Woman dies in Ireland for want of an abortion

[Bottle]

Well, see, in the 23-week fetus the cerebral hemispheres are surrounded by pia, arachnoid, dura, bone, periosteum, skin, amniotic fluid, chorion, uterine epithelial layers, visceral peritonium, muscle layer, and final skin layer. In the 23-week born infant, only the first five layers are present.

A layer of skin doesn't really affect the way the brain works, you know that.

On the contrary, brain function can be pretty seriously impacted by the surrounding tissues. Any first-year neuroanatomy course will include a section on the meninges, because they are quite important.

[New England and The Maritimes]

So naive.


Then they should not have engaged in sexual intercourse.

And... is anyone curious what seems to happen if heterosexual (and homosexual, albeit in different ways) married couples obstain from intercourse for a long time?

[Dyakovo]

A layer of skin doesn't really affect the way the brain works, you know that.

On the contrary, brain function can be pretty seriously impacted by the surrounding tissues. Any first-year neuroanatomy course will include a section on the meninges, because they are quite important.

P'shaw... What do you know about it? You're just a woman...

[Esternial]

So naive.


Then they should not have engaged in sexual intercourse.

Because every time a woman use sex she gets pregnant...

Peculiar choice of words

[Fionnuala_Saoirse]

Luckily there's Northern Ireland. You know, the better part of Ireland where you can actually get an abortion when your life is in danger instead of suffering in agony for two weeks because POPE and JESUS.

The Paisleyites and Prods here in the north are just as bad to be quite honest, sure there are silly almost-Westboro-esque protests outside the Marie Stopes clinic in Belfast every day which doesn't even do proper abortions.

Lets be fair though. It's not just the Paisleyites aboard the anti-abortion train. The majority of both sides are big fans of keeping things as they are or reducing availability further. The whole island is fucked in the head when it comes to this.

[Dyakovo]

Because every time a woman use sex she gets pregnant...

Peculiar choice of words

Fucking autocorrect...
One of these days I might learn to proofread before hitting submit...

[Grave_n_idle]

Quit all the double- and triple-post spamming. If you think of something to add, go back up and click "Edit" and add it to the existing post (if your post is the last one).

Posting two or three times is not spamming. Unless the posts have no value.

In this case, your one post is closer to spamming than the three posts you are complaining about.

[Free South Califas]

because POPE and JESUS.

So naive.

Backstory: neither her nor my dad thought that they were financially secure enough to have a child.

Then they should not have engaged in sexual intercourse.

Your authoritarianism disqualifies you from being taken seriously in U.S. politics. Good day, sir.

Quit all the double- and triple-post spamming. If you think of something to add, go back up and click "Edit" and add it to the existing post (if your post is the last one).

Posting two or three times is not spamming. Unless the posts have no value.

Wrong. Posting two or three times in a row is spamming, because it adds waste and inflates your post count (a crucial part of the definition of spamming in NS) without adding any value itself. The words in the posts are what have value, which is why I suggested that they be merged into one post; the additional posts themselves indeed have no value except to inflate one's post count, and that is duplicitous since, for the rest of us, our post count reflects only or mostly acceptable behavior. [/notamod]

Anyway, please abandon the threadjack.

[Grave_n_idle]

So naive.


Then they should not have engaged in sexual intercourse.

Your authoritarianism disqualifies you from being taken seriously in U.S. politics. Good day, sir.

Posting two or three times is not spamming. Unless the posts have no value.

Wrong. Posting two or three times in a row is spamming, because it adds waste and inflates your post count (a crucial part of the definition of spamming in NS) without adding any value itself. The words in the posts are what have value, which is why I suggested that they be merged into one post; the additional posts themselves indeed have no value except to inflate one's post count, and that is duplicitous since, for the rest of us, our post count reflects only or mostly acceptable behavior. [/notamod]

Anyway, please abandon the threadjack.

Your threadjack. If you thought someone was spamming, you should have taken it to moderation. As you say, you are not a mod.

