Wow. This is a painful video. The camera man visits a group of abortion protesters, and asks a simple question: should abortion be legal or illegal? They are all very quick to answer “illegal!” But then he asks an obvious consequent: If abortion was illegal, what should be done with the women who have illegal abortions?.
Watch. Every one is stumped. They even say they’ve never thought about it before.
Martha do you have any idea how many abortions god has committed upon you? The only way you can definitely say none, is if you have never had sex.
Carlie said: Been there, done that, got the Michael W. Smith t-shirt. It’s really not all it’s cracked up to be.
That’s because you haven’t really “been there” at all. It’s like saying, “I tried dieting for a day, and I still didn’t lose weight, so dieting doesn’t work.”
And it came to pass, that at midnight the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle.
[…]
And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour.
And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men.
[…]
Then the LORD said to Satan, “Behold, all that he has is in your power, only do not put forth your hand on him.” So Satan departed from the presence of the LORD.
[…]
While he was still speaking, another also came and said, “Your sons and your daughters were eating and drinking wine in their oldest brother’s house,
and behold, a great wind came from across the wilderness and struck the four corners of the house, and it fell on the young people and they died, and I alone have escaped to tell you.”
Yes, God’s will is very clear…
“That’s because you haven’t really “been there” at all. ”
*bzzzzt* No true Scotsman fallacy. is this the best you can do?
Bah! It’s a sad day for reading comprehension at Helfrick’s house. Endor, please accept my apologies for talking out of my ass.
Nerd, do not blame the big sky daddy for all of the conceptions that do not make it to full term. Just remember that Woman is the Devil’s Gateway. What good can come of that? Why, a woman’s body is the worst killer there is.
My goodness. I just sifted through 500+ posts and haven’t heard one good argument for taking away a woman’s right to her body. I can’t believe this is still an issue in 2009. Maybe 44 C.E., but 2009?
Pardon me while I weep for our species.
I think you would be surprised at how much chuckling I do when I read these posts.
No, a drooling, chortling moron with a shit-eating grin on her face is just about exactly how I imagine the scene looks on your end. But I do not believe that you find any of this innocently amusing, as opposed to just being a smug, self-satisfied twit who lacks the depth to hold up her end of a serious discussion in any other way than with disingenuous and defensive laughter.
Spurge said: I notice Martha completely ignored the questions in post #495
Typical godbot.
I am against all forms of murder.
I must protest Your distortion of my character.
And is it not said that You can quote scripture for Your own purpose?
Keep it up, Martha, keep it up…
http://thumbsnap.com/v/xrkCkepo.jpg
That’s because you haven’t really “been there” at all.
Martha, Martha, Martha. You don’t want to go there. You really, really don’t. Neither does anyone else here who has already read my story (and those of others with the same background) a million times. Rest assured, there are actually people in this world who spent decades immersed in religion, in it AND of it, really, truly, heartbreakingly believing every last word, who eventually realized that everything they had learned and believed was as substantial as smoke wafting to the nonexistent heavens. Try looking up Dan Barker.
I understand that your worldview might collapse if you realized that it is possible to be as brainwashed and convinced as you are but then come out of it, but it is indeed. You can’t hide behind claiming that I was a fake Christian.
Martha, You did not answer the question.
Typical evasion from a godbot.
No, Martha, YOU just haven’t tried thinking for yourself. And if you say you have, well then to use your logic, you just haven’t tried hard enough.
See how something that cuts both ways cuts no one?
Martha, your god doesn’t exist, Jebus is probably did not exist, and your bible is a work of fiction. Why should anything you say be of consequence at an atheist blog.
‘
Enjoy your gods next abortion upon you.
@spurge – she also ignored my questions to establish more fully what her actual position on abortion was. (maybe I needed to toss in a few curse words and impolite utterances to draw her attention my way?)
You mean, everything I left out? Numbers 31, Deuteronomy 13, Deuteronomy 28, et cetera and so forth?
Yes, precisely. You permit me to so quote, right?
What a pretentious annoying person you are. Claiming you can know that Carlie wasn’t a Christian or that any of us weren’t.
Most of us probably were at one time and realize what a hypocritical joke and lie it is.
You really are a pitiful excuse for a human.
I am against all forms of murder.
Weasel answer. Do you consider death during warfare and as a result of legislation murder?
Just so long as we’re Both on the same page, here…
Satan: God’s will is clear. You’ve just confirmed my point in Post #476.
I can’t quite grasp the fact that someone defending god, had the audacity to post as god. It’s like irony, glazed with confusion, dunked in self importance. Serve cold.
*erases lengthy response to Helfick*
“Endor, please accept my apologies for talking out of my ass.”
;) you got it.
That said, for the record, I did NOT denigrate the *women* at Suicide Girls.
[That’s because you haven’t really “been there” at all.]
…and nae true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
Pull the other one Martha, it has bells.
“God’s will is clear.”
Your god is a fiction.
@Diagoras
I am sure we have not seen the last ignored and/or dodged question.
Posted by: Martha | January 22, 2009
Nerd,
God has the authority to decide whether a person lives or dies. It’s all about ownership privileges.
This is a person who takes great joy is believing she is supposed to be subservient. Oh, the shear bliss this must be.
“This is a person who takes great joy is believing she is supposed to be subservient.”
One has to wonder how much brainwashing and negative reinforcement it takes to accomplish someone who is *happy* to be robbed of actually living. It’s chilling.
God, #525:
Hey, God, as long as you’re here, where the hell is that pony I prayed for when I was 6?
Janine,
The line “God has the authority to decide whether a person lives or dies” also assumes one of my favorite topics, god’s existence. The religiously based anti-choice crusader like Martha must first prove god’s existence before using the bible as a bludgeon.
Otherwise, there can be no arguing with other religions that want Martha dead for not covering her head. If god can simply be evoked without the need for proof, then everything is possible. Take that Karamazov!
Exactly! I can murder anyone I want, torture anyone I like, destroy all they have, do anything to anyone for no reason at all, or for the stupidest reasons imaginable.
Because you pathetic monkeys are all My property.
I am not just, I am not kind, I am not merciful. You are all subject to My infinite power to do whatever I want to you, forever.
PS: The only commandments that I ever gave were about worshiping Me. Moses wrote the ones about honoring parents, and not murdering, stealing, or committing adultery, and so on.
My apologies god. I had you all wrong. You make much more sense this way. I owe you a beer.
Martha wrote:
Is it morally okay, in your view, for God to deliberately subject his creatures to excruciating torture? After all, he has ownership privileges.
Oh, look. God’s throwing one of His megalomaniacal tantrums again.
Last time He did that in a big way, things got a little damp. You might want to find a flotation device of some sort.
Moses wrote the ones about honoring parents, and not murdering, stealing, or committing adultery, and so on.
Bastard screwed me out of the ghost-writing royalties, too *grumble, mutter*
God, I am going to play Randy Newman’s God’s Song(That’s Why I Love Mankind) in your honor.
How we laugh up here in Heaven at the prayers you offer me
@Endor
That is where the confusion began. I don’t agree that the site is misogynistic, but somewhere in there I grouped you in with Ruth who picked up where you left off and really went off the track.
Didn’t I promise to not do that again?
Martha, one of the issues under debate is precisely whether fetuses are “persons” in the moral sense. You are simply begging the question here.
Your god owns you? You’re property, like a slave? How can you possible freely love someone if they literally own you?
That’s some weird Stockholm Syndrome you got goin’ on there….
You made lots of promises, and broke them, as I recall.
Really, who is going to call You on it?
Besides, You promised about not flooding the Earth in the same way. All You need to do is flood the Earth in a different way. Of such casuistry and close nit-picking of points are political and religious careers made.
Tulse, #544: How can you possible freely love someone if they literally own you?
From another angle, can God really be said to love things that he regards as mere property?
Yes, that’s pretty much why you died before even entering Israel. Argue contracts with Me, little mortal? Hah!
“From another angle, can God really be said to love things that he regards as mere property?”
And why does this god person supposedly have rights that we don’t? As the peasant woman said, “I didn’t vote for ‘im.”
“PNP, you don’t just want abortions to be rare, you want them to be unavailable, except in the rare cases that don’t squick you out.
Who the hell asked you”
As I’ve said, I want abortions to be rare first, and so I want the country to start working together to get real change passed. I never knew offering my opinion, or a defense of another poster, was ‘holier than thou’ nor did I think that a direct question was ever needed to offer an opinion on a public forum.
“I’d like to engage you in a discussion, first, on what abortions, if any, are morally kosher by you.
For instance – the mifepristone and misoprostol cocktail? The plan B pill? IUD after unprotected intercourse? Is early term abortion okay? Is abortion to save the life of the mother acceptable? Abortion in the case of incest, rape? If any of these are acceptable – why?”
Well since you did ask me (and now I’m only supposed to respond to direct questions): Is the cocktail the abortion pill (excuse my ignorance)? If so, I don’t fully support that, because I’ve heard it has a lot of complications associated with it opposed to other methods. Plan B, IUD, life/health of the mother, abortion in case of rape- all acceptable. For the time being, first trimester abortion should stay legal..as I’ve said before, I support a social approach to ending abortion rather than a legal one. When it comes to the point where it’s practically not necessary, then we’ll talk legislation, but until then, taking the legal approach alone might lead to some bad consequences. Just my thoughts–since I was asked them, you know.
It’s odd- I thought that offering a liberal pro-life opinion would be greeted with some small level of agreement, but it seems that some of you weren’t serious when you said that pro-lifers should help with things like birth control, education, social programs and all that. When I stated that I did support these measures, I get responses like “we don’t need your help” and that I was condescending. Oh well :/
Of course. I love you mortals for your entertainment value.
And that’s why I decided not to flood the Earth again. Noah and Ham and Shem and Japheth and their wives and children were amusing to Me in a small way at first, but it took a while for the population to grow again to the point where the real fun stuff started up again. Watching family squabbles instead of wars and massacres got boring real quick, I can tell you that.
What can I say? I’m a bit jaded.
“How can you possible freely love someone if they literally own you?”
I have the same problem with those who say we should “fear” God. I mean, how can you freely love someone you are afraid of?
PNP, while I applaud you sentiment, all you come across as is a concern troll. Why don’t you take your reduce the abortions by more and better birth control to the anti-choice people and preach to them. We already want better birth control and better access to birth control. The abortion rate will go done once that happens. We are smart enough to figure that out. We are the choir. Go preach to the heathens like Martha. They are the ones that must be converted, as they also oppose birth control.
“That is where the confusion began. I don’t agree that the site is misogynistic, but somewhere in there I grouped you in with Ruth who picked up where you left off and really went off the track.”
