no possibility of survival.

 

[angry bob]

From what I researched when I was doing my "Biological Science" degree back in the mists of antiquity, viability is variable. It is mostly dependent on lung development, which is variable but doesn't reach "end stage" (where the lungs are capable of functioning, even with assistance) until weeks 16-24 (I was born around 25 or 26 weeks and had respiratory problems for the first 3 years of my life due to poor foetal lung development ).

TBH I think that the best measure we have for "life" is the most fundamental one: Would that organism be self-sustaining (by which I mean functional, not having to find its' own food!) in our environment without massive intervention? IMHO probably the very earliest this would be the case in terms of being developed enough to function would be 18-20 weeks. before then there is statistically (by which I mean the percentage is so small so as not to register) no possibility of survival.

I take your point and all things considered I think I agree. Still ... it leaves me with certain doubts. I mean you still have to define 'massive intervention' and perhaps come up with a % probability of survival above which you'd consider the foetus 'viable'.

And as with so many things it comes down to a question of where to draw the line.

As far as drawing up laws and stuff, someone still has to say abortion is legal up to x weeks. Which seems very unsatisfactory for foetuses right on the edge of that boundary, since evryone is different, if you see what I mean.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I take your point and all things considered I think I agree. Still ... it leaves me with certain doubts. I mean you still have to define 'massive intervention' and perhaps come up with a % probability of survival above which you'd consider the foetus 'viable'.

Massive intervention would be such things as blood oxygenation (I wouldn't count ventilation as ventilating presupposes the lungs being well-developed enough to withstand it) and/or the use of a pressure vest which causes rather than assists breathing.

And as with so many things it comes down to a question of where to draw the line.

As far as drawing up laws and stuff, someone still has to say abortion is legal up to x weeks. Which seems very unsatisfactory for foetuses right on the edge of that boundary, since evryone is different, if you see what I mean.

I've made the point myself about how you can't presuppose that achild will have attained [pI]x[/I] amount of development by y week of gestation.

I personally believe that there should be a boundary of around 24 weeks, but that's because I believe that a fully-developed social being has intrinsically more value to society than a foetus, which while it has the potential to possibly be valuable to society, is not of society and has had no interaction with it.

 

[Streathamite]

pbman is on holidays right now, he did mention it.

I can't remember seeing him run away from threads before, so maybe you should check if he has acutally logged onto on the boards before accusing him of cowardness.

he has run away from COUNTLESS threads before, when put on the spot. faced with a clear choice between spelling out a REALLY dodgy viewpoint, tying himself up in logical knots, or doing a runner, he has chosen the third on each occasion I recall this happening, since (approx) '03. and here, on this thread, you'll see has completely ducked my straight, fair question, and weaselled on subsequent posts.

 

[AnnO'Neemus]

...simpl deal if you work in a store where the thins are sold then you sell it, if you find it morally objectionable then find a fucking job which doesn't offend your own standards ...

Good point. It's like applying for a job in a newsagents and saying, actually, I don't agree with the sale of cigarettes, so take them all off your shelves. I don't agree with your selling girly mags, so take them all off your shelves, and Loaded and FHM are just as bad, and so are the tabloids, with their page 3s, so take them all off your shelves. I don't agree with your selling Nestle chocolate and candy products, so take them all off your shelves. I don't agree with your selling sugar loaded soft drinks, so take them all off your shelves.

Agreed. If someone doesn't like the job, no one is forcing them to do it, they should find another job that does fit their moral standards.

Do you think if I apply for a job as a reporter with Fox News, and I say that their hegemonic, islamophobic propaganda offends my religion, will they change their editorial policy to accommodate me? Or will they just tell me to fuck off and work somewhere else? Why are pharmacists so special?

 

[angry bob]

Good point. It's like applying for a job in a newsagents and saying, actually, I don't agree with the sale of cigarettes, so take them all off your shelves. I don't agree with your selling girly mags, so take them all off your shelves, and Loaded and FHM are just as bad, and so are the tabloids, with their page 3s, so take them all off your shelves. I don't agree with your selling Nestle chocolate and candy products, so take them all off your shelves. I don't agree with your selling sugar loaded soft drinks, so take them all off your shelves.

Agreed. If someone doesn't like the job, no one is forcing them to do it, they should find another job that does fit their moral standards.

Do you think if I apply for a job as a reporter with Fox News, and I say that their hegemonic, islamophobic propaganda offends my religion, will they change their editorial policy to accommodate me? Or will they just tell me to fuck off and work somewhere else? Why are pharmacists so special?

It's not really like that at all.

It's more like you applying for a job at the newsagent under the one condition that you were not expected to supply pornagraphic magazines to customers when you were working (even though the newsagent usually sells them), and the newsagent agreeing because you are an otherwise excellent worker, or you work cheaply or whatever.

Would this be so unreasonable?

I don't see the problem. If the owner of the store usually sells something, its up to them if they want to employ someone who refuses to participate in that selling.

Fox news probably would tell you to fuck off, but if they didn't and allowed you to work in there 'kitten stuck in trees' division, that would be down to them, and hardly worthy of too much criticism.