I really should avoid looking at these atheists against abortion sites — they just fill me with righteous rage at their stupidity and pretentious abuse of science…as with this promotional image.
But that’s an 8-cell zygote. It hasn’t even gone through compaction yet; it hasn’t so much as formed a blastocyst. This thing was only fertilized perhaps two days before — it would have been tumbling through the fallopian tubes still, wouldn’t have reached the uterus yet, and definitely wouldn’t have gone through implantation. Implantation is one of those critical phases in development: one half or more of fertilized zygotes fail to implant and are spontaneously aborted, and the woman wouldn’t have even known fertilization had occurred, her body wouldn’t have begun the physiological changes of pregnancy, and if the process ended here, she wouldn’t have even noticed a delayed menstruation.
The odds favor this zygote ending here or shortly afterwards, even without any intervention. Nature spawns these embryos freely, and throws them away casually, almost with the wild abandon that we produce gametes in general. It is not a precious little person, it is an experiment, a trial run, a test probe, a pilot study, a beta run. No one should care if it aborts or not; most of them do, and we are completely unaware of most of them.
No one does abortions at this stage. The woman isn’t technically pregnant until implantation occurs, and she wouldn’t be going in for an abortion two days after insemination. The only time this would be an issue is in the case of in vitro fertilization, which would yield a dish with a dozen or a score of zygotes at this stage, which would be evaluated for implantation. Are they really arguing that women getting IVF should be compelled to carry every single conceptus to term?
And the wording is just bizarre and misleading. No “one” ever ends at this stage; because any spontaneous abortion at this point would not produce a “one”, in the sense of an autonomous, aware individual. You might as well be looking at a field of ejaculated human sperm and insisting that NO ONE SHOULD END HERE! It makes about as much sense.
Gah. It makes no sense. And worse, it’s atheists indulging in ridiculous magical thinking.
(via Beth Presswood)
Oh, it looks like fuckwitted Joey thinks a medical health profession, during labor with the aim of a live birth, would intentionally violate their professional ethics, lose their licenses and livelihood, because he is too paranoid to allow them to do their work, which is deliver a (hopefully) live infant?
This feels like you are being intentionally dense, but I’lll play your game anyway.
The whole point of an abortion is to stop a pregnancy, to make it so that a woman doesn’t have to give birth. In your really strange scenario, the pregnancy is over, and the woman has given birth. As such, your post-birth abortions can never meet the goal of any actual abortion.
It makes no more sense than getting sick, going to the doctor to get medication, waiting until my body fights off the illness, and THEN taking the medication. I mean, one could argue that the benefit to this is to not have to take icky tasting medication with possible crappy side effects while feeling sick, but it also negates the purpose of taking the medication at all.
You said that post birth abortions (infanticide) somehow benefits the woman. I want to know how you think that is. What is the supposed benefit to killing the infant rather than not killing it?
Nerd, all those Slutty McSlut Sluts are getting themselves knocked up and then deciding to abort while they are in labor!1!!1
It must be stopped!!1! The wimmins, with their whims, they must be stopped!!!1 Also, all that breast cancer. Totes the fault of Slutty McSlut Sluts gettin’ abortions. You know it’s true. A website told him.
maureenbrian:
The head usually comes out first. Is there a point you’re trying to make, other than revealing you ignorance about what needs to be done for an IDX procedure?
What are you yammering about, and are afraid to address troll? You appear to be missing context, which is a reason a given medical procedure is done. What does IDX have to do with live birth. Until you explain yourself by not skipping over steps to people who are not only medical professionals, but also smarter than you, we won’t get your point.
I admit that I’m no biology major, but my general understanding is that the fetus has to be completely expelled from the mother in order to start the process of expelling the placenta.
Google placental abruption.
Maureen:
Oh, those evil doctors, they grab the
baby’sfetus’s feet and start chopping – that’s how a late term abortion is done. :eyeroll:Actually, there used to be a pro-life comic that centered on…wait for it…partial birth abortion!!1! and that’s how it was illustrated – grabbing the feet/ankles, chopping and poking sharp instruments “up there” to hack the fetus into pieces. Idiots like Joey fall for that crap hook, line and sinker.
Oh, FFS.
joey.
How big of a problem do you think third trimester abortions are?
How much effort do you personally think should be expended to make sure they are always illegal at all times?
How many women are you willing to sacrifice on the alter of “never a third trimester abortion”? Because if there are any restrictions at all, there WILL be doctors who hesitate for fear of prosecution, and who will hesitate past the point where the woman involved is not irreparably damaged or dead.
Where is your scale set, where all of the women with malformed suffering fetuses and ruptured placentas are on piled up on one side, and the hypothetical 39 1/2 week healthy fetuses with healthy mothers are on the other? Because there are a hell of a lot more of the former than the latter, and I’d like to know why you’re pushing your thumb so hard on the other side of the scale.
Caine, are you talking about Faithmouse?
Eris:
If you think that is the ONLY reason a woman would choose an abortion, then I’m not the one being intentionally dense. Why don’t you read the link that I re-posted (from someone else in the other thread) several posts above.
Joey, none of that disputes what I’ve just said. Yes, there are women who don’t want to give birth to terminally ill and/or severely deformed fetuses. But as I said, birth has already happened. If you’re trying to argue that infanticide should be legal (for example, so that the terminally ill infant can die as peacefully as possible), that is an entirely different issue based on the incredibly critical factor that infanticide involves already born children. No one has to try to figure out how to minimize the trauma of giving birth to a terminally ill infant because the trauma of giving birth has already passed.
Joey still can’t articulate his inane point…
Horror. Shock. Did I get that the right way around?
Louis
Janine:
I don’t know, Janine. All I remember is this awful comic, with terrible depictions of depraved, “liberated” women all lining up to have abortions and the incredibly inaccurate depiction of a “partial birth abortion”.
Joey, I notice that your posts are, superficially at least, directed toward legalizing what is currently considered infanticide. But you’re not trying to refute claims that you are an anti-abortion zealot. Care to clear this up? Because from my perspective, you’re not looking like an honest interlocutor to me, let alone one who can argue worth a damn.
Also, arguments for or against infanticide would not depend on where the placenta is. Abortions have to do with getting the fetus out. Infanticide doesn’t have anything to do with getting the placenta out; a placenta that is attached to a dead fetus is no easier to get out than a placenta that is attached to a live fetus. If you’re going to argue that it is unjust to make a fetus suffer for a few hours/days/whatever before it dies in agony, that’s an argument you can make, but it has nothing to do with the placenta.
PS: The reason you can “cut the cord” after birth is because the fetus ISN’T acting as a parasite anymore. It is now operating using its own organs. This is why fetuses run into problems if something happens to their placenta before they are born; they are still using it to get oxygen. I don’t have a point to this, other than your definition of post-birth parasite doesn’t work in even a vague sense.
joey @484: I’m puzzled by your reference of this article, because it demonstrates that essentially all abortions in the third trimester are performed for reasons of severe fetal anomaly. Perhaps you think the 5% that are listed as occurring in the third trimester for reasons of “delay” are perfectly healthy fetuses. That’s because you didn’t go to the primary reference or even the abstract, which states, “In 15 terminations (5%), the decision was postponed, although the poor fetal prognosis was established earlier.” In other words, these were also doomed fetuses. The delay was probably for patient comfort or possibly to recheck the results to ensure that the abortion was really necessary. No cases of abortion on whim at 39 weeks were reported.