The site itself, I’m not sure about since I’ve only seen it a few times and it was awhile ago. (though porn in general certainly can be and all to frequently is misogynistic (and racist and homophobic etc ad nauseum)).
My opinion that that particular site suffer from misogyny comes from stories I’ve read about the owner of the site (a man, of course) who, while pretending that the models’ blogs are for their opinions, censors them, in addition to other clearly exploitive practices. And that’s what I was alluding to in that post. My fault for not making myself clear.
I totally forgot about that thread, so I don’t think I went back to see responses. I have no idea who Ruth is, or what she posted. Though, if she was coming down on the *women* on the site, I don’t want to hear it. That’s entirely wrong.
Posted by: prettyinpink | January 22, 2009
I have the same problem with those who say we should “fear” God. I mean, how can you freely love someone you are afraid of?
Fear of god is the beginning of wisdom or so I I have heard. Their wisdom has not impressed so far.
Nerd, I spend a lot of time doing so (with sometimes equal hostility aimed my way). I think it is important that you all know that we aren’t all Marthas and that many of us want to work with you to accomplish these goals. That’s why I chimed in… I do read this blog quite often (especially the evolution reads). I don’t comment simply because usually I don’t have to- I agree with you already. I just wanted to chime in this time to say that there are some of us around that aren’t the people you see in the video above. If you really do consider me a troll though, I guess I can go back to not commenting again.
Well, Endor, my apologies as well. To me you came across as a run of the mill anti-porn feminist, but I see that I was wrong.
PNP,
That could very well be true. But I have reason to doubt it. Speaking only for myself, I encourage you to continue your support with time, money and votes. But when you come to a forum such as this, you’re likely to be engaged mainly on those points of disagreement. As it stands you have glaring differences of opinion with many posters here, myself included. So we could either pat you on the back for the positive aspects of your argument, or do our damnedest to reveal the weakness in your other aspects.
You’ll be unsurprised to find that most posters here will go for what isn’t making sense, rather than engage in a happy Kumbaya circle. And the intellectual brawl goes in every direction, not just towards the new people. So stick around if you’d like, because I’m a little worried about this line
I’d like your definition of “practically not necessary”.
Okay, just real quick, before heading off to work,
“practically not necessary” to me means that abortion rates are really low and that there are enough alternatives that abortion would be unnecessary. It seems vague, I know, and also pretty idealistic. I just think that now, abortion DOES seem like the “best” choice because a lot of alternatives are failing us. I’d also love some technology to come out, where we can remove the fetus without killing it, but again, wishful thinking, I guess (folly of youth, and all that). It seems like a logical research area, but I haven’t heard anything being done about it..
It would be really nice to live in a world in which abortion was truly not necessary. Contraception would be 100% effective, effortless to use, affordable to all, available in every town and without parental consent. Any woman who nonetheless became pregnant accidentally would have a guaranteed and adequate income, perfect healthcare, and subsidized childcare, to provide for her family. Families and partners of pregnant women would always be entirely supportive. Rape and incest would never happen. Fatal birth defects would be non-existent. Maternal health problems would disappear.
While improvements can certainly be made in our system of contraception, our society will never be generous enough to provide most of what I just described, and some things simply can’t be legislated out of existence.
PNP, keep in mind the regulars here tend to be fairly smart. There are several demographics skewing the IQ upwards from normal. We heard you the first time and by the fourth repetition could almost quote you. Come back and post, but keep in mind we do pay attention, and you only become considered trollish if you are on the fifth or eighth repetition of what you originally said. I didn’t mean to chase your off, just to stop you from sounding like a broken record (ie Martha).
Alyson (this will also address PNP),
I agree that all those things would be great. And I work towards a world where they occur more often. But, even if the dream scenario was true, that still wouldn’t negate a woman’s right to control her body because her right to her body is not dependent upon economic, or social situations.
In the end, she is entitled to an abortion if her only reason for doing so is not wanting children. Period, end of story. Someone will nonetheless object, and I look forward to answering those objections, but I want to be clear right up front: If we lived in even our best scenario, some women still wouldn’t want children and abortions would be necessary.
Michael X, I totally agree. I’m not particularly interested in motherhood for myself, for example. That is where improvement of contraception comes in.
speedwell: You talk like a real bright guy, you do, but what does “good” even mean to an individual if they don’t have the right to define it for themselves?
I think you confuse “define good” with “define which choices to make” here. The properties of “good” in the sense I use it are not of individual opinion; they’re a property derived via the 2nd. Certainly, the evaluation of good for a choice varies, as a result of the differences between individuals. However, it retains some commonalities, because (for example) one human is very similar to another in many ways. (Of course, this doesn’t rely on “individual=human” and “society=nation”. A human is a society of cells; the United Nations, howsoever incompetent, is a society of states.)
The individual always retains the ability to make the choices they prefer (within the possible), so as to seek what they desire, regardless of whether what they seek is “good” or “evil” for them or for others from an objective framework. Society, however, also has the corresponding ability to respond to that choice, especially if the choice violates “rights” for others in the society. Enumerated rights are an codification of moral approximations which guide that choice.
In the case of property, it’s a conceptual extension of the self. It’s only meaningful if all parties in the society recognize the self/not-self distinction, recognize the existence of other selves, recognize such conceptual extension, and have sufficient commonalities in nuances of the concept (“Grammar Lesson” from Larry Niven’s Draco Tavern collection gives some useful but indirect perspective) as to agree on the results.
Recognizing some level of individual “right to property” is beneficial to societies in many circumstances. However, there are exceptions. A society may codify the exceptions (EG, “nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation“) into their concept of the “right” to try and make a closer approximation to absolute morality.
speedwell: How do you ascribe any rights to anyone that aren’t fundamentally based on the basic right of self-determination?
As Ethical precepts of the societies which the individual is a part, which precepts the societies use to approximate morality for the society.
Fundamentally, it depends on what you mean by “self-determination”. From my perspective, it means “ability to make a choice”; in that sense, it is. However, choices in an environment have consequences back to that choser. Self-determination doesn’t mean that you do chose wisely or well. It means you make the choice, which yields consequences from the rest of the universe in return.
And in that sense, yes: Rights result from this.
Or, for that matter, if her reason is not wanting to be pregnant and/or give birth. Just speaking for myself, I like kids and want to be a parent, but at the moment I’m not terribly excited about the idea of pregnancy and childbirth. I can’t imagine I’m the only woman who feels that way. And pregnancy is really rough on your body.
Medical abortion, brand name Mifeprex – also called RU486. It’s a combination of two drugs. The first drug, Mifepristone, blocks the hormone progesterone needed to maintain the pregnancy. Which sheds the uterine lining, softens the cervix. The second, misoprostol, induces the miscarriage; it causes the uterus to contract and empty. It’s only for use in case where it has been less than 8 weeks since the last period. RU486 is 97% successful. Complications are rare. Small percentage need a suction aspiration due to heavy/prolonged bleeding. An even smaller amount need blood transfusions as a result. Where the embryo continues to grow – another rare case – surgical abortion is require to complete the abortion. (See for further information: Kruse B, Poppema S, Creinin MD, Paul M. Management of side effects and complications in medical abortion. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2000; 183: S65-S75.) With regard to “sepsis” death – the four deaths widely-touted as the reason that the abortion pill should be shunted off to some dark corner and never spoken of outside of Europe – were the result of an off-label dosing regimen and all four women were infected with the bacteria Clostridium sordellii. Sepsis does present a risk with every abortion – so you should be told of the risk when you undergo either the medical or surgical abortion, and what to look for, to inform your medical provider – nausea, vomiting, or diarrhea and weakness with or without abdominal pain. All medicine, and medical procedures carry risk – but RU486 doesn’t present an extraordinary one.
To sum up – RU486 – non-surgical, low-risk, and first trimester.
Natalie,
I agree fully. There are so many reasons for why a woman might not want a pregnancy I couldn’t even imagine them all. They all are valid (even the ones we personally may not like), they all must be protected and the right to make those choices is not contingent upon economic or social factors.
And Plan B taken within 48 hours of sex prevents pregnancy. It’s safe and can be obtained OTC. Unless of course your pharmacist is a godbot and refuses to sell it.
“Well, Endor, my apologies as well. To me you came across as a run of the mill anti-porn feminist, but I see that I was wrong.”
Not a problem. It’s in no small part my fault. I posted a throw away line with no explanation and then failed to go back for clarification’s sake. I totally see now how what I posted could have been taken wrong. So, apologies from me too.
For the record, though, I’m not anti-porn. I’m anti-exploitation; anti-trafficking, anti-bigotry, and those things can certainly overlap in porn, but not *all* the time. Porn, in and of itself, is not “bad”.
That said, I’m not one to tell others what they can do, watch, engage in. I’m a feminist – trying to limit women’s choices, censorship, etc. are not part of that. Do what you want, just be safe. Learning if there are ways we can help make it safer – that’s my goal.
“practically not necessary” to me means that abortion rates are really low and that there are enough alternatives that abortion would be unnecessary.
It will never be unnecessary. Never. Not unless you cure overactive preeclampsia, prolapsed uteri, brainless babies, dead feti that don’t spontaneously expel, and a host of other problems. There are times in which abortions are absolutely, unequivocally necessary. There always will be. However, if abortion is illegal, there won’t necessarily always be doctors who know how to handle the procedure.
What the hell? Who let the libertarian morons in?
Self-diagnosis and self-medication? Silly M.D.s, studying for 12-20 years! Just grab a PDR and do it yourself! The stupidity and arrogance of it is breath-taking. What’s the name of that effect again?
Anyway, I thought that since we’re in a world-wide economic depression precisely because of deregulation that libertarians would lay low. Obviously, the toxic combination of ignorance and arrogance prevents them from even that.
Pathetic.
One that hopes to unite with pro-choicers for a common goal.
Except for the little fact that you want a “compromise” – that is, you are all in favor of the noble goal of more options for women and for mothers, just as long as you also get to prevent women from having abortions. And that’s why you’re being accused of dishonesty.
As you say, your experience is limited – apparently to a few college friends who said “gee, I’d love to have a baby, but….” A couple things you might want to consider:
1) Most women are not comfortable saying “I just don’t want to have a baby right now, period”. That’s selfish and awful. But saying you can’t afford the baby or it would ruin your education – “I would IF ONLY…” is much more socially acceptable.
2) #1 is especially true when you’re talking to somebody you know to be against abortion.
And, speaking here as a mother, while more support for women is great, the idea that a baby doesn’t affect your education or your job or your life is completely untrue. The fact that you would claim such a thing suggests you’re either not a parent and know nothing about parenthood, or you’re lying.