From my point of view - and I've seen this a number of times over the almost a decade I've been posting on this particular forum - people sometimes make a stylistic choice to try to condense all of their responses into one post... and sometimes make the choice to respond to individual posts individually.

In my particular case, I'm wary of huge blocks of text. Not just because I got informally frowned at (many moons ago) for 'huge blocks of text' - but because I think it's easier for people to miss something in a huge swathe of condensed responses, and I think it's much clearer and more polite to respond individually to individual posts.

Also, I can't tell you how much information I lost in the old days, especially as unstable as the forum was then, in typing up long and involved posts... and then watching them fail to post for some reason.

But I guess what's really confusing me here... is the idea that someone is posting numerous valid responses 'to inflate their post count'. I find it hard to believe anyone who has a good point to make deliberately splits it into two posts JUST to get a higher postcount... especially since there's no prize for postcounts. I've made well over 60,000 posts since 2003, and I couldn't care less whether I increase that total by 1 or 3.

tl/dr - you think there's a problem, take it to moderation. I'm not seeing a problem.

[Grimlundt]

Imho, the argument from human potential IS the only good strong pro-life argument.
To argue that a bundle of a few thousand cells is sentient or even capable of feeling pain is absurd.
But a zygote IS a potential human.
Now are you folks ready for the ramifications of your argument?
Because you will eventually have to say, if you want to remain consistent, that is wrong to stop anybody reaching their full potential. And we do that all the time

every sperm is potential human, as is every cell that flakes off of you.

Good point ...
But I DO think there is something immoral with fucking up somebody's potential?
So much of what we feel to be "good" is aimed at promoting the realization of potential?
We see it as a tragedy when a bright child cannot go to school for reasons of poverty?
Now I am pro-choice.
But I think we ought to recognize that this is actually a good strong argument?

[New England and The Maritimes]

every sperm is potential human, as is every cell that flakes off of you.

Good point ...
But I DO think there is something immoral with fucking up somebody's potential?
So much of what we feel to be "good" is aimed at promoting the realization of potential?
We see it as a tragedy when a bright child cannot go to school for reasons of poverty?
Now I am pro-choice.
But I think we ought to recognize that this is actually a good strong argument?

It really isn't a strong argument. People who make that argument tend to be extremely well practiced in rhetoric, so they can make a stupid point and convince people that it makes perfect sense by overpowering them with words. That's how "debates" go on these things.

[Bottle]

every sperm is potential human, as is every cell that flakes off of you.

Good point ...
But I DO think there is something immoral with fucking up somebody's potential?
So much of what we feel to be "good" is aimed at promoting the realization of potential?
We see it as a tragedy when a bright child cannot go to school for reasons of poverty?
Now I am pro-choice.
But I think we ought to recognize that this is actually a good strong argument?

It's only a good argument if you assume that the female person who is pregnant does not have any "potential" worth considering. Otherwise it just sorta cancels out.

[Grimlundt]

...so why can't I commit infanticide then? The infant's still going to be pretty much totally dependent on either me or someone else for the next several years, so it's still going to be using up resources, and, well...it's equivalent to the fetus, whose rights we don't care about.

The answer's relatively straightforward to me--an infant is still capable of perceiving and to some extent learning from its environment.

Riso has answered that question multiple times.

Zephie ... don;t you ever get tired of definitionalistic arguments?
You just repeatedly attempting an ontological jerrymander.
this is because you cannot deal with the complexity of the reality.
Some definitions cannot be changed. Like the definition of a circle.
Others can, like the definition or marriage or "human" ...
I think you would be better off fining a utilitarian reason why 41,000 women have to die to support support your definitions of "human" , "murder" and all hte other words you casually fling about.

[The Black Forrest]

every sperm is potential human, as is every cell that flakes off of you.