Yes, Joey. Most often the head appears first. I understand that in some countries any other presentation leads inevitably to a C-section. In other places, a foetus in the breech position will be turned in the early stages of labour but it depends who is managing the birth as midwives have more training in that turning than do junior doctors!
How then do we arrive at this position?
That’s your 495 and yet more proof that you are making this whole thing up to feed some pretty disgusting fantasy or promote a political end which you are afraid to acknowledge openly.
Tell me one thing, though. With contractions powerful and more or less continuous and the whole place awash, how many medically qualified arms are you going to have up the birth canal to get all the arms, legs and other bits out but hold the head back?
I reckon at least 3 arms. Let’s test the possibility on one of your orifices first, shall we?
Eris:
He can try, however, that decision is also the woman’s. I know several women who found out mid to late pregnancy that their baby would not live and would be in severe pain and distress for whatever amount of time it survived. This is incredibly agonizing for the parents and one couple I knew decided to abort and the other couple decided to birth, because they were religious and they wanted to say goodbye.
Whatever one’s feelings on the matter, again, it’s no one’s business except those directly involved.
Eris:
And what you and others here still fail to understand is that I’m arguing to change the definition of birth. (My argument in favor of infanticide is so a thread ago, and a completely separate argument.) If the thing is a parasite to the mother’s body, then it should be regarded as a fetus and not a baby. So therefore “birth” has not yet occurred. Do you find anything wrong with this statement?
Caine,
“wimmins”? Did you mean to say whimen?
Cassandra,
and maureenbrian,
Seconded.
Joey, you may want to think about why so many people interpret your inane argument to be a dishonest attempt at getting at some other point. It seems like you have some agenda and are trying to build up to some reductio ad absurdum or something. If you are sincere, rethink your approach. Better yet, rethink your position because it is not one that any rational person should be sincerely holding.
Other than the clear idiocy of it?
Yes. I find it to be stupid, both because I see no benefit to changing the definition and because your definition of “parasite” makes no sense (as I previously said). However, I must go, so that’s all I have to say for now.
[meta]
joey’s whole case is a distraction no less than it’s a conflation of two issues.
Consider: 1. Birth is birth. 2. Abortion should be available.
1 is a truism, and has to do with the concept of personhood.
2 is the pro-choice position, and has to do with bodily autonomy.
(It’s very simple)
Then why couldn’t you say “this is what I think, and this is the evidence to back it up” a couple of hundred posts ago. Why the continued coyness, unless you had an agenda you knew we weren’t very receptive to??? You still aren’t making me feel like you don’t have an agenda.
Regards has nothing to do with placement, which is the fetus/baby differential. A fetus is inside of a woman, and a baby is outside. But intent of a medical procedure also counts, and labor involves an attempt at live birth, which you keep ignoring.
Eris:
No, as long as the umbilical chord is still pulsating, the fetus is still a parasite. You can argue to the degree at which the fetus is acting like a parasite even if it’s breathing on its own, but it’s still a parasite. In fact, a quick Google search shows that there is a debate in the medical community on the benefits of “delayed clamping” of the umbilical chord.
Woo_Monster:
And your explanation why that statement is idiotic is…?
joey, the potential benefit of delayed cord clamping is increased hemoglobin and iron stores. In other words, more of the fetus’ own blood getting to them instead of being “lost” in the cord (or stored for later use in an emergency, but that’s a different story.)
John Morales:
And that is supposed to refute my arguments somehow? What is “birth” again?
Anyways, I’m done for today. Thanks all for the discussion.
Caine, I am going to derail this thread more then it already is. I have not checked on Faithmouse in years. But it was this strange comic about a Catholic mouse and on every page, there was a pop up named Neverborn, an aborted fetus. When I looked up the comic, I got galleys of painting of celebrities with pancakes on their heads.
And then I found this that tries to explain the insanity.
I do not know what to say.
joey:
Such sophistry. Did you fail to note Nerd’s link above and Nerd’s mention that birth is a process?
(Does the pulsation of the umbilical suggest the process has ended, or not?)
Anyway, your whole distraction would only make sense if abortion were already legal up until that point.
If it had any relevance, I’d mention the adage Hard cases make bad law.
So, you agree abortion should be available until birth (however defined, right?
You’re not one of these atheists against abortion, are you?
Stop referring to a woman terminating a pregnancy as “the mother,” you stick dull.
Nope, legal definition is outside of the mother, and showing signs of life such as pulsing umbilical cord, a live birth has occurred. End of story. You are full of shit, and I am a realist. What is your real goal? You haven’t changed my mind, because you have presented nothing. You either need to get very specific, or shut the fuck up.
Janine:
Naked Prez on a unicorn. Gay bear. Buttnaked Mountain.
.
.
.
Imma join you on the speechless front.
From the moment the first breath is taken, a cascade of physiological events occurs whereby the fetal circulation changes, diverting away from the unbilical circulation. Even if the umbilical cord is still attached and pulsing, the moment these physiological changes occurs, that connection ceases to be vital to the baby’s survival.
A simple straightforward thought experiment helps clear up this distinction: If you tie off the umbilical cord, does the baby live or die? If it lives, then it has been born. If not, then it hasn’t.
By that definition, a baby that still breast feeds is still a parasite. A child that needs Mom to cook for it is still a parasite. A teenager that lives at home is still a parasite. A young adult that needs to draw funds from dad’s trust fund is still a parasite.
By that definition, the word “parasite” becomes so general as to lose all meaning.
I’m laughing too hard to say anything.
(Faithmouse has an unsettling ring of familiarity.)
joey:
Birth is birth — truisms can be powerful.
Your purported predication is that neonates are considered persons by virtue of personhood accruing to those who have been born.
Those who have been born aren’t those who are being born.
Birth is a process called parturition.
At the end of that process, birth has occurred.
The timeline is clear: pregnancy, parturition, motherhood.
Note that your issue only has relevance during the process of parturition.
So, however you define ‘birth’, its completion is what’s of relevance, and hardly requires a pernickety definition.
—
You’re done, alright.
If joey had actually bothered to read the links he provided for comprehension, he should have realized that those links are 100% in support of Caine’s statement which he was trying to dispute. Every single mentioned category there falls into the “something dire is wrong with the fetus”, and the categorical separations are simply when the tests that discovered the problem were done.
Janine, I found it – Abortion Eve, from 1973.
Also, by the time the umbilical cord is cut in most births, the placenta has already started detaching from the uterine wall and is no longer functioning anyways. ie the placenta stops being a conduit for maternal nutrients to the fetus BEFORE the umbilical cord is cut, so the question of the umbilical cord’s status to the “parasitehood” of the baby is irrelevant.
Why, thank you.
I know this will sound like boasting, but I’m so evil that I surpass even all those evil demioniac feminazies who get pregnant for fun and then abort their babies when they’re just born just to see them squirm as they die in horrible agony.