Endor – cool. I generally agree with your stance, actually. Yay dialogue!
Carlie: “dead feti that don’t spontaneously expel”. *Shudder* I don’t know if I can think of something more disturbing.
Nerd, thank you. I kept repeating myself because of the responses- I thought I must not have explained myself clearly. I’ll make sure not to do that again unless asked.
“Not unless you cure overactive preeclampsia, prolapsed uteri, brainless babies, dead feti that don’t spontaneously expel, and a host of other problems.”
Right, I should have been more clear: elective abortion. There should always be the option given health reasons and so forth.
Diagoras- thanks for the explanation- you learn something new every day.
“just as long as you also get to prevent women from having abortions. And that’s why you’re being accused of dishonesty.”
But isn’t the common goal to prevent abortions…?
“As you say, your experience is limited – apparently to a few college friends who said “gee, I’d love to have a baby, but….””
I used to work for a counseling service, and I’ve volunteered in clinics, and admittedly mostly worked with younger people. So, my limited experience comes to, I know less about situations that people older than 30 have, but I feel I’m well versed in the reasons many younger people choose abortion. In many cases, yes, it simply comes down to not wanting to be pregnant. A substantial amount simply thought she had no alternative (in many cases she’s right, there are not very many functional alternatives available to her).
“But saying you can’t afford the baby or it would ruin your education – “I would IF ONLY…” is much more socially acceptable.”
That is true. However I don’t doubt that it is a primary reason that she turned to abortion first. She wouldn’t have said it if she didn’t mean it in some way.
“#1 is especially true when you’re talking to somebody you know to be against abortion.”
That’s understandable; however I’m trained to listen without judgement.
“And, speaking here as a mother, while more support for women is great, the idea that a baby doesn’t affect your education or your job or your life is completely untrue. The fact that you would claim such a thing suggests you’re either not a parent and know nothing about parenthood, or you’re lying.”
I’m not saying it won’t affect your education; only that it doesn’t have to destroy it. Single mothers don’t have to drop out of school completely, but they may need different accommodations. No, I am not a parent, but like others here I feel that I have learned a lot from those who are.
mythago wrote:
Just making sure, you mean “that’s commonly considered selfish and awful”, right?
You’re all aces in my MRA book. :)
PnP
That’s called giving birth, and is what all these technologies are being developed to avoid. So, a new technology that did that would be somewhat…pointless.
Matt wrote:
But ideally the process would be far less grueling than nine months of pregnancy plus childbirth.
Dave, exactly. Ideally we would be able to do this without 9 months of gestation.
Right, I should have been more clear: elective abortion. There should always be the option given health reasons and so forth.
You. Just. Don’t. Get it.
It’s an abrogation of a woman’s right to direct her own medical care to make a doctor the ultimate arbiter of what would be an elective abortion versus one that was deemed medically necessary. Any such removal of women’s rights is subject to “creep” whereby a condition that would once have passed muster as “necessity” now no longer does, and doctors can make arbitrary or incorrect determinations of the matter. The only way to protect the right of a woman to choose how and on whose behalf to use her own body, is, and this should not be hard, to give her the right to choose.
That’s such a stupid analogy, it’s not even an analogy. Obviously you can’t punish a dead person. But with abortion, there is still someone, a person, no less, who is very much alive. Punishing only the doctor implies that the foolish little woman was forced by the wicked, tricksy doctor to have an abortion. Either you think it’s murder (in which case the woman should be prosecuted), or you don’t.
Yawn. Standard forced-birther hyperbole. Drag out the image of a late term abortion, impying that all abortions are late term.
Which of course, is bullshit.
Late term abortions pretty much defeat the point of an abortion. Women have abortions because they are not ready for motherhood, and (or) don’t the resources for nine months of pregnancy, including the physical problems that go with pregnancy. (Some quite serious, like gestational diabetes, and preeclampsia.)
Therefore, nearly abortions are performed in the first trimester, thereby avoiding any of the problems associated with pregnancy. Late term abortions, OTOH, are performed when the mother’s health is at risk. And because the mother really wanted to carry to term, such abortions are truly heartbreaking. And they too, should remain legal.
The specter of a fully formed, cuddly little baby, with cute little fingers and toes, being vacuumed from a womb, all because the wicked mother-to-be decided at the last moment that, “Babies are icky,” is nothing more than a forced-birther’s wet dream.
In response to how women phrase things in order to avoid social condemnation PNP wrote
This is impossible for you to know and also totally contrary to the spirit of the post you were replying to. While it may support your position to assume that such is the case, it is wishful thinking.
Speaking of which, would you mind clarifying just what is your position? Mine is pretty clear in #561 and I’m trying to parse out exactly what our differences are.
CJO,
But we do that all the time. Conditions are set at which 3rd trimester abortions are allowable. You can’t think of other medical procedures that doctors wouldn’t do unless it’s medically necessary or warranted? Of drugs that doctors wouldn’t prescribe unless it was to treat a disorder?
Michael,
I think that abortion is ethically wrong. But, because the relationship between mother and the unborn child is special (in that they are literally connected), it warrants special consideration unlike the laws we have for other adults. In many ways it has been demonstrated that abortion is a social problem, to the extent that it requires a social solution. So I think the difference is how we view the act versus the circumstances, unless I’m not reading you right.
“This is impossible for you to know”
You are right. I can only say that I tend to take what people say to me seriously. Maybe that makes be gullible..
This is a person who takes great joy is believing she is supposed to be subservient. Oh, the shear bliss this must be.
I never understood the appeal of the whole S&M, B&D thing, either. I just can’t see the attraction in either giving or taking orders.
-jcr
other medical procedures that doctors wouldn’t do
But we’re not talking about what doctors will and won’t do, based on none other than medical reasons. We’re talking about making a procedure illegal and in theory unavailable unless a doctor signs off on its “necessity” in accordance with the legal definition of that term, whatever it was as laid out in our hypothetical legislation.
And please read and try to comprehend what adobedragon said in #580 before you spout off about late-term abortions any more. As s/he points out, late term abortions are almost always medically necessary since they defeat the entire purpose of abortion, which is to relieve the mother of the burdens (and they’re by definition at least partially medical, to one degree of severity or another) of late-term pregnancy, and childbirth.
What we’re talking about here is the free access of women to safe early term abortions for reasons of their choosing that are none of your fucking business.
A looneytarian objects to experts making decisions in their field of expertise
TH,
I said nothing of the kind. Experts can make whatever decisions and recommendations they will. What I reject is the claim that expertise justifies the use of force.
-jcr
Uh, what? How? Are you suggesting that we somehow speed up development? And if so, that still leaves a woman with a child that she presumably doesn’t want. Making childbirth easier is one issue, but I don’t think that helps at all with what we’re talking about. Abortion is not done because pregnancy is painful. It is done because many people don’t want to have a child at the time. No one is trying abortions in a misguided attempt to make pregnancy easier. So that is a non-solution.
I mean, suppose we could remove an unwanted embryo at a few weeks, and let it come to term in-vitro. How does that help us at all? If such technology was developed and used in lieu of other birth control, we would still have tons of unwanted children, either put up for adoption(and not adopted, because there would be too many) or abandoned.
PNP, please step back from the absolutism in CJO’s remarks and look at reality. In reality, at present, third term abortions are either for fetal abnormalities or to save the life of the mother. Abortion on demand in the third trimester, just doesn’t seem to happen to any extent. Should it be there? I give a very reluctant yes, just on civil liberties terms. The woman before me always has more rights than an alleged person I cannot see without invading that woman’s privacy. There are words to describe any woman who would get the seventh or eighth month, and then decide to abort a healthy fetus. And those words aren’t polite.
If anti-choicers think birth is the only option, let them pay totally for the deliver and care of the abnormal fetusi. You will probably see them run away as fast as their legs would take them.
Here’s my idea to take to the anti-choice people. Be willing to put up bonds to pay half the cost of raising the baby to 18, or 22 with college expenses, for every woman wanting an abortion. If they aren’t willing to put their money where their mouth is, they are not responsible adults.
“We’re talking about making a procedure illegal and in theory unavailable unless a doctor signs off on its “necessity””
Theoretically I imagine it would be like any other medical procedure, where a woman goes to her doctor and has ‘this problem’ and the doctor says ‘these are your options.’
“And please read and try to comprehend what adobedragon said in #580 before you spout off about late-term abortions any more.”
I’d suggest you try to read my post in context. I imagine it would be quite like third-trimester abortions, in that they are not given willy nilly (they are not allowed to) but when needed, they are given. This is done on all the time, I wouldn’t imagine (theoretically) first term abortion would be different.
I took it that she was addressing abortion for medical reasons. That is the part I responded to. I’m not stupid-I’ve spent a lot of time in clinics and hospitals- I know that abortions are sometimes medically warranted.
PNP,
Ok, I see where our differences are now.
So here is what I’d like to know.
-Abortions are ethically wrong. Why?
-Mother and unborn child is a special relationship beyond others and that leads to a justification of legislation. Explain.
As for abortion being a social problem, it is not. It is a legal rights issue aggravated by social condemnation. Thus, it is no more a social issue than civil rights were: a legal rights issue aggravated by social condemnation.
In both of these issues it is a legal remedy that was needed and the social aspect is there only to make sure that mob rule doesn’t attempt to steal such rights away through legislation of their own.
I look forward to your replies to my pervious two questions.
Nerd- if only we had a decent health care and education system right? Is it true that in France you get a government-paid health care worker after you have a baby?
PNP, don’t ask me about European subsidies, I live in the US.
‘
I just want anti-choice people to put their money where their mouth is. If they can offer a woman half the cost of raising that child, it may change a few (maybe even most) minds. But the anti-choice people appear to be too selfish, or too punitive, to do that.
Let’s put the onus on reducing abortions where it belongs, on the anti-choice people to either put up the money out of their pockets to raise the children, or for them to allow for the necessary birth control so abortions become unnecessary for the most part, as happened in Europe. Until that happens there will be a fight in the US.
Michael, abortion is ethically wrong for several reasons: I feel that without an investment in our children we lack an ethical basis for other human rights. I think that elective abortion devalues not only them as a future member of society but also how we treat humanity in general. I think it can lead to some dangerous ideas (sex-selection in the East, its use as ‘population control’) that devalue grown people. In a way it devalues the woman because it implies that women have to be childless to succeed in this world or gives a lack of motivation to improve conditions for those who want to do so (as discussed, this is something we need to work on given the lack of good alternatives at this point.)