Good point ...
But I DO think there is something immoral with fucking up somebody's potential?
So much of what we feel to be "good" is aimed at promoting the realization of potential?
We see it as a tragedy when a bright child cannot go to school for reasons of poverty?
Now I am pro-choice.
But I think we ought to recognize that this is actually a good strong argument?

Somebodies potential?

Well now.

We now have to outlaw male masturbation and punish women for not making enough eggs.

As I think about it, contraception must be outlawed as well.

Does this include we need to punish males for defective sperm?

[Grimlundt]

So naive.


Then they should not have engaged in sexual intercourse.

Your authoritarianism disqualifies you from being taken seriously in U.S. politics. Good day, sir.

Posting two or three times is not spamming. Unless the posts have no value.

Wrong. Posting two or three times in a row is spamming, because it adds waste and inflates your post count (a crucial part of the definition of spamming in NS) without adding any value itself. The words in the posts are what have value, which is why I suggested that they be merged into one post; the additional posts themselves indeed have no value except to inflate one's post count, and that is duplicitous since, for the rest of us, our post count reflects only or mostly acceptable behavior. [/notamod]

Anyway, please abandon the threadjack.

LOL
You are more worried about the post counts of others than the truth -- or human suffering.
LOL

[Free South Califas]

Good point ...
But I DO think there is something immoral with fucking up somebody's potential?
So much of what we feel to be "good" is aimed at promoting the realization of potential?
We see it as a tragedy when a bright child cannot go to school for reasons of poverty?
Now I am pro-choice.
But I think we ought to recognize that this is actually a good strong argument?

It's only a good argument if you assume that the female person who is pregnant does not have any "potential" worth considering. Otherwise it just sorta cancels out.

Well, hey, sluts must be punished, amirite?

But I guess what's really confusing me here... is the idea that someone is posting numerous valid responses 'to inflate their post count'. I find it hard to believe anyone who has a good point to make deliberately splits it into two posts JUST to get a higher postcount... especially since there's no prize for postcounts. I've made well over 60,000 posts since 2003, and I couldn't care less whether I increase that total by 1 or 3.

I never said that it was the intention, I said it was one result, and it happens to be a result which is often cited in definitions of spamming on NS that I'm aware of.

tl/dr - you think there's a problem, take it to moderation. I'm not seeing a problem.

The goal is to encourage non-spamming behavior without adding to the volunteers' workload. Of course, if they determine that this is not spamming (ETA: or tell me to stop of course), I'll shut right up. As it stands, I feel comfortable expressing my interpretation, with the [/notamod] disclaimer, if I'm already posting about other things in the thread (or if I feel compelled to respond as in this post).

[Grimlundt]

Good point ...
But I DO think there is something immoral with fucking up somebody's potential?
So much of what we feel to be "good" is aimed at promoting the realization of potential?
We see it as a tragedy when a bright child cannot go to school for reasons of poverty?
Now I am pro-choice.
But I think we ought to recognize that this is actually a good strong argument?

Somebodies potential?

Well now.

We now have to outlaw male masturbation and punish women for not making enough eggs.

As I think about it, contraception must be outlawed as well.

Does this include we need to punish males for defective sperm?

Not at all.
That's the basis of the Pope's problem with contraception, though.
The ancient jews thought that the sperm created the baby, they did not know about the egg.
They thought the sperm was made up of time little people.
Aquinas says only the sperm carries the soul.
We now understand all this to be false.

I did say that if we push this argument from potential we would end up saying that anybody who fucks with the potential of anybody else would be evil.
And we do that all the time.
Even so, you cannot have a functional ethics without considering the potential of humans, animals, ...?

[Grimlundt]

Let''s say I flunk your kid at school because I do not like him.
I have seen that happen.
Now is it not true that this man is screwing with your kid's potential?
And that's clearly wrong.
Yes?

[Esternial]

Even so, you cannot have a functional ethics without considering the potential of humans, animals, ...?

Actually, you can.

[Grimlundt]

It's only a good argument if you assume that the female person who is pregnant does not have any "potential" worth considering. Otherwise it just sorta cancels out.