You see, when I was just when I was just a clump of cells like the ones on the poster, I aborted my twin sister. That makes me 100% evil, since I’m made entirely out of concentrated evil cells.
Mouhahahahah !
[Returns to dead volcano island underground lair]
@Amphiox, well, technically a stillbirth is still a birth.
I really don’t get what joey is on about. He wants to legalise infanticide? If so, how is this even relevant?
He keeps babbling about IDX, so he must see a connection. I don’t.
[meta]
Alethea,
Agent provocateur tactics.
See, if I, as a liberal, progressive atheist, admit that infanticide is wrong then I have started down the road to admitting that abortion, in some, albeit extremely rare and unusual circumstances, cases is wrong, then all he has to do is shift the window further and further toward conception. Joey, and the others who deny the personhood of women, started down this road long ago. About a week after Roe v. Wade they started.
As Wife just, quite succinctly, put it, “Not your vagina! Only I say what goes in our out!”
Graphic, but appropriate.
This. And it wasn’t even cleverly done – one could almost hear the bated breaths with each post as he was hoping to pounce. What a jerk. What a dehumanizing, woman-hating jerk.
Ah, but if the fetus is already dead, then cutting the umbilical doesn’t cause it to die. Of course, any down-and-dirty screening test, even as a thought experiment, has limitations.
The independent entity as individual criterion for humanhood leading to birth as the obvious natural cut-off for definition really only stumbles on the case-exception of conjoined twins.
I’m surprised joey and ilk haven’t come up with this one as an argument. Perhaps they lack the sufficient intellectual flexibility to think about it, being vaginally fixated as they are.
@dianne/528
Thanks for the info.
Gah, I really don’t know why I came back and continued reading. Obviously I like to play fast and loose with my blood pressure.
So I think that Joey wants someone to say something like this:
You know what? Fine. I admit it. I think we should be able to kill newborns as long as we haven’t cut the cord yet. In fact, why stop there? Six-month-olds are still totally dependent, basically still parasites, so who cares if we just toss them in a landfill? Come to think of it, toddlers are really irritating too. Lets redefine birth so that they’re not included and we can abort them as well! I’m planning to have a barbeque next week if the nice weather holds out, I was thinking of getting one of those things, you know, where they roast a whole pig? Only instead of a pig, I was thinking a seven year old. That’s cool with everyone, right? I mean, it’s no different than taking the morning after pill really, is it?
So he can say: GOTCHA atheistbabykillerfeminazis! And he can go on his merry way, fap fap fapping over how evil we all are, with all our aborting mid-delivery, just ‘cos we feel like it, along with the guy from a couple of days ago who seemed have a massive hard on over the thought of people getting punished for excersising control over their own bodies.
John Morales:
That’s what I’m arguing for in this thread, since that is what is generally the accepted dividing line here. I just want to be sure the precise definition of “birth” is the one that actually makes sense and is the most consistent.
Let’s all take a step back for a moment. What is the general reason given to advocate abortion? The fetus is part of the woman’s body, right? Since it is her body, she has full autonomy over it and the choice is solely the woman’s as to do whatever she wants to any part of her body. Well, isn’t the fetus still attached to the mother via the umbilical chord still technically part of the “woman’s body”? Of course it is.
If you disagree that she can’t do anything she wants to a thing that is still biologically attached to her, then the whole “it’s the woman’s body” argument no longer works because we’re excluding a clear case where she can’t do whatever she wants to her own body. It then becomes a “personhood” debate. The baby that has just come out of the woman, although technically still part of the woman’s body, can’t be terminated because now it has become a “person”. If it then becomes a debate on personhood, then the line can then be drawn in any number of valid places…such as viability, birth (any stage of it), or even well past birth. That’s why in the previous thread I argued from the personhood perspective that a valid line can be drawn well past birth as argued by Peter Singer.
Amphiox:
Sorry, that argument doesn’t work unless you support the viability position. If a viable 7-month fetus can expelled from the woman and survive, then it can’t be terminated.
Nerd:
Lol. Why do you keep presenting what current legislation is as arguments against my position? That’s like a debate on gay marriage in a state that doesn’t allow it, and I simply point out that the legal definition of marriage is one man and one woman…end of debate and end of story.
Three posts in a row. Obvious pointless troll.
Not in every state blithering idjit. Which is my point. Also if something isn’t happening, why mentally wank about it? What pleasure to do you get from your wanking? I get none from your wanking. You don’t have a point because you haven’t made one yet. Get to it.
Nerd:
Well in just about every state, abortion is illegal post viability. So you must be okay living with the status quo, right?
What do you mean by “post viability”?
The point was not that termination of the pregnancy is a reason for abortion; it was that it’s what abortion is. You go for a procedure, the pregnancy is terminated, and then you return to your life – work, school, family, friends,… – with no further risks or problems associated with pregnancy or the possibility of birth.
In what conceivable circumstances would a woman choose not to terminate the pregnancy when she knows she wants to, but rather continue with it, with all attendant risks and interferences with her life, and proceed through labor with its pain and dangers. As absurd as the “on a whim” hypotheticals are, they’re at least theoretically possible. But I just can’t imagine anyone choosing this course of action over the other. Why would anyone? Oh, I see:
<blockquote<
I already explained how it makes sense. You don’t have to stick sharp in the mother [sic!!!].
The “you” in this little scenario isn’t even the woman who wishes to make decisions about her own body – the person asked about. Her ideas about what’s in her best interests are irrelevant in every way. How perfectly transparent.
With errors fixed:
The point was not that termination of the pregnancy is a reason for abortion; it was that it’s what abortion is. You go for a procedure, the pregnancy is terminated, and then you return to your life – work, school, family, friends,… – with no further risks or problems associated with pregnancy or the possibility of birth.
In what conceivable circumstances would a woman choose not to terminate the pregnancy when she knows she wants to, but rather continue with it, with all attendant risks and interferences with her life, and proceed through labor with its pain and dangers? As absurd as the “on a whim” hypotheticals are, they’re at least theoretically possible. But I just can’t imagine anyone choosing this course of action over the other. Why would anyone? Oh, I see:
The “you” in this little scenario isn’t even the woman who wishes to make decisions about her own body – the person asked about. Her ideas about what’s in her best interests are irrelevant in every way. How perfectly transparent.
Comment by joey blocked. [unkill][show comment]
Nothing you say is going to change the opinions of anyone here on any subject but your intelligence.
Perhaps I am slow on the uptake here. Fuckface #2 is using the hypothetical woman who does not want sharp instruments inserted inside her as the excuse to kill a baby that has been delivered but still attached by the umbilical cord.
Because this will prove that having an abortion in the first trimester is the same as killing a baby the is unattached to the woman.
There is a whole lot of convolution in order to make this point.
Did I get anything wrong?
Nope, totally disjointed thinking of things that are not equal or similar to each other, except in the delusional mind of a zealot. Especially one afraid to say what they really think, because they know deep down they are full of shit. Show me wrong Joey…
So then she doesn’t want an abortion, making the legality and availability of abortion irrelevant to her situation. So joey’s ridiculous hypothetical, as others have pointed out, doesn’t have anything to do with abortion.