Mothers and their unborn children are deeply connected, and it is such a unique situation that it is why both sides are arguing about what the proper analogies are. These children are in my opinion, not much different than newborns- they have the same DNA, potential for growth, etc- but because they are literally connected to the mother it presents a challenge. It is not like a tapeworm in that it is unexplainably a human being, and the philosophy that dictates how we treat the unborn is connected to how we dictate a lot of other issues. It’s also unlike a tapeworm, because our uterus is especially built for such a purpose and as it develops, we become attached to our babies. But we also have the right to within a certain contexts live our life how we want- so this is where ‘context’ leaps to the fore. In my opinion, we have to find a way that we satisfy both of these; the best way would be to create slim conditions for unwanted pregnancy in the first place, and create a social system in which abortion is no longer a desirable solution.
Does that make sense?
PNP, abortion should not be desirable, but it should be legal. Figure out the difference. You are sounding like undesirable means illegal, which makes you a concern troll. One more post like the last one and I will renounce my apology.
Nerd, I guess for that to happen we’d have to have a change in how we view religion’s role in government. Otherwise the religious people don’t want the rest of us to have birth control for their religious reasons instead of using…reason.
Nerd- I was making a clarification, since I was asked to. I see that I am repeating myself because clearly my explanations either don’t come across as well as I’d like them to or there is some misunderstanding in my argument.
@Mover
Who are you calling pal, chum? Today hasn’t been my day for reading.
Your points have been refuted by more eloquent people than me, but I will answer anyways.
Like the people who are trying outlaw abortions?
That is your opinion, however wrong it may be.
How very kind of you. Do you believe that people really just get abortions because it is inconvenient to have a child? I won’t argue there are some who might, but generally speaking, do you really believe that? How is it up to you or the politicians who would “impose their views on others”? What about the decrease in crime that accompanied the legalization of abortion (freakonomics)? Doesn’t that appeal to your right-wing sensibilities? If these people supposedly don’t value any life other than their own, they would make bad parents. Shouldn’t we allow them to opt-out for the good of society?
Religions role in government should be a zero. Nada, Zilch.
PNP, as I said, we are the choir. But, I think I can speak for some of the regulars, on this, that there is no way we would allow any further legal barriers to abortion. I get the feeling you are headed in that direction.
The anti-choice people are the problem. Some fail to see that the abortion rate would diminish with almost mandatory birth control that is the European model. Their religion simply won’t allow it. But that is not our problem. It’s theirs, and people like yourself who must get them to move. Take your argument to them
If you mean something else, you are explaining it poorly. I get the feeling you want us to say we would legally limit abortion. Fat chance. If you are trying for morally (versus legally) against abortion, some of us are probably already there, but in no way can it translate in to legally against abortion. Let the universal birth control do the job.
PNP, thanks for responding.
To begin, you’ve created a false dichotomy between abortion and investment in children. You then imply that Chinese sexual selection follows from, or is a danger driven by, legalized abortion. None of the above is true. In fact the opposite argument can be made that only with legalized abortion can a situation be created where children can possibly be assured of having parents who are actually invested. All that really need be shown to undermine this argument is that there is a strong argument against it and therefore is not powerful enough to justify the rescinding of a woman’s right to control her own body through legislation.
As for the Chinese, abortion did not lead them to their views. It is simply a tool that they use to control their people and steal away body rights just the same as anti-choice advocates would do here in the U.S. Only for them their rights are taken by abortions or infanticides being forced. If abortions weren’t available, they would use a gun or a blunt object. But it is simply untrue that abortion leads to such worldviews.
As for the relationship between Mother and fetus, at no point did you offer any argument strong enough to revoke a woman’s right to control her body. Referring in previous posts to late term abortions is also not evidence for the legality of restricting first term abortions in the same way. Both restrictions are unjustifiable ethically and legally.
To address further the connection between Mother and fetus, the Mother is not obligated to provide her body against her will, no matter what her intentions were at the time of conception regardless of the designation of the fetus as a person or not. Thus, again, there is no justification for overriding the body rights of the Mother.
PNP, try outlining or enumerating what you want. Maybe too many words get in the way.
Speedwell@443,
One expert prescribes you a drug, and the next expert is horrified, and your response is essentially we should rely upon experts? Wouldn’t a more rational response be that we need to take responsibility for our own medical care????
Tis Himself@464,
“A looneytarian objects to experts making decisions in their field of expertise.”
Tis’, an experts “advice” should be taken for what it is worth, and some is quite valuable, but the “decisions” about our lives should be ours, based upon our values.
@478
For what it’s worth, your opinion is noted.
“That’s called a straw-man fallacy, and it’s definitely textbook-quality.”
I believe you are mistaken about a straw man. In order for you to be right, the referenced statement would have to be untrue.
So I’ll bite: How does one “undo” an abortion?
Good luck with that.
Nerd@437,
“AG, you still here? PZ asked you to leave. Your credibility is zero with me. Leave.”
So, this is how you respond when someone doesn’t worship your expertise, and presumes to show you up. I am a nonbeliever in taking your expertise for more than it is worth. You should have stuck around for the end of the exchange with PZ (yes he didn’t elaborate but you tried to and failed on the AGW issue) You seem to worship experts, even when they are wrong and run away from thorny issues.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/actually_its_theists_who_belie.php#comment-1326695
Part of the AGW discussion wrapped up here:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/01/open_season_on_fresh_meat.php#comment-1318991
Back to the substance. You wanted to get away with overgeneralizations and silling excuses for relying upon “experts” for prescription drug access, and I called you on it. If that offended you, I’m apologize.
AG, you still here? PZ asked you to leave. Time to leave. Want another response? Leave.
Actually Mover, speedwell’s usage of strawman is correct with regards to your statement as to the beliefs of pro-choice advocates. You attempted to attribute a position to them that they did not hold.
No one believes this.
Lastly, the question of how you undo an abortion is irrelevant and you have presented no reason to pay any attention to it.
Mover, still as significant as he was during the election. Use him as the not so well meaning fool. If he say “A”, you know “B”, the opposite is true.
Mover
Ok well since you were cherry picking…
Show me how I don’t value any life other than my own. Or if that is too narrow show me how people who are pro choice do not value any life but their own. When you are finished show me that pro-choice people think that abortion for convenience is the reason they (we) support it.
Go ahead.
Eeek lag time.
yeah, what Michael X said
Michael,
“To begin, you’ve created a false dichotomy between abortion and investment in children.”
I mean that we devalue children when we create a system where their value is based on mother’s wants alone. Same with the mother-fetus connection. I think some approaches devalue this connection by claiming that abortion has the same moral value as removing a tapeworm, instead abortion should be approached as something to try to avoid or reduce. I’m trying to make an ethical argument against abortion and not a legal one, maybe that is where we are getting our lines crossed. Right now I don’t believe there is a legal solution to addressing the discrepancy, so that’s not how I’m approaching it.
“As for the Chinese, abortion did not lead them to their views. It is simply a tool that they use to control their people and steal away body rights just the same as anti-choice advocates would do here in the U.S. Only for them their rights are taken by abortions or infanticides being forced. If abortions weren’t available, they would use a gun or a blunt object”
Yes, I’ll concede that to you. China is NOT pro-choice. With the enforced one-child policy it has exacerbated the problem enormously. We still see sex-selection problems in other Asian countries however, and in my research I discovered that some have made the very act of sex-determination illegal but it’s clearly not doing anything (another affirmation that social problems need social solutions).
Nerd,
I guess I’m just trying to come to an understanding- that there are valid reasons to being opposed to abortion (you don’t have to be a woman-hater, just have a different perspective), and there are a variety of viewpoints about how to accomplish them; not all pro-lifers want to approach it with a law-book. If we can come to this understanding we can surely begin to work together to reduce abortion without any hostilities.
PNP, the only way to reduce abortions is to reduce the need for abortions. You won’t find us disagreeing with that. That is why I say you are preaching to the choir. Now, you need to preach birth control to the anti-choice people and quit bothering us. They are the ones with the problem. When you are successful there, come back and we can discuss this further. Otherwise, you will be treated like a concern troll. That is scorned and mocked.
nerd@606,
PZ also called me a liar and then didn’t back it up. You tried to back it up and couldn’t. Now, you are just continuing your practice of mockingly dismissing issues you can’t rationally address.
Ok…never mind then..I just thought an exchange of ideas would be fun :/
AG, I considered you a bullshitter long before PZ called you one. Which just supported my feeling. PZ runs the blog, and if he tells you to go, you go. Or else face the derision of people like me. Time for you to go. You have nothing to offer.
You. Just. Don’t. Get it.
And never, ever will. To forced birthers, women are just creatures to be managed in a way most convenient to society as a whole, not actual people. That’s how they rationalize shit about abortion being a “social problem”. If they really, really considered women to be full people with agency, the very idea of managing or controlling their sexuality and reproduction would be greeted with outrage.
I guess I’m just trying to come to an understanding- that there are valid reasons to being opposed to abortion (you don’t have to be a woman-hater, just have a different perspective)
Wrong. You are a woman hater. You are the fucking enemy. Go die in a fire.
PNP, I don’t think you are exchanging ideas. The longer you stayed, the more anti-choice you become. I think you are trying to pull a fast one. Abortion will only go away when the need for it goes away. We, the regulars, agree on that. You don’t seem to acknowledge that except in passing. Go talk to the other side. They have to move before any change will occur in this country.
AG, don’t start acting like Larry Fafarman. Just because people no longer WANT to respond to you, that doesn’t mean they CAN’T.
Getting the last word in doesn’t mean you’ve won. I give up with Larry because it’s useless to continue. Perhaps some of the people here feel the same way about you.
Nerd and Ben,
I’m willing to have people take my posts and peer reviewed evidence for what they are worth. And they can take your avoidance and mocking for what they are worth.
AG, go away. You have been asked to leave by PZ himself. You need to go.
Deal.
PNP, answer these questions:
Third Trimester
Should all third trimester abortions be legally banned?
If not, what are the exceptions? Enumerate
Second Trimester
Should all second trimester abortions be legally banned?
If not, what are the exceptions? Enumerate.
First Trimester
Should first trimester abortions be legally banned?
‘
How do you morally argue against abortion without having proper birth control teaching and availability in place?
Sorry guys, haven’t read all your posts, haven’t even finished watching the clip yet. I just HAD to respond immediately, felt a need to applaud the film makers right from the first interviewee. This is bloody brilliant. So simple a question, but so right, and so unveiling.
I feel a tad less welcome here, but I’ll bite..
“Should all third trimester abortions be legally banned?”
Unless there is a medical reason to do otherwise (isn’t that how it is now?)