Well, hey, sluts must be punished, amirite?

But I guess what's really confusing me here... is the idea that someone is posting numerous valid responses 'to inflate their post count'. I find it hard to believe anyone who has a good point to make deliberately splits it into two posts JUST to get a higher postcount... especially since there's no prize for postcounts. I've made well over 60,000 posts since 2003, and I couldn't care less whether I increase that total by 1 or 3.

I never said that it was the intention, I said it was one result, and it happens to be a result which is often cited in definitions of spamming on NS that I'm aware of.

tl/dr - you think there's a problem, take it to moderation. I'm not seeing a problem.

The goal is to encourage non-spamming behavior without adding to the volunteers' workload. Of course, if they determine that this is not spamming (ETA: or tell me to stop of course), I'll shut right up. As it stands, I feel comfortable expressing my interpretation, with the [/notamod] disclaimer, if I'm already posting about other things in the thread (or if I feel compelled to respond as in this post).

Oh, you must have been right all along.
You are not at all pompous and pedantic, not concerned with triivalities rather matters of consequence.
I respect you, deeply.

[EnragedMaldivians]

because POPE and JESUS.

So naive.

Backstory: neither her nor my dad thought that they were financially secure enough to have a child.

Then they should not have engaged in sexual intercourse.

And because they did, they should simply have let it ruin their financial situation and lives in general by having a child they didn't want and couldn't adequately provide for.....because, that, in your mind, would be 'taking responsibility', I'm guessing?

Naive indeed.

[Great Nepal]

Let''s say I flunk your kid at school because I do not like him.
I have seen that happen.
Now is it not true that this man is screwing with your kid's potential?
And that's clearly wrong.
Yes?

No, he is harming non-consenting individual.
That's why its wrong.

[Galloism]

And... is anyone curious what seems to happen if heterosexual (and homosexual, albeit in different ways) married couples obstain from intercourse for a long time?

Sort of... I was thinking "divorce".

[Esternial]

Well, hey, sluts must be punished, amirite?



I never said that it was the intention, I said it was one result, and it happens to be a result which is often cited in definitions of spamming on NS that I'm aware of.



The goal is to encourage non-spamming behavior without adding to the volunteers' workload. Of course, if they determine that this is not spamming (ETA: or tell me to stop of course), I'll shut right up. As it stands, I feel comfortable expressing my interpretation, with the [/notamod] disclaimer, if I'm already posting about other things in the thread (or if I feel compelled to respond as in this post).

Oh, you must have been right all along.
You are not at all pompous and pedantic, not concerned with triivalities rather matters of consequence.
I respect you, deeply.

We get it. You made two posts in reply to his.

But this isn't about you or FSC's problem with your posting style.

So cut it off and get back to the bleedin' topic.

[Grave_n_idle]

I never said that it was the intention, I said it was one result, and it happens to be a result which is often cited in definitions of spamming on NS that I'm aware of.

The goal is to encourage non-spamming behavior without adding to the volunteers' workload. Of course, if they determine that this is not spamming (ETA: or tell me to stop of course), I'll shut right up. As it stands, I feel comfortable expressing my interpretation, with the [/notamod] disclaimer, if I'm already posting about other things in the thread (or if I feel compelled to respond as in this post).

You also claimed that it was 'duplicitous' and somehow anathema to what you consider 'acceptable behavior'. So no, you didn't say that posting multiple responses was 'intended' to pump up post counts - but you did say that it was somehow cheating to get a better result than people who were posting honestly - as you portray it. If you weren't suggesting that the gain achieved by this 'duplicitous' behaviour was postcount... I don't know what you were trying to suggest.

You said that it was spam - by your judgement - because it added no value. I've given you a number of reasons why that is simply not true.

By your own logic, then - your continued hijack, which adds nothing, is closer to spam than the comments you complained about.

And, as I said, this is not the place for it - if you think rules are being broken - take it to moderation. That's what it is there for.