Okay, I wasn’t sure what jface was getting at either. So he’s trying to argue that abortion = KILLING BABIEZ so women’s primary reason for wanting abortions is to KILL BABIEZ, out of sheer whim and/or malice? Instead of abortion being what it really is: abortion = one of the 3 ways of ending a pregnancy, the others being 2) giving birth and 3) death. That about right?
Joey wants us to guess and think about his drivel. I suggest we all ignore it until Joey explains his fuckwitted and inane point in appropriate detail. Make him do the work.
You keep saying this, and everyone keeps disagreeing with it.
A fetus isn’t a PART of a woman’s body, it’s IN a woman’s body, it’s USING her body. Abortion is a medical procedure that gets the fetus out of the woman’s body and makes the fetus stop using it. Birth also gets the fetus out of the woman’s body. Once birth happens, abortion is no longer possible because the infant is out of the woman’s body. Infanticide kills an infant that is not in a woman’s body.
I understand that you want to drive back the time that people will accept an abortion until your nebulous “personhood” status has been achieved. But you’re doing it very poorly. If you’re arguing that the infant is taking nutrients from the woman that the woman doesn’t want to give up through the placenta, then that’s a perfectly good reason to argue that she should be able to clamp the cord (stop the flow) whenever she wants. But that has nothing to do with infanticide.
This argument is just as stupid as the, “We don’t have forced organ donations, so I shouldn’t have to pay taxes because organs are the same as money” argument.
Also, women can’t do anything they want to their bodies. Suicide, drugs, all kinds of things are forbidden.
Sorry for the double post, but I just caught this:
*sigh* No. If you tie off the cord of a 7-month old fetus, the fetus will die. If you tie off the cord of a former 7-month old fetus/infant (aka a 7-month old fetus that was just born), the infant will not die. Why? Because the infant has left the woman’s body and is not acting as parasite anymore, whereas the 7-month-old fetus is still acting as a parasite.
Nowhere in the post you quoted did the poster talk about the ability to act as something other than a parasite. The poster is talking about what the fetus is DOING, not what it might be able to do.
If a viable 7-month fetus can expelled from the woman and survive, then it can’t be terminated.
Right. Who cares if the pregnant woman is in poor health and at high risk of dying during labor? Woman, what woman? The fetus might be male!
On the other hand, who really cares about the fetus? So what if it dies after a few painful weeks in the NICU? We’ve racked up another one “saved” from abortion and who cares what happens to it after that? And don’t even think of sending me the bill.(/snark)
Realistically, the few studies of third trimester abortion out there suggest that virtually all are performed for fetal anomalies incompatible with long term survival. To give you an idea of how severe the anomalies we’re talking about are, a case of Down’s syndrome with tetrology of Fallot and polyhydramnios was considered controversial as there was a slight chance of the fetus surviving. No chance of an even slightly normal life and 100% chance of it suffering horrible pain, but some chance of it surviving infancy. That’s a controversial third trimester abortion. Women who can’t take the weight gain aren’t even in it.
Dianne, how dare you use a real example when fuckface #2 is busy using a hypothetical woman who does not want to use sharp instruments.
All actions of all women have to conform possible but rather improbable scenarios.
I notice Joey doesn5t even bother addressing peoples accusation that he’s a prolife nut playing gotcha.
Yes, that appears to be it. It would be totally bizarre if it wasn’t simply another reflection of the deep misogyny at the heart of the anti-reproductive rights movement. It’s the only way his hypothetical makes any sense. It would have been just as consistent to have gone with “An abortion just won’t provide her with the same thrill and satisfaction as strangling an infant” instead of the sharp-stick idiocy. (He’s also trying to rope Peter Singer’s arguments into it in a totally dishonest manner.)
Bankrupt, these people are.
IF.
Oh, right, I get it.
I get the abortion as late as possible, get through the vomiting, the nasty side effects of having 100-fold increase in hormones, including hightened risks of setting off massive autoimmune flares. Then I get an episiotomy up to my navel, can’t sit properly for months and become incontinent because my bladder has decended, but it’s all right, I got to kill that nasty baby without anyone poking “sharp” inside of me. Well except for the stitches.
Makes sense.
Spoken like a man who has never experienced the discomforts of the last trimester of pregnancy and the pain of labor.
Ya know, I wish I could use this idiocy on my neurologist, that way I wouldn’t have to put up with the routine shock & stab sessions (EMG). Comparing those to the D&C I had? The D&C was quick and painless.
You don’t have to stick sharp in the mother
Speaking strictly for myself, I’m quite glad the OB who did my c-section didn’t use a dull “stick”. A sharp blade makes a neater incision. The needle that sewed the uterus back up and the staples that held the skin together until a proper scar could form were sharp too.
As long as we’re still scuffling about abortions because of awful things happening late in pregnancy, how helpful is this?
http://motherjones.com/mojo/2012/04/mississippi-could-lose-its-only-abortion-clinic
As near as I can tell, the closest abortion access funds to Mississippi (and Louisiana, Alabama, and Arkansas) are the Lilith Fund in Texas and the Women’s Emergency Network in south Florida. It’s an 8 to 12-hour drive out of Mississippi in any direction.
*headdesk* *headdesk* *headdesk*
Y’all who give a damn, please consider donating to Planned Parenthood Southeast or the NNAF bowl a thon, and publicly denouncing Mississippi’s legislassholes.
(There’s a map at Fund Abortion Now, showing the abortion-fund deserts, but apparently the spamfilter doesn’t like abortion access, either. <_< )
Pteryxx, I donate as much as I can, multiple times a year. A majority of women in the States have to overcome obstacle after obstacle to try to get to a clinic. Abortion is legal, my ass.
Oh, also – use tinyurl to get around the stupid links filter.
The goal of abortion is termination of pregnancy, and the elimination of whatever adverse consequences that the state of being pregnant is inflicting on the mother.
Once the child is outside of the body, the pregnancy is OVER. Abortion is no longer a consideration anymore. Whether the child is still connected to the mother’s body via the umbilical cord is irrelevant. The medical and ethical considerations move to a new phase.
Now, in this scenario, with baby outside of the mother’s body, but still connected by the umbilical cord, the medical issue for mom is the baby still attached to her body. Her personal bodily autonomy gives her the right to choose to sever this attachment to her body. So how can this be achieved? Not by infanticide. The dead baby will still be attached! The options are to wait for the placenta to fully detach and be expelled, or to cut the freakin umbilical cord.
And that is what is done.
Infanticide is an irrelevant red herring that joey in his despical dishonesty has decided to stuff into this discussion, where it does not in any way shape or form belong.
The stories at Fund Abortion Now just hurt. It’s just so awful that we got to this situation.
Pertaining to medical ethics, personal autonomy gives everyone the absolute right to refuse any offered medical procedure, and to have necessary procedures done for them.
But, it does not give one the absolute right to demand a physician to do anything at all to them. You have the right, for example, to refuse a hip replacement surgery even if your hip is degenerated to a stump, but you DON’T have the right to demand an orthopedic surgeon amputate a completely healthy leg when there is no medical indication for that procedure.