I think for the most part first and second semester abortions should be discouraged/reduced, especially the later ones, but at this time it would be foolish to “ban” them. So right now, nope.
“How do you morally argue against abortion without having proper birth control teaching and availability in place?”
It’s true these are lacking, but have no bearing on the morality of abortion. I think abortion is ethically wrong in principle. In practice though, we have to accommodate reality…you know where I’m going from there, I’m sure.
Sorry PNP, unless there are alternatives, abortion must be allowed, both legally and morally. That explains our differences. Put the alternatives in place first, then work on the moral aspects. Not the moral aspects first. That is what was raising my, and I’m sure others, BS meters. See, asking the right questions gets to the heart of the differences. Time for you to go and work on the anti-choice people to get the birth control in place. Once you have succeeded into getting mandatory birth control education, with freely available contraceptives (the alternative), we really don’t have much to talk about. Until then, since there is no readily available alternative, abortion must be morally and legally permissible.
PNP,
We may indeed be crossing lines over the ethical vs legal questions. But this statement
is again misleading.
No one is arguing that the fetus (please do not beg the question by calling the fetus a child) only has value within the mothers wants. The argument is that the value of the fetus does not supersede the rights of the mother to her body.
While such situations are not preferable, it does not follow that they are unethical.
War is also a necessary evil, but killing an enemy combatant is also not unethical.
Nerd and Michael, I appreciate you being civil. I guess I expected too much initiating dialogue in the first place. I’ll go back to being just a reader now.
Well PNP, no need to do so on my account. I certainly couldn’t have offered more than I’ve given, so I’m lost as to how I’ve fallen under your expectations.
In any case, good luck to you and I hope you continue to support the cause.
Michael X, I just get the feeling that I’m unwanted here, haha, not on your account, but most others. If you’d like to continue discussion I’d love to do so over e-mail. The thread is going to get lost quickly anyway.
I guess I expected too much initiating dialogue in the first place.
Many women expect to be treated like autonomous beings. Until you can extend that courtesy, you might want to lower your expectations. Or stop debating women’s choices as if it were any of your business.
Well, you’d be surprised how long these threads go on for. I tend to keep discussions on the threads for what it’s worth. So, I’ll be around.
Michael X, I think PNP thought we both would agree that abortion is morally wrong. She is disappointed we didn’t agree with her. Similar behavior occurs with some godbots who think they have the perfect proof for god, and they find us not agreeing with them. Personally, I’ve been dithering over abortion since Roe V. Wade was first announced when I was in college. My whole problem with the moral argument is the question: Who’s morals? To many differing opinions for there to be an absolute answer. I ended up with logic similar to yours. Took me about five minutes to arrive there, but I give myself a reality check every now and then. Nothing new to change my mind.
You left out, “and 100% safe.”
(See side-effects of the pill, IUD, etc.)
I want to know if anyone’s compared the risk of fertile-life-long prescription contraceptives vs. the occasional abortion (the risk of death of which, according to a Planned Parenthood editorial, “is currently 0.6 per 100,000 procedures, making it as safe as an injection of penicillin.” )
Okay Michael X, duly noted. I might comment here and there, but if you ever feel like having a lot of fun, I spend a lot of time doing damage on Jill’s blog :P
Nerd, I never expected to agree. I just wanted to exchange ideas. You know, why I think it’s unethical, you tell me why you do, I offer my perspective etc. for a while. I usually get a kick out if it but its exhausting having to deal with such open hostility and condescension. I just expected it to be more civil, especially considering how much other things we have in common. That’s all. No harsh feelings though. I will keep reading the blog. Have a good one, all.
@PNP
Civility is highly overrated. Especially in arguments regarding the autonomy of individuals to decide what happens to their own bodies – where people don’t concede you have a right to choose what you do or don’t do with your own body. This is especially true of conversations with individuals who applaud the bombing of planned parenthood, ram their SUVs into abortion clinics, and harass woman about their personal, private choices – while trying to limit those choices. Such people moralize, sermonize, demonize – and tend to expect deference in my discourse with them. With such cock-muppets, I’m the opposite of civil. With persons who have yet to reveal themselves as utter twat-waffles, I try to see what common ground we have. With those holding the extreme view – abortion is wrong, even to save the mother’s life – my ground is not at all common with them. My personal view is abortion is acceptable. Period. Other views – good to prevent unintended pregnancies, reduce the need for abortion (because risks of abortion, while less deadly than those of pregnancy – still good to avoid), and support for women and families in the choices they make.
PNP, creationists, godbots, and the anti-choicers often use this exact phrase as code words. The words to them appear to mean I keep at you until you agree with me. That is not an exchange of ideas, but an imposition of their ideas.
You did have a discussion with us. You voiced your opinion. Several times We gave ours. Several times. But you kept hammering away at the morality of abortion without providing any real alternatives. So I concluded you were trying to hammer us to your position, without realizing we were not going to budge. How do I tell the difference? The willingness to back away from a topic. You never backed away.
“You’re all aces in my MRA book. :) ”
An MRA* agrees with a feminist? hell must have come into existence, and then frozen over. ;)
* are you actually one, or is that a joke I’m not getting?
Prettyinpink [594], you sound confused. Let me help.
1. Life began shortly after the earth cooled. It is continuous. Ova are alive. That doesn’t make them people.
2. Aborting an embryo will be equivalent to killing a person when failing to build a house is equivalent to demolishing it. You don’t live in a blueprint, do you? Turning a blueprint into a house takes time, materials and work. So, too, turning a fertilized ovum into a full-term fetus, ready to be born.
3. Abortion is “icky.” Abortion is regrettable. You think that it’s unethical. Other people do not. So let’s say that it’s debatable.
4. If it’s debatable, or could be regretted, then the person most affected by the decision should be the one making it. Students should finish their education, but we don’t chain them to their desks. In Ontario, they can drop out at 16 and, if they aren’t learning, they can petition to leave earlier. And we don’t say, “You failed physics so you’re condemned to being a janitor for the next ten years.”
5. Unfortunately, a lot of the anti-choice rhetoric seems based in a desire to punish women. “She had sex so let her bear the consequences.” The intended consequences were fun, not child-rearing. That’s like saying that people fly airplanes in order to crash. Or banning skiers from medical care after a tumble because “they knew they were taking a risk.” It’s both small-minded and short-sighted. The person who is really punished by forcing an unwilling mother to give birth is the child.
6. It is not a solution to say, “Women should have the baby and give it up for adoption.” Once again, you’re telling her what to do. And childbirth forms a connection mediated by hormones, that condemns a woman to search the crowd for the rest of her life, wondering if she is seeing her child.
6b.Also, Having a baby is physically demanding and somewhat risky. The people who make much of the risks of abortion fail to mention that childbirth is 13 times more likely to kill you. Thus, four women who die of abortions represent fifty women who had abortions instead of dying in childbirth. Need I point out that, except for conscripting soldiers, we don’t force people to take risks against their will? That’s a strong ethical argument against denying women abortions because you think it’s unethical.
7. As Gloria Steinem pointed out, the basis of the “abortion debate” is denying women the status of ethical beings and legal adults who can make up their own minds about important personal decisions.
8. And, no, I’m not speaking up for “the child.” The man on the street has no right to use my body against my will. Neither does an embryo. Even if it were in there reading the New York Times and thinking about which bank to knock off first when it developed hands and feet. (The second qualifier reminds us that its much-touted “innocence” is the innocence of incapacity, not ethical choice.)
9. The “special connection” between mother and zygote is physical dependency. You take that to mean that there should be an emotional connection as well. That’s an assumption on your part which assumes your conclusion: that she should want to keep it. Like the assumption that women are “more moral” than men, it imposes a different standard on women than on the rest of us and expects them to act in a less self-interested way. Then they get less praise for being unselfish and more condemnation for acting in their own interests.
10. Finally, Since one can kill a deer or a lamb or a bat, all of which have more brain function and feeling than an embryo, the “it could turn into a person if you supply enough blood circulation, food, care, and pain” argument is, in my opinion, proxy for “But it has a soul! It’s people to God! You’re denying Him another worshipper!” Like “Allow academic freedom and let students question evolution,” it’s an argument that is, at bottom, religiously based. It assumes the presence of a deity and an immaterial, unprovable soul. Consequently, enshringing laws against abortion based on these assumptions is breaching the separation of Church and State that is mandated in the U.S. constitution. If you are in the U.S., that should mean something to you.
10b. Opposition to abortion on the grounds that “This is a person” is also an artificial inflation of the value of an embryo. For a reality check, consider that families don’t mean an early miscarriage or late period (spontaneous abortion) as they would the death of a child or a baby or even a stillbirth or late miscarriage.
Canada, where I live, has had no criminal law governing abortion for twenty years now. Abortion is covered by the laws that govern medical practice. It hasn’t resulted in a surge of abortions. It hasn’t caused the breakdown of civilized society. Isn’t it time you campaigned for butting out of other people’s lives? And stop being a Concern Troll.
Nicely done Monado.
I always wonder what the anti-choice crowd has to say about the thousands of frozen embryos that never make it out of the freezer
I always wonder what the anti-choice crowd has to say about the thousands of frozen embryos that never make it out of the freezer
Well, last I checked the RCC *was* opposed to fertility treatments…so, yeah, part of the crowd *does* have something to say about that.
Right, the RCC is fairly easy to pin down. It’s the other ones I wonder about.
And why aren’t they protesting outside the fertility clinics?
“* are you actually one, or is that a joke I’m not getting?”
Joke from uyi’s comment @ #468.
@ Rev. BigDumbChimp
Check out snowflake children.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowflake_children
Sorry, the phrase in 10b should be “families don’t mourn an early miscarriage…”
Janine, I think “shear fun” is liking to cut things up with scissors.
Garrett Hardin mentioned the “Right-to-life-of-even-the-tiniest-embryo-even-though-that-inevitably-means-mandatory-motherhood” movement. And I add that it also inevitably leads to the deaths of some women who would otherwise not die. Just look up Nicaragua’s anti-abortion law, the maternal death statistics before, during, and after Romania’s ill-advised ban on abortion, and, of course, maternal or perinatal health in Africa.
As for, “If you don’t want to get pregnant, don’t have sex,” many women who have abortions are married. I don’t think refusing to have sex with one’s husband or wife is a good strategy for domestic harmony.
PNP, I know you said you were going to keep reading, so I will bring this up even though you apparently won’t be commenting anymore. If abortion, as you say, “create[s] a system where [children’s] value is based on mother’s wants alone”, how is this same system not created by freely available birth control and tubal ligations?
You’ve made a lot of points that you feel are criticisms of abortion. But each of those things are not unique to abortion or caused by its legality. They are cultural issues that would be present whether or not abortion was legal. Sex selection in various places (it’s not just “the East”) happened before surgical abortion was possible (by exposing or abandoning the babies). The choice between career and children that some women feel caught by was present before legal abortion.
You say “I think abortion is ethically wrong in principle.” But you have not actually raised any principles that are unique to abortion to support why you believe it’s ethically wrong.
You seem to be about my age (mid 20s?) and I get the sense that you do in fact believe abortion is wrong, but aren’t really sure why. You’ve come up with a lot of reasons that appear to be securlar arguments and haven’t noticed that none of them really hold water. I would suggest that you think about this issue deeply and try to put a finger on what it is about abortion that feels wrong to you. Just make sure that the problem your identifying is actually a problem and is actually caused by or inherent to legalized abortion itself.
Here’s another painful video:
http://www.durarealidad.com
I’ll make the link a little easier for you.
Michael X@607
So, you presume to speak for all pro-abortionists?
They don’t?
What is the purpose of an abortion other than for the convenience of those who were stupid enough to get pregnant when they didn’t want to?
I suppose you could cite rape victims and the health of the mother issues. But if the abortions were limited to those, no one would be having this conversation.
Stupid? Condoms break. Birth control pills sometimes aren’t 100% effective.
Oh heck! Let’s try that link again:
http://www.massmediamail.com/durarealidad/
@Zeno: it’s no accident that the Mafia is Catholic. Easier to ask forgiveness than permission. And hey who needs morality when all you have to do is say sorry.
Inconvenience is when I get stuck in traffic for an hour because some shlub crashed a car 10 miles up the highway. Legalized abortion is about women having the freedom to own their lives. Putting that in the same sentence as “convenient” is an insult to all mothers’ and future mothers’ intelligence.
Our anti-choice trolls are back. Your god is an abortionist. Face up to facts and acknowledge the truth!
Ahem. BIRTH CONTROL CAN FAIL. You fucking moron.
@367: Randolph, you nailed it in one.
What is the purpose of an abortion other than for the convenience of those who were stupid enough to get pregnant when they didn’t want to?
What is the purpose of interfering with the medical care of others whose choices in life and reasons for same are none of your fucking business?
Misogynist scumbag.
Mover, #648: What is the purpose of an abortion other than for the convenience of those who were stupid enough to get pregnant when they didn’t want to?
Well, other than I wouldn’t characterize as stupid those who were pregnant when they didn’t want to be, this is pretty much right.
The purpose of abortion is to allow women who are pregnant but who don’t wish to be pregnant to no longer be pregnant. That is its purpose. This is a very good purpose and needs no other justification.
I suppose you could cite rape victims and the health of the mother issues. But if the abortions were limited to those, no one would be having this conversation.
Bullshit we wouldn’t, liar.
The trolls are out in force. And still not making any points per usual. Of course, one needs to think to have a point, which automatically excludes the anti-choicers.
Just making sure, you mean “that’s commonly considered selfish and awful”, right?
Right.
PNP, the problem is that you keep talking about ‘compromise’, when what you really mean is “you give up something and I give up nothing”. Everyone (sane) *agrees* that reducing unplanned pregnancies and offering more support to parents are good things. So all you’re doing is offering something pro-choices already want, while insisting that pro-choicers agree to something you want and they don’t – making abortions illegal or difficult to get. How is this a compromise, precisely?
As for devaluing women, it is pro-lifers who devalue women, from what you’ve said. Punishing abortion providers but not the women who seek abortions infantilizes women; they’re not moral actors, they’re idiots and dupes who can’t possibly understand what they’re doing. The pro-life view treats women as mere vessels for gestating babies, and can’t imagine a woman who might want to be pregnant in certain circumstances but not others – apparently they’re like farm animals, either having or not having a “maternal instinct”.
Martha, you truly are an evil and disturbed waste of perfectly good protoplasm. Showing videos and pictures of abortions proves nothing, lends nothing to your “argument”, and is a pathetic “appeal to emotion” fallacy. Just think: how can you stand opposed to abortion, but be perfectly happy to have abortion footage to show off to people? In a very real sense, you are now complicit in the act of abortion. Congratulations, you are now a post-facto accomplice. Seriously. That’s like anti-porn crusaders using extremely graphic hardcore smut (getting turned on yet?) in a public display to make their “point”. If you want to petition and protest, go ahead. But when you use such imagery, you have stooped to using the “victim” of the “crime” you’re fighting. We call that EXPLOITATION.
Sometimes I wish there really was a hell, just for the surprise factor of all you so-called Christians when you get there.
Chiroptera@
So why not err on the side of the one who is indisputably a person, namely the mother, and protect her right to make the decisions she feels are important to the quality of her life?
OK Dr. K. Who let you out?
First you have to understand that I know that to arbitrarily decide when to label defenseless human beings for the purposes of exterminating them is simply ruthless and selfish and needs to be discouraged.
I know an unborn baby is a person because the unborn child cannot become anything other than a human person* and should be legally recognised as a person, with at least the right to live. And, since too many people are emotional, irresponsible and unthinking, as evidenced by the abortion industry, society should have our permission to protect those who can’t protect themselves.
*If you ever hear of a human woman giving natural birth to a non-human being, and therefore a non-person, please let me know at once.
Mover @ 662 asked:
“*If you ever hear of a human woman giving natural birth to a non-human being, and therefore a non-person, please let me know at once.”
Oh! Me first!
Ready?
YOUR MAMA! Hahahahahahahahaha!
“And, since too many people are emotional, irresponsible and unthinking, as evidenced by the abortion industry, society should have our permission to protect those who can’t protect themselves.”
Decoded as: screw those emotional, irresponsible and unthinking baby incubators! Who cares if it kills them. THEY WILL BREED!!!
*cue evil laughter*
I like that you don’t even try to hide how much you hate women. That’s a rare honesty in Pro-Force Breeders one doesn’t normally see.
Talk about dumbing down an argument.
So when is an embryo a person smart guy?
“Joke from uyi’s comment @ #468.”
I thought it was just a little too amazing to be true. *lol*
Some embryos NEVER become actual persons. We call them “fundamentalists”.
“I know an unborn baby is a person because the unborn child cannot become anything other than a human person”
Meh. So what? We don’t need any more people than we can support.
“Meh. So what? We don’t need any more people than we can support.”
Chilling though, isn’t it, that mover cares more about imaginary and/or potential humans, than ACTUAL, living, breathing humans. That’s the sum and total of the pro-forced breeding agenda right there.
@Mover:
“I know an unborn baby is a person because the unborn child cannot become anything other than a human person”
The same “logic” applies to human sperm, making a jack-off like you a mass-mass-mass murderer.
Arguing with dolts like you is fun for a while, but not really challenging. Sort of like playing Candyland.
You don’t “know” shit. You only feel things. Feelings aren’t knowledge boy-o.
For what it’s worth, and in case PNP is still reading, I read yesterday that something like 44 million abortions are performed each year around the world, and that 20 million of those are in countries where abortion is illegal.
This is a problem that is not going to disappear, simply because you hope that it would. If anti-abortionists truly cared about innocent children they would spend their lives dedicated to the reduction of the 26,500 preventable deaths, each fucking day, of children all around the world.
But of course, they don’t (or at least, most don’t). Morality doesn’t recognize international borders, so there really is no excuse.
Mover, #662: First you have to understand that I know that to arbitrarily decide when to label defenseless human beings for the purposes of exterminating them is simply ruthless and selfish and needs to be discouraged.
On the other hand, accurately acknowledging that fetuses aren’t human beings in any important sense helps prevent us from tragically preventing some actual, real human beings to make important decisions that will have an impact on their well-being.
–
I know an unborn baby is a person because the unborn child cannot become anything other than a human person and should be legally recognised as a person, with at least the right to live.
Unless the pregnancy is terminated. Then it cannot even become a human being. So your condition doesn’t apply. It won’t become a human being, and so we need not consider it human now.
–
And, since too many people are emotional, irresponsible and unthinking….
Meaning, I suppose, that too many people are leading happy and productive lives but in a manner that offends your personal sense of morality.
–
…society should have our permission to protect those who can’t protect themselves.
Perhaps, if by “those” you mean obvious people, not things like rocks, dandelions, and fetuses.
Diagoras@489
I’d like to engage you in a discussion, first, on what abortions, if any, are morally kosher by you.
Abortions to save the life of the mother (can be justified as self defense), rape, insest, and minors (they did not willingly get pregnant).
How you go about accomplishing the abortion is between you and your doctor.
What else can I set straight for you?
Ever heard of a teratoma? It has human DNA and structure, but it is not a human, it is a tumor. Ever heard of the HeLa strain? It has human DNA, but it is not human, it’s a distributed organism and a cancer.
Human DNA and structure are not what define a person. Would you deny personhood to something that is sentient, self-aware, and capable of emotions, but does not possess human DNA? Something tells me you would, and do. I feel sorry for your dog, if you have one.
Mover, still playing the ignorant godbot. And nobody thinks you speak for your imagainary deity, but only for yourself. And that doesn’t say much.
The same “logic” applies to human sperm, making a jack-off like you a mass-mass-mass murderer.
It applies just as well to my ova, and I suppose that’s not quite as scary as sperm, since a guy can produce 7 figures’ worth of the little swimmers a day (someone correct me if I’m wrong on the number, but I know it’s a helluva lot per day), and therefore is capable of needlessly expelling untold legions of the poor pitiful gametes. Then again, in some ways it’s even more tragic that I and so many other women ovulate pointlessly, month after month without a sperm cell in sight, since we’re limited to so few ova by comparison, and, you know, each egg that a woman releases theoretically *could* be turned into a baby. Why don’t we have an equivalent song to “Every Sperm is Sacred” for human egg cells? Or is there such a song after all?
Every sperm is sacred
Every sperm is great
If a sperm is wasted
God gets quite irate!
Mover, #673: Abortions to save the life of the mother (can be justified as self defense), rape, insest, and minors (they did not willingly get pregnant).
Yeah, because a fetus that is the result of rape or incest isn’t really human and so doesn’t deserve those human rights because, unlike real fetuses, fetuses that are the result of rape or incest can become something other than human.
I guess you must have seen a woman who conceived as the result of rape or incest give birth to a non-human being, eh?
and also very very unchristian and the reason liberal women can’t keep a good man (just ask some Christian marriage counselor!)
d’oh! I was gonna end the last post with “it’s a real Catch-22!” but I hit post too soon :-p
@Mover
You’ve acknowledged you’re not in the abortion is wrong, no exceptions camp. You classify two sorts of abortion as morally justifiable:
So these are by your reckoning, just killings. Other unsanctioned-by-you abortions are unjust killings. Why are consent or the possible death of the mother dividing lines between wrong and right in your paradigm of when abortion is okay?