With respect to abortion, then, personal autonomy gives the woman the right to have her pregnancy terminated when she wants it, but she doesn’t have an absolute right to choose the specific nature by which this is done. She has the right to choose between any number of procedures offered by her physicians that are deemed medically appropriate for her situation, but she can’t demand a type of abortion procedure that, in her situation, her physicians consider to be medically inappropriate.
So, for example, in our strawman hypothetical of a healthy 8.5 month fetus (that’s 37.5 weeks, which is a time when a significant fraction of normal pregnancies end in natural childbirth), the woman has the right, via personal autonomy, to terminate the pregnancy. But she doesn’t have the right to choose exactly HOW the pregnancy is terminated. And at this point, the pregnancy can be terminated either by late trimester abortion, or induced birth. Now, since at this stage, the risk to the woman from either procedure is essentially exactly the same, or lower for induced birth, abortion in this situation will almost never be indicated, ever, and will never be offered. The question of a woman’s right to choose an abortion in this situation almost NEVER COMES UP, because abortion ISN’T INDICATED in this situation. Termination of pregnancy is done by induced birth.
Similarly the idea of infanticide of a viable baby freshly born but still attached to the umbilical cord simply DOES NOT COME UP. It is not and never will be, an option on the table available to be chosen.
Joey is classic concern trolling. What baffles me is that they were made in the last thread and still keep on going without any need to deny.
Joey:
You need a sharp stick up your motherfucking ass to pry your head out, Cupcake.
Amphiox:
AND to terminate the fetus…in the cases where the fetus is already viable. Otherwise, it’s simply called an induced birth.
By already labeling it as infanticide you’re presupposing that the fetus is already a baby…which is exactly what is being debated here. The same type of argument can be used to argue against any late term abortion where the fetus is already viable. Why not simply expel the viable fetus by inducing birth without having to kill the fetus first?
Amphiox:
She doesn’t have the right to choose exactly how the pregnancy is terminated? You sure? I think many here would disagree with you.
Joey
Shut up. We’re not playing your script. Trying to trick people into saying a view they don’t believe in is the worst bit of slandering/libel bullshit rhetoric imaginable.
ING:
Lol, what trick? I basically restated what Amphiox said verbatim, which is…
But she doesn’t have the right to choose exactly HOW the pregnancy is terminated.
Isn’t this exactly what Amphiox posted? So, do you agree with this statement?
So. If I need to have my MCL rebuilt again, do I get to tell the orthopaedic surgeon exactly what methods, what tools, and what procedures to use in that surgery? Or is this a special case for women in our fantasy world?
[meta]
joey:
<snicker>
This is Pharyngula.
(If many here disagreed, it would be bloody obvious)
You are being willfully stupid.
A women does not have the right to choose exactly how a pregnancy is terminated anymore than someone has the right to choose exactly how an ingrowing toenail is removed. The patient is not qualified to direct the doctor how exactly to perform a procedure.
How can you be such a fucking idiot ?
Joey:
You’re just desperate for attention aren’t ya, Cupcake? Try playing on the freeway, I’m sure someone will notice you.
I’m not playing the game.
Matt:
So a 7-month pregnant woman doesn’t have the right to choose an “abortion” that results in a dead 28-week-old fetus or a live, very premature baby in NICU?
I have to say that the ad I am seeing on this thread is brilliant.
I am being offered a guarantee I will be pregnant inside of six months or I will get my money back. Apparently Europe’s top fertility experts will be doing their utmost to get me to conceive.
Trying to get the evil womenz to say that they are in favor of killing babies. People have told you they’re not, explained why. That is the end. You have your answer. Repeating the question will not change it. Stop trying to ‘trick’ people into getting them into seemingly agree with something they don’t. You disingenuous asshole
I am so sorry but when I see:
I think of this.
Sorry ?
Please go back and read what I wrote, then address what I wrote. If you are not bright enough to understand what I wrote, and that seems very possible, just admit as much.
John:
I know you realize there is zero possibility of Joey grokking that one. Heh. Per what you were saying about the quality of trolls lately, I’m beginning to think someone has autotuned our recent crop.
[meta musing]
Kinda amusing how the OP picture is of a zygote and yet the thread (as always) got dragged to being about ur-neonates.
(But, it ain’t all bad. How often are pulsating umbilical cords invoked? ;) )
Oh, Nora, you must do it! Really, you must. How else will you be able to yell “shove a sharp stick up there and abort it now!” while in the throes of labor?
Janine:
:falls over laughing: Perfect!
Why are you lying? Seriously, why? Anyone can look up the thread and read what was written, with the context. You do not create your own reality!
So please explain why you do not think that a woman has the emotional stability/intelligence/right to make her own decision as to whether or not she will become or remain pregnant?
I fucking hate you, Joey.
I fucking hate that you are still fucking derailing this conversation and centering it on you by willfully refusing to understand the obvious.
Yeah… I can’t read more than one or two at a time.
It’s interesting to me that there are only a thousand or so serious, late-term abortions in the entire US every year. Estimating the cost at say $1000 per procedure (wild guess) as a baseline, means only a million dollars would cover *every* late-term abortion in the country. There are indie games that raised that much. *sigh*
Matt Penfold:
You want me to comment on how a toenail is removed? Really? If there is a possibility at all that the toenail can still be alive once removed, then maybe I’ll entertain your worthless analogy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_provocateur
You’re made go away
Joey, who the fuck gave you permission to define what is a baby and isn’t. The law and medical profession do a good job of it. You aren’t doing any better. And as who the fuck gave you permission to tell any woman what medical treatment she can partake off. Obviously nobody gave you permission to think, since you aren’t doing that well.
I’ll tell you what Joey, until the medical professionals, women, and scientists here at Pharyngula deem your intellect worthy of listening to (it isn’t at the moment, as you can’t make your point), you don’t have their permission to post here. Now, do you recognize the Golden rule when it is applied to you???
Ogvorbis:
Sure, go ahead and read the full post of Amphiox and the context it was written. That’s what I’ve done.
Where have I questioned this? Oh that’s right, I haven’t.
Nerd:
And the law and medical profession do a good job at restricting abortion when the fetus becomes viable. Again, are you okay with this status quo?
No fuckwit, the religious right is the one doing the restricting, not the medical profession. When will you stop lying to yourself, and stop lying to us?
What status quo? What is your idea of the status quo? Show with citations to the peer reviewed scientific literature, not the religious literature that is biased against abortion…
Dear Cthulhu, joey’s STILL here? I was hoping he’d be gone by the time I caught up with the thread.
Anyway, $90 donated to RR. Can’t do much from Oregon, but at least I can throw in a buck or two.
joey :
There is no analogy, only the datum that they are both medical procedures relying on medical expertise.
(Talking about worthless, your conflation of pregnancy and birth with regards to abortion is a prime example of worthlessness)
1. There’s a fuckload more restrictions than that.
2. What part of the concept of bodily autonomy is unclear to you?
Nerd:
What is currently law.
Joey, what do you think the law currently says in all 50 states? Put up or shut the fuck up.
You need to state your grievance in plain American. Your inane statements like above are signs of deficient mentality. Explain yourself so we can understand you, or shut the fuck up because you fail basic communication.
Joey no one is buying your act. Shut up
Why, indeed?! What fun is that? I for one would much prefer the induced-birth-followed-by-creative-kill scenario. Of course, nothing compares to the full-term-birth-stab-newborn-through-the-eye-while-the-umbilical-cord-pulsates ideal, but, alas, sometimes we get impatient.
The Swordfish, Supreme Overlord of Sporks:
Oh gods, can’t do much? Thank you! Thank you so much! :Hugses and squeezes:
John Morales:
Then I’m not the one guilty of taking things completely out of context.
Well…duh.
Where Amphiox suggested that a woman can’t decide on the specific outcome on the termination of her pregnancy, whether it results in a dead fetus or a live baby. I always thought bodily autonomy meant that she should be able to choose the specific outcome. What do you think?
John:
Just a guess here…all of it?
SC:
Are you denying that late term abortion of viable fetuses don’t ever occur? Or maybe that they should never occur? So what’s your point?
Me @619:
Adding: while people like Joey make me want to kill all humans, people like you and Josh and Niftyatheist and everyone else who donated to RR, you make me love humans.
Joey, what are the present legal requirements for third trimester abortions in all states. Put up or shut the fuck up. You see, you are afraid of the answer. So, show us you are an adult who can handle the truth not to their liking…
Perish the thought! I’m suggesting that the infanticide of aborted late-term children never totally happens all the time. I’m happy to support this unreal everyday occurrence, because sharp objects are for me or for babies. If only we could stop or keep killing them, things wouldn’t be far better.
FFS, this shouldn’t be obvious.
Nerd:
There are a lot of restrictions. So?
Joey:
Well, to start, I think chew-toys such as you are to be savoured.
1. Rather, you are guilty of failing to recognise the context and its relevance.
2. Well, aren’t they part of the status quo?
3. But she has, relative to her body.
3a. The outcome to her body (thus the ‘bodily’ part).
4. I think you’re full of shit.
You claim you’re pro-abortion right up to birth, and you’re advocating that the definition of birth should be legally changed so that “viable” fetuses that remain attached by umbilical cords are still unborn and are therefore potentially abortable; further, you wonder (with concern) why we don’t endorse your suggestion.
(Whyever would we laugh at you, instead? :) )
How does this really effect your mental masturbations. Are they legitimate with reality, or are they just in your insane mind? That is something you need to figure out. If your scenario isn’t real, why do you keep trying to discuss it??? Other than you want to see women die, and be shown to be a liar and bullshitter to the world…
Because anyone still reading this far deserves this:
The 70 Best Walk for Choice Signs from Around the Country
One wonders (no, one doesn’t) why Joey is so intent on playing word games when the other potential topics include women’s lack of access to potentially lifesaving medical services.
Hmm. I wonder why Joey thinks his dumbass word games are so much more important than our lives.
Thanks, Pteryxx. The human race deserves better than Joey and his ilk.
[meta]
“If Men Could Get Pregnant, Abortion Would be a Sacrament”
I brought it up a couple of times. And I was hardly the only person to does so. But fuckface #2 wants nothing to do with that.
John Morales:
So let’s get this straight. If a woman who is 7 months pregnant goes into an abortion clinic for an abortion, she doesn’t get to choose whether the outcome is a dead fetus or a live baby, since that specific outcome isn’t “relative to her body”?
Of course, he knows he is lying and bullshitting for his imaginary deity. He just thinks (HAR!) that we don’t notice the lies and bullshit. Since I’ve heard the same shit since Roe v. Wade, I know his next words (evasion, ignoring anything that refutes his ideas, utter and total unevidenced bullshit).
That’s not what Amphiox said at all. Termination is the outcome. Amphiox’s statement was to the precise methods used to achieve that outcome, not what the outcome would be.
Are you dumb or dumber? Stupid question even an ant would be ashamed to ask. What is your point? That a seventh month abortion is done on a whim????
That is what your scenario sounds like fuckwit. Now, compare that to reality of Roe v. Wade….
Joey no one buys your act.
Cassandra:
What word games? What have I argued throughout this thread? What I’ve consistently argued is to simply push the definition of “birth” back to when the umbilical chord is cut. And the main reason I gave for that is that it would be safer for the woman seeking late term abortions.
Joey You. are. not. fooling. anyone.
joey,
Yep, it doesn’t effect a woman at all whether or not they end up having a baby or not (/snark). Fucking idiot.
You have been attempting to make this same inane point about women not being able to choose to have late-term abortions for post after fucking post. You are far beyond repetitive and boring. You have long ago crossed into trolling territory.
From Pharyngula’s Standards and Practices:
I think “unproductive babbling” just about sums up joey’s contributions to this thread.
Sophistry, definitions, bullshit.
That’s what your inane and fuckwitted sophistry claim. NOBODY bought that lying and bullshitting.
Citation needed fuckwit. You are lying and bullshitting, and EVERYBODY here knows that. Change your tune. Realize we are both smarter and more mature than you are…
Pteryxx: “Keep your Boehner out of my vagina!” It’s like the Republican Party is going out of their way to help us mock them by electing people with names like Boehner.
Caine: Happy to help. :D
By A#, of course.
Wouldn’t that be Stick#?
Hee.
You’ve been arguing the entire time about the definition of birth. You cannot possibly be unaware that this is nothing but a fucking word game. Are you in favor of ending poverty? Oh yeah? Well, what if we redefine “ending poverty” to include “killing all the poor people”? EITHER YOU WANT TO KILL ALL THE POOR PEOPLE OR YOU ARE ACTUALLY AGAINST ENDING POVERTY. GOTCHA!!1!!1
You know, I keep getting the vague feeling that maybe Joey is one of those creepy MRAs who feel like if they can just finagle things just right, they can get the right to “abort” their offspring. He probably isn’t, but he’s so vague on what he’s trying for that it’s just not clear.
I also note that Joey has yet to provide me with this so called “benefit” that will be provided to women for killing their born infants instead of, oh, dropping them off at child protective services.
Yes.
Specifically, she doesn’t have the right to DEMAND a physician terminate her pregnancy in any way she chooses, and have the physician be compelled to acquiese to her demand.
For example, she does not have the right to demand a physician terminate her pregnancy by jumping up and down on her abdomen (which is a method of population control among some hunter-gatherer societies, so I’m not just making stuff up here).
Or, she does not have the right to demand a physician terminate her pregnancy by placing a loaded Colt Magnum against her abdomen and pulling the trigger. (She has the right to do this herself, though it would not be advisable for her to exercise this right).
Doubtful.
As has already been explained to you, there is, for all intents and purposes, NO SUCH THING as a late term abortion where the fetus is already viable. The medical procedure in that situation IS induced birth. Abortion is ONLY considered if the fetus is NOT viable, OR, for whatever specific medical reason, induced birth is NOT possible. For whatever case-specific medical reason, either woman or fetus or both cannot survive an induced birth procedure, but the woman can survive an abortion procedure (if she cannot survive either procedure, then this is a sad case of medical futility and she and the fetus will both die).