My view is thus: nobody is morally required to make sacrifices of health (small or large) in order to keep another person alive. Certainly, if you have two functioning kidneys, and one is a match for another person in desperate need of one, it would be nice of you to donate it to the person. Even given that you would live to the full capacity of your remaining years with no health complications issuing from the donation of your kidney – and renal-failure-guy will die in the next hour without it – he has no right to demand your kidney. No one would hold you down and extract your kidney for his benefit. It would be frightfully nice of you to consent to the procedure, but he has no right to demand it of you sans your consent. We, as a society, do not compel the relatives of deceased accident victims to allow doctors to harvest the viable organs for living persons on the donor list. The dead have no need of their heart, and the transplant-lister, who is alive, has great need of it. We do not weigh triple-bypass’s need for the donated heart and call it a right to it. That need doesn’t translate into an obligation for decedent’s relatives to relinquish the viable heart. It is no sacrifice for a dead man to allow the use of his organs, and great benefit to those who need them – and even then, there is no right to these organs.
Actual, living fully formed persons have no right to violate the integrity of your body to enable them the benefit of continued existence. Why, then, is there this cognitive disconnect when it is the body of a woman, and a potential person? That potential person has no greater right to the use of your body for continued existence than the dying man in need of a transplant has to your organs. Innocence and guilt is no factor at all in the consideration of whether your organs can be used for the benefit of another person. Your consent is the only factor considered, or, in the case of your death, the consent of your relatives. A death row inmate has no less right to her organs, than an adorable toddler of three. A woman who decides to have sex does not have a diminished right to say to what use her organs are put than a woman who is raped, or molested. The person who would suffer greatly after donating a kidney has no greater right to their kidney than the person who would suffer no harm from the donation. Likewise, the woman who would suffer no great health risk has no less right to decide how her organs are used than the woman who would die in the gestation of a child. The potential person does not have superior rights to the use of another person’s body than the actual person, in need of a transfusion, or transplant. If the fully formed person has no right to demand capitulation to their needs – why is the thought even entertained that the potential person can?
Excellent and eloquent post, Diagoras. Thank you.
Mover . . . do you have a uterus? No? Then fuck off. What we women do with our wombs is our business, not yours.
Your agenda is purely to control women’s sexuality through the threat of pregnancy, as you’ve revealed by your “rape and incest” exceptions.
And just for the record, an embryo is not an itsy bitsy baby. It is an IT, not a person. It has no brain and thus cannot think. It is a parasitic thing. I know this because 1) I’ve learned a lot about the science of reproduction, and 2) I’m gestationally experienced, having spawned out four new human beings my ownself.
And while I loved my four little embryos and didn’t mind being their host (much), I certainly knew that I was the only person in the room until around the fifth month of pregnancy, at which time I considered that there were two of us people sitting in a chair, one inside kicking the hell out of mommy, and one outside. (This was even more uncomfortable — and a little dangerous — when there were TWO small people inside beating me up.)
But to return to my main point, we won’t let you control us. So just fuck off.
Endor #660
See post #669
Evidence? Oh yeah, I forgot. A leading characteristic of the irrational pro-abortion crowd: Self-serving emotional hyperactivity coupled with a lack of conscience.
Pro-Force Breeders? WOW!
Oh yeah, that’s right, I forgot the attempts to marginalize those who have different values.
FYI: No one forces humans to breed. It’s entirely voluntary by law.
If you don’t want to breed, then don’t.
Wow, Mover – I’m very impressed with how you responded to the substantive points raised by Chiroptera (#673), Diagoras (#676) and Leigh Williams (#678).
Oh, wait – you didn’t. You chose to dodge those post that illustrated the weakness of your arguments and instead you responded to the posts focusing on emotion.
Is that why you’re called Mover? Because you can dodge so well?
Mover, you are still as irrelevant to any discussion around here as you were during the election. You are just an idiot, and you prove it every time you post. If you had half the brains you think you do, you would never post here again.
Chiroptera @668
These can be no acknowledgement of false premises. Just because you want to believe with all your little heart that unborn babies aren’t human doesn’t make it so. It’s time to grow up little guy and take responsibility for your actions.
Is that your scientifically derived evaluation?
Just because you killed an unborn human being does not make it non-human, pre-human, or any other mammal. I t can only be a human being.
Only an agenda can account for the deliberate ignorance displayed on this topic. A fetus that is developing in a human woman’s womb is a human and cannot be anything else. A human person that you may need some day to pay for your social security, medicare, subsidized housing, and paying off campaign supporters like AIG and Fannie May.
Mike in Ontario, NY@666
Ah, a scientist. Is it your studied opinion that sperm is a living human being, a person? You really need a 6th grade level class on the birds and the bees. Too funny
I’m still waiting for an example of a human birth that was conceived in the natural way and is not human. (the above childish attempt at humor aside).
Forgive me,
Dodger– oh, sorry – Mover , for having doubted you – the succinct, thorough and compelling arguments you’ve presented to rebut the points raised by by Chiroptera (#673), Diagoras (#676) and Leigh Williams (#678) makes it clear that you’re right about…Oh, wait – you still haven’t responded to those posts. Why is that? Hmmm, I guess I’m just going to have to call you Dodger from now on.
Heh.
With no sense of irony, Mover not only speaks of an “unborn human being”, but also writes
“Just because you want to believe with all your little heart that unborn babies aren’t human doesn’t make it so.”
then
“Is it your studied opinion that sperm is a living human being, a person? You really need a 6th grade level class on the birds and the bees.”
Hey Mover, apparently, you consider a fertilised egg an “unborn human being” because it’s alive and has human DNA; but isn’t a spermatozoon also alive, and doesn’t it have human DNA? You beliefs seem inconsistent.
676
FYI: There is no such thing as “just killings” where humans are on the losing end of the deal.
You don’t seem to understand that I make no law and I make no judgments. I just know what is right and what is wrong (something that seems to be an obstacle for some). I promote what is right and I oppose what I believe to be wrong. And, I sanction nothing other people do.
I believe that, as I said, no one should be forced to do anything they did not volunteer for. It would be very hard to convince me that a woman volunteered to be raped. Incestuous situations are the same.
As far as the life of the mother, I would rightly leave that decision to the woman involved. If she wants to take the chance to give life, that is her prerogative.
No disagreement here. I don’t believe anyone is required to do anything that they didn’t volunteer for, except for one’s obligations to one’s family and community. For instance, I would never require a draft, where young men and women are forced by the power of government to fight in a war. However, once someone volunteers for service, then all bets are off. Sorta like volunteering, either consciously or stupidly, to get pregnant.
No disconnect. Volunteering to get pregnant is different from being forced to get pregnant. If a couple, male and female, engage in heterosexual coupling, they are volunteering to become “with child” (not ‘with fetus’). They can say they don’t ant to get pregnant. They can even use contraceptives. But I don’t believe there is anyone in country who is old enough to volunteer for sex who doesn’t know that even the best contraceptives have a failure rate.
Besides, you are trying to mince words. A necessary device to help ease the guilt that must come from killing the defenseless. You know the examples, Abortion v. kill, Fetus v. baby, and other unfeeling clinical terms. You are using the term “potential person” to make him/her appear to be less important than his/her mother, or “host” as some people refer to her as.
FYI: There is no “potential person” post conception. The is only place potential persons can exist is in the form of unfertilized eggs and sperm. Once you volunteer to put to two together, good things happen. Well, unless you’re Barack Obama, in which case it’s “punishment” (that’s what he said, my friend).
Come to think of it, I’m closing in on believing that a growing percentage of the population believes that getting pregnant is some form of punishment. They don’t seem to understand basic biology and instinct. Yes, sex is good, but it has a primary purpose and that purpose is not for having fun (It’s fun because if it wasn’t, men wouldn’t do it).
Mover, still full of neocon shit I see. Take your shit elsewhere. Fetus =/= baby. Period, end of story. No amount of saying otherwise on your part means anything.
Leigh Williams@678
My agenda, if there was one, is to get people to consider respect for life and personal responsibility. Something that seems to be going by the wayside.
If they knew you, billions of human beings would be very happy to know that you have nothing to do with the “record”.
So, no television, eh? Gotta pass the time doin’ sompin’. Jut kidding. I kid.
FYI: Cold blooded salmon spawn, women bear children. You should talk nicer about yourself. I’m sure you’re a wonderful person.
What makes you believe that I control you? Who is “us”? Well OK, if you insist. You have my permission: You are free to do anyone or anything that your conscience allows, as long as it doesn’t infringe on the rights of others. (some folks are very needy and require direction).
Mover, same old shit, and we don’t care. You are wrong, but then you knew that before you posted.
594
Other than life of the mother, rape and incest, I would have to say “yes” they “just” get abortions because it would be inconvenient to have a baby. Inconvenient can take many forms, such as a woman who has acted out on her right to do whatever she wants with her body, let’s say at a party, spring break, bar hopping, doing the mailman, doing the brother in-law, doing the boss, etc. It may be that she is married and the husband is not the biological father, or she’s planning on getting married and the groom isn’t the dad. Or the unborn baby is the husband’s or the fiancee’s and they never discussed children or had made plans to put it off until later (a smart plan). All of these situations where one could believe that she really isn’t interested in having a baby now. So, why not have the baby? Well, it could ruin her plans, her marriage, her freedom. Maybe she knows she can’t afford a baby. Having and raising a child is a full time job, at least in the beginning.
Again, yes, all of those situations would come under the category of unwanted pregnancy and an abortion would be for the purpose of eliminating the responsibility of supporting and raising a child. Pure convenience.
My view, as already stated, is that unborn people are defenseless. The Department of Children & Families (DCF) is charged with protecting children and would take the children out of the homes of negligent and/or abusive parents. The DCF has been around for many decades. If Americans did not want government agencies to protect these children, there would be no DCF. Since the people want government to solve their problems for them, they have to live within a set of enforceable rules. If the people didn’t want this it would go away. With that in mind, why would any reasoning person object to the government stepping in to protect the most defenseless children among us: Unborn babies.
Let me get this straight. You are agreeing that the freakonomics ghouls are correct in their assumption that because there is small correlation between the rise of abortions (40 million and counting), and a reduction in crime rates is the real reason for a reduced crime rate?
I happen to believe that the same correlation can be shown with higher high school graduation rates and crime rate reduction or lower unemployment rates and a reduction in crimes.