These specific situations are SO RARE that they can ONLY be dealt with on a specific case by case basis. They are IRRELEVANT to the broader abortion debate as a whole.
This is EXACTLY what is usually done in these situations. It is COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY DISHONEST to even bring up this situation in the context of debating abortion, because ABORTION DOES NOT APPLY TO THIS SITUATION. This situation is IRRELEVANT to the abortion debate.
Precisely. She doesn’t have that choice. Because that outcome IS NOT RELATED TO HER BODILY AUTONOMY.
Her bodily autonomy extends to choosing to have the fetus either inside her body or not. That is all. What happens to the fetus after removal from her body has absolutely nothing at all to do with her bodily autonomy. If it is not viable, it dies. If it is viable, it lives, and becomes a baby.
IF.
This, like all third trimester abortions, is so rare that it is a dishonest red herring to try to bring it up in a debate about abortion in general. It is almost unheard of for a pregnancy that reaches the 7 month mark not to be a wanted pregnancy. Elective abortions at seven months are almost never done. (And the number would be even lower if access to abortions was easier, since the most common reason for an ELECTIVE abortion at seven months is a delay access to the abortion procedure such that a woman who wanted an abortion at an earlier point in her pregnancy isn’t able to get one until 7 months gestation has passed. If you want to reduce elective late term abortions, your most effective course of action is to increase access to early term abortions.)
What few 7 month abortions are done are, again, done almost exclusively for a NONVIABLE fetus.
The other situation of course is imminent threat to the woman’s life, but even here, induced birth is the far more common procedure, because, again, by 7 months nearly all pregnancies are wanted ones (except for unwanted pregnancies whose termination have been delayed this far because of lack of access to abortion services).
The medical ethics in this situation are actually two fold. Firstly there is the woman’s bodily autonomy giving her the choice to terminate the pregnancy. This pregnancy termination may result in a premature 28 week baby. At this stage, a SECOND, and UNRELATED TO THE ABORTION ISSUE, ethical question comes up, and that is the mother’s (yes, now mother) and sometimes father’s (yes, father) PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY to MAKE MEDICAL DECISIONS FOR THEIR CHILD. A 28 week old fetus, even with maximal NICU care, has a fairly low chance of survival, and a very high chance, even with survival, of severe disability with extreme pain and poor quality of life.
Therefore, the choice is whether or not to pursue maximum medical care aimed at extention of life, which would be NICU care, or instead to opt of comfort end-of-life care, and let nature take its course.
So again, the scenario described above is another dishonest red herring, that in reality has NO RELEVANCE TO THE ABORTION DEBATE. In the real world of medical ethics, it results from a two fold decision. The first to terminate the pregnancy based on a woman’s bodily autonomy. The second to either extend the premature infants life in the NICU, or not to, which is based on surrogate decision making for a individual unable to choose for itself, in this case parental decision making.
joey`s continued fixation on these issues which are, in reality, NOT RELEVANT IN THE LEAST to the abortion debate, is ample evidence that he is not participating in this discussion in an honest fashion.
Amphiox:
Um…we know. We’ve known for hundreds of posts.
Yeah. I’m thinking of automatically appending something like that to the end of all my responses to him from this point on.
joey’s wanking reminded me of something. From “The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion”:
http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/articles/anti-tales.shtml
Basically, the only women who behave anywhere close to the strawfigure he’s erecting (so to speak) are antis who have invested in this concept of trashy sluts aborting at whim at the handy-dandy abortion drive-thru. It sounds a lot like how women who suffer mental anguish after abortion are overwhelmingly those who’ve been brainwashed by antis telling them how much horrible mental anguish they’ll suffer.
Amphiox:
Actually, your responses (and those of a couple of others) are giving Joey the excuse to come back and keep on fapping. At this point, I’d rather talk about the Red River Clinic and other clinics that are holding on in the face of abortion deserts, the informal collectives going on, the lies that lifers, whether atheists or not use, current lawmaking, how to help – pretty much anything than going over the same fucking ground, chasing the fapster’s red herring. Of course, that’s just me.
Pteryxx, I saw that behaviour on the part of lifers and their families more than once when I was escorting. I still remember two of the most vile, noisy, nasty assholes who were there, protesting every day. One day, they showed up with a teenage girl and demanded to be shown to the back entrance and escorted in. Why? Oh, their dear, pure, god-fearing daughter went and got knocked up. Apparently, the sire wasn’t considered to be good enough, because a quiet abortion was in the cards, rather than a shotgun wedding.
That shit happens a *lot*.
Yeah, I’d rather talk about the beleaguered clinics too. Nobody’s answering the phones on a holiday weekend.
Caine: how the heck do they do it? I was going to call this place in Mississippi and ask how I could help past the obvious letter-writing. They’re in a funding desert even.
Pteryxx:
A lot of the clinics now, especially if they are the last one standing in a state, just don’t give a shit about upsetting people anymore. (Independent clinics, whether allied with PP or not – PP clinics have to care about offending people.) They do whatever they have to do to stay open and help women. Best thing is to hook up with a clinic close to you and get to know people. Donate when you can, of course, but getting to know people will let you know if there’s a local collective which helps provide housing and/or transportation help.
…HOUSING, yeesh. It really is an underground railroad. I’ve seen a few states float laws designed to criminalize taking a patient across state lines, too.
What does ‘upsetting people’ mean here? They’re clinics, antis are going to be upset by anything less than a smoking crater in the ground.
Pteryxx:
There are, um, ways around that. If it’s necessary to cross state lines, a transport person can take a woman to the state line, where she is given the means to cross on her own, then picked up on the other side by another transport person. You can still get arrested if caught, but it won’t hold up.
The other way is to provide money, so a woman can transport herself, with stops at provided housing along the way, if needed.
Well, you saw the RR site, right? Loud, noisy and blunt – fund an abortion today! Change a woman’s life – fund an abortion! In earlier days, before people went stone bugfuck, there would have been more of an effort to be quiet and low key. Let’s say that the last clinics standing are being aggressive now in pursuit of funding, without regard to the type of offense they may cause or the type of attention they may garner.
…Holy moley, RR is on FACEBOOK.
Also from the RR site:
http://www.redriverwomensclinic.com/Escorts=winning.JPG
Pteryxx:
Yep, they’ll do whatever they have to do and the internet is a powerful tool.
The lone Mississippi clinic isn’t anywhere near so in-your-face. Their site’s rather vague and explainy. I’ll still give them a call and see what’s up.
For anyone who missed it, please visit fundabortionnowdotorg. That link is ND based, however, visiting fund abortion now dot org, sans spaces, gives many more options to help. No amount of money is too little and no amount of help is too little. It all matters.
Pteryxx:
I just checked Fund Abortion Now’s state list and Mississippi is not on it.
Yes, I know. I tracked this clinic down from a news article about that bill aimed at shutting them down. There’s nothing on their site about donations or help with travel expenses, nothing. Just a note ‘call and speak to one of our counselors’. That’s after I went hunting all over NNAF and found nothing, no way to help them. That sort of thing just makes me more determined to find a way to help.