I believe in moderation in all all things. And, I do believe that killing unborn babies for personal convenience is particularly ruthless and that would make abortion an extreme procedure to me; making the pro-abortion crowd the extremists.
Parenthood changes people (another reason why some people want to avoid it. Responsibly. etc.).
In my own case, my wife and I decided to wait 4 years to start having children. Well, that didn’t work. Our first daughter was born about 10 months after the wedding. I had very (and I mean very) low paying job, we had to move so she didn’t have a job and we really could not afford a kid. Guess what, we managed and my daughter is now 30 years old, married, and working on giving us grandchildren.
I thank the powers that be every day for my children and I do not know how I would have turned out if it were for them. All children, they are unique and I would change nothing if I could.
Mover, thank you for you commentary. It was a big pile of crap. Nothing more needs to be said. Now move yourself along and let the big boys play.
Nerd of Redhead@688
Who is “we”? Are you “with child”?
In that case, Congratulations! You go girl!
Mover,
I withdraw my criticism of your lack of responses to substantial points.
However, when say things like this: ‘Who is “we”? Are you “with child”? In that case, Congratulations! You go girl!‘, you’re reminding those who’ve labelled you a misogynist that they were right all along.
With that in mind, why would any reasoning person object to the government stepping in to protect the most defenseless children among us: Unborn babies.
So, if a fetus is a child, then abortion providers are cold-blooded child murderers for hire, and women who seek abortions are, at best, accomplices to murder. What should the penalty be for these heinous crimes?
Mover, still the same old irrelevant troll who tried to crap on discussions during the election. Why don’t your get a clue. You lost.
Mover’s moniker, and the craptacular content of his posts, are evocative of the inevitable end-result of peristalsis. Troll dung sure is smelly.
Mover #685
Mover doesn’t see any inconsistency between these two statements.
Mover, you are wrong, we are right. That is all you need to know.
So, we are to believe you have this incredilbe sense of empathy for the majority of the women in this country that allows you know the reasons for their decisions? I hope you realize this makes you incredibly arrogant. The current population is estimated to be around 300 million people. I’m glad we have someone here with the ability to speak for such a large portion of that population.
I assume that was supposed to be a question. Again, you are proceeding from your assumption that life begins at conception. That is your OPINION. It is not fact. This is a problem for people with a creationist world-view who believe we are made from dirt or that evolution requires life to pop into existence at random. To choose the moment of conception as your starting point is as arbitrary as selecting the moment of birth. From Wiki: “The term “conception” is not usually used in scientific literature because of its variable definition and connotation.”
Ghouls? I just put that in to get your goat, looks like it worked. It’s an interesting idea, not a pretty one, but still interesting.
Put up or shut up.
Is this you speaking from your phenomenal understanding of the human condition? It sounds like some tired platitude that has no bearing on whether or not you should be making decisions for other people and how they conduct their lives. I don’t like abortion, I don’t know anyone who does, but I don’t presume to be so important as to try and impose my opinion on others.
Thank your wife instead. She deserves it.
Helfrick@698
I never claimed any empathy to the women of the world. And I never claimed to know the reason each one of 40 million made the decision to destroy their baby. I only stated that I believe all of those reasons can be placed under the heading of “convenience” for the mother and/or father or someone else involved. Nancy Pelosi thinks the taxpayers are involved as well.*
As I have already stated: I am not perfect and neither is anyone else. If I am required to label a moment in the life of a human being that allows for the least amount of irreversible mistakes, I will err on the side of life and push that time back as far as I logically can from the information available. Human sperm is alive, but not “a human”. An unfertilized human egg is alive, but it is not “a human”. Together, they become a human. So, barring any crime against the mother (rape, incest, or putting the life of the mother at high risk), I’d have to say he/she deserves the same chance at life that you had.
I don’t see anything “phenomenal” about it. Any person of average intelligence who went to public school and has been around for several decades or more should be able to observe this.
Do you have children and, if you do, did you start doing anything differently when he/she came along? Come on. Be honest. You don’t have to admit it to me or anyone other than yourself. (Well, maybe it would be better if the attendance at public school was before 1977).
There you go again. You fabricate a personality then rail against it. That is not helpful for you.
*Update on the convenience front. I wouldn’t presume to know exactly how children impact the economy (except that they grow up, get jobs and fund your social security payments), But the Queen Bee, Nancy Pelosi (D-Red China) does. Abortion is now better for the economy: “The family planning services reduce cost,” Pelosi said, “One of the elements of this package is assistance to the states. … “And this is a, to stimulate the economy, is an economic recovery package and as we put it forth we have to deal with the consequences of the downturn in our economy. Food stamps, unemployment insurance, some of the initiatives you just mentioned. Believe it or not, they’re the right thing to do but they also stimulate the economy.”
Mover, still trying to impose your silly beliefs upon us. We have heard all your arguemnts and have found them to be unconvincing.
No dumbass… FAMILY PLANNING is when states can free up funds for other uses.
Mover, why exactly do children conceived as a result of rape or incest not deserve the chance to be people, like any other fetus? You can either claim that life begins at conception and so abortion is murder, OR you can allow exceptions for rape and incest, but not both. Do you routinely murder people if you find they were conceived by rape or incest?
Stephen Wells@702,
I don’t know if you have ever gotten a good answer to the rape exception, but I’d be interested in which you consider the best.
From an evolutionary point of view, given the investment the woman makes in the child, it is unjust to have her make such an investment in genes not of her own choosing. I don’t know why the incest exception would also be included.
The exception is an inconsistency advocated by some Christians. Some Christians also support the death penalty, so this might be a death penalty for the rapists attempts to get his genes to the generation. A form of generational guilt for which there are some examples in the old testament. For others perhaps it is just an admission of the abhorance of rape and the thought of forcing a woman to reward the beast who raped her by investing her genes and womb with his. These christians may be consistent in their own beliefs and behavior, i.e., they would not abort even in such a circumstance, but realize that on this issue at least they must compromise with the general sensibilities, when it comes to the secular law.
Read that again. I’ll wait. Ok, now read this: “Empathy is the ‘capacity’ to share and understand another’s ‘state of mind’ or emotion. It is often characterized as the ability to “put oneself into another’s shoes”, or in some way experience the outlook or emotions of another being within oneself.” If that wasn’t clear enough, try this: “the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present without having the feelings, thoughts, and experience fully communicated in an objectively explicit manner.” Ok, so you don’t claim to know why they do it, but:
I was born post Roe v Wade, so he/she does still have the same chance.
Please excuse me. I thought it was pretty clear that you would support overturning roe v wade or that you would vote to elect someone who would. Is this not true?
I’m sure all the children who are currently beaten, starved, belittled and otherwise abused and neglected by their loving parents would be simply delighted to learn of how parenthood “changes” people.
Alyson Miers@705
There are over 6.7 Billion people in the world. The vast majority of whom love and care for their children. I feel sorry for you that you have a need to zero in on the relative few that aren’t prize parents.
704
While you may have a good understanding of the word “empathy”, it has relatively little, if anything to do with what I posted.
I apologize for confusing you. Your chance at life was based on the fact that your mother didn’t kill you. Not whether or not the procedure was available or not.
Maybe you should be thanking the FSM that your mother didn’t buy all the liberal horse-droppings that were let fly during and after Roe v Wade.
Wowbagger @692
Offering congratulations is misogynistic? Curious attitude.
CJO@693
See #270
Tis Himself@696
You are right. I should have been more specific as we all make judgments all the time. You know, what
There is a difference between judging others, as those of your ilk like to engage in, and judging what I believe to be right or wrong.
In the remark you quoted, I was referring to women who get abortions. I make no judgments against them.
Nerd@697
I am curious as to how you arrived at your conclusion. So far any responses you directed at me, have never included anything to support your statements. Is that because you don’t know anything or because someone you want to be friends with told you something and you naturally believe them?
Mover, you have solid feelings. But I don’t have to coddle them. You have said anything that would not make me think that human life with full protection begins with the first breath of the baby outside of the womb, which is another very logical position to have. That also allows for abortion at the descretion of the woman.
AG: (my bold)
That’s amusing.
Mover,
You revelled in deriding Nerd for writing a sentence you chose to interpret as meaning he was female. Only someone who believes women are inferior thinks calling a man a woman is an insult. Ergo, misogyny.
But I wouldn’t be surprised if you weren’t aware of how much you hate women. Most misogynists don’t, and just express it through their thoughts and actions – you know, like telling women they’re not capable of making their own decisions, or that they should be forced to be incubators against their will.
John Morales@710,
Good grief, you got me. I guess I internalize evolution too much. In a species where the females do the choosing, the signals they prefer have usually been shown to be associated with increased fitness. With rape, that chance to choose a more fit partner is negated. By abort said forced selection, the female frees up her reproductive apparatus for a better investment at a later time. No justice about it from an evolutionary perspective.
I am trying think about how our perception of justice and morality might serve our evolutionary fitness, but I shouldn’t jump the gun like that. Good catch!
Nerd of Redhead@709
I see you are in agreement with the Christian Bible. I find that surprising. And you might be surprised to learn that I do not support the biblical version.
Of course it does. Guilt free killings. How sweet.
Mover, it may surprise you to find that I read the bible cover to cover twice. It is a terrible book, and those who wish to think it is the word of god are welcome to their delusions. That, and finding science, were what started me to atheism.
By the way, who gives you the authority to tell anybody what they must do with their body? I just see you as another would be dictator who must be brought up short.
Nerd of Redhead@714
I have no authority. It is society that decides what it will tolerate.
Mover, if you have no authority, why the continued posts? And society says abortion should be allowed.
So, you’re not a part of society then? Whew, that’s a relief. Good to know you won’t be voting.
Helfrick@717
You sure know how to read into a sentence. To bad that your talent gives you the wrong info and you post it where others can see it.
hee, hee
FYI: I always vote and I encourage others to vote as well (including you). Maybe some day we can take the country back from the lobbyists and self serving nutjobs who have been occupying elected offices for the last 50 years or so.
What I found most staggering is how certain folks where about whether it should be illegal but how quickly they would differ the punishment issue to someone else. One differed punishment to God, one wanted the lawyers to decide, one said let society decide, and one sent the interviewer to someone else.
Well… why not let God, the lawyers, or society decide on whether it should be illegal then? God is silent on the subject, the lawyer (i.e. Supreme Court) already made it legal, and society is typically against making abortion illegal.
Then… what would happen is God, the lawyers, or society said “$50 fine” or “Two days house arrest in the recovery ward”?
I have more respect for those saying “Death penalty” (as nutty as they are). At least they are consistant and show why it isn’t murder. Those who say it is murder but can’t accept/decide on a penalty know it isn’t actually murder and are just lying.