Huh. That makes the cynic in me wonder about forced birthers working there and not doing stuff like that on purpose…
I can probably only send emails but let us know if there’s a way to get them listed for funding etc.
I really hope its just ignorance of resources online keeping them from being on there. It’s so important to keep the few places open and help women actually get there for help.
Since it’s become abundantly clear that no-one does, I think it’s time for you to take your disingenuous trolling and fuck off with it, joey.
J_A_L:
I agree, but I suspect it can’t be that simple. Any abortion provider in this day and age has to know about barriers to access and funding networks. Maybe their local laws or threat level are such that they can’t even mention it; I have no idea, so I’ll do the only thing I know how – call and ask. Same for PPSE; *someone* in that organization must know the situation on the ground.
Woo_Monster:
Yeah, my point exactly.
No, that isn’t your point. You have no point. Why is anybody having an abortion in month 7? That is the real and true point. And that reason isn’t for the convenience of woman like you keep pretending. You know that. Your mental masturbation and inane point is worthless because it fails the reality test.
Amphiox:
And I think it is “completely and totally dishonest” to suggest that late term procedures as intact dilation and extraction of viable fetuses are absolutely nonexistent. Just because something is “rare” doesn’t mean it’s completely irrelevant to the discussion.
Nerd:
blockquote fail
Nerd:
Does it matter at all? Where have I suggested that the reason actually matters? Maybe you actually think it matters.
Why are you evading the question Joey? Why do you evade any and everything that cuts to the meat of the matter. Abortion for purposes of birth control do not happen in the third trimester. You keep pretending like that is the case. Why abortions occur is the heart of the matter. And you avoid that like the plague, but can’t shut the fuck up like a person of honesty and integrity would do if they can’t face up to facts.
Amphiox:
Forget about the accuracy (or inaccuracy) of this statement for now. What you seem to be suggesting in your posts is that there is something fundamentally wrong or unethical about terminating a VIABLE fetus, for whatever reason. Is there? If there is not, why are you making a big deal about the viability of the fetus?
Sorry Joey, we are realists, not ignorers of reality like you. Your inability to deal with reality is showing your contempt for reality. Reality is that which doesn’t go away.
Come on Joey, what are the two biggest reasons for third trimester abortions? All of use here know what they are. Why are they incongruent with your inane ideas? And why do you keep avoiding that issue.
I see joey’s refractory period is over. Lying little straw-wanking misogynist garbage smear.
Joey, what are the to biggest, and only legal, reasons for third trimester abortions? If you can’t answer that question you are not looking realistically at the situation, and your fuckwittery can be dismissed as whacky-backy nonsense. Get real or get out of here.
Nobody is going to go through the hardship of eight months of pregnancy and then abort without a very good reason. What that very good reason may be is up to the person carrying the fetus to decide. The definition of ‘very good reason’ is not Joey’s to decide. Nor is it anybody else’s, unless they happen to be deciding what that very good reason is for them, and their own pregnancy. One person’s very good reason will not be another person’s very good reason. That’s ok. We don’t get to tell other people that our own personal very good reasons are the only very good reasons. We also don’t get to tell other people that their very good reasons aren’t good enough. That’s kind of what we mean when we say choice.
If you believe that at some point during pregnancy a woman should lose the right to make that choice, you are saying that her very good reasons, whatever they may be are not good enough. Or you are saying that for some reason, she has become unqualified to make that decision herself, and the decision needs to be made by someone else. You are taking away her right to decide what a very good reason for ending her pregnancy is, and telling her that your way is the only way. You are saying that she is uncapable, unqualified or untrustworthy to make the ‘right’ decisions about her own body, which is fucked up as the only person who can say what the right decisions are is her. By saying that she cannot make these decisions, you are saying that she is not fully human in the same way that other, non pregnant people are. As far as I’m concerned, whether or not I qualify as a full human being, and will continue to do so throughout my life regardless of pregnancy, is not up for debate, end of story.
If a live birth occurs, the fetus is no longer a fetus and becomes a baby. Stupid hypotheticals regarding whether the woman should be able to ‘abort’ a baby that has been delivered alive becuase the cord has not yet been cut are not relevant. Nobody will ask a doctor to terminate a perfectly healthy fetus mid-delivery. I challenge Joey to come up with one case where this has happened and the doctor has obliged. Key phrases here are ‘perfectly healthy’ and ‘mid-delivery’.
A late term abortion is absolutely not the same thing as killing a born infant for these reasons: 1) once born (the current definition works just fine for this, their is absolutely no reason to change it), the parent no longer has the right to terminate life, with the exception of asking a doctor to turn off life support should the child at any point be pronounced brain dead, and 2) because it is no longer necessary to terminate life. It is not living inside anyone anymore, and while it may still be dependent, it is not exclusively dependent on one particular person, and it is not causing them to risk their health or their life.
I’m somewhat amazed that anyone can’t tell the difference between a late term abortion and infanticide, especially when it has been explained over and over and over and over and over. Furthermore, he must think everyone here is incredibly stupid, if he thinks for a second that anyone believes that he actually wants to redefine what ‘birth’ is, and legalise killing babies that have been born to ‘make it easier for the woman’.
THERE is absolutely no reason to change it. Bah.
You didn’t answer my question, Joey! Are you or are you not against ending poverty?
If you disagree with a statement’s accuracy, it is up to you to present evidence as to why ‘few 7 month abortions are, again, done almost excusively for a NONVIABLE fetus’ is not accurate. You do not get to hand wave it away.
You keep claiming that you are 100% for a woman’s right to abortion but then you come up with, again and again and again, stupid little just-so stories that make it sound like you think there is a point at which she should no longer be allowed to make that decision.
So, Joey, at what point does a woman’s right to bodily autonomy end with regards to a pregnancy?
Nerd:
No I’m not.
Because the reasons to have an abortion do not matter. Should they?
Doesn’t matter if it’s used for birth control or not. It’s the woman’s choice, right?
Where have I “pretended” like this is the case? Please cite the specific post(s) where I remotely suggested this. Otherwise, you’re simply lying.
No it’s not. Again, isn’t it the woman’s choice? Why does the rest of the world need to know the reasons why a woman chooses an abortion? You think that information is crucial or important somehow? Please explain. It seems like only advocates who want to restrict abortion rights are the ones who think the reasons for abortions actually matter. As if the woman should be denied an abortion if her reason isn’t “valid” enough.
twist:
And if she doesn’t have a “very good reason”, should it matter?
Darn straight. Have I suggested anything otherwise?
twist:
And I’m the one accused of making straw man arguments? Where have I ever argued any of these positions? Oh yeah, I never did.
Cassandra:
Yes, I’m against poverty.
Ogvorbis:
And where have I suggested this again?
I’ve consistently argued here that her bodily autonomy regarding terminating the fetus should end once the umbilical chord is cut.
How is it a strawman argument exactly? The logical conclusion to draw from the restriction of abortion rights is that the ones doing the restricting don’t consider the women involved to be qualified to choose for themselves.
No, it shouldn’t matter. That’s what I’m saying. It’s none of my business why someone else chooses to have an abortion, same as my choices are none of their business. I’m just trying to point out that this straw-woman who terminates a healthy seven months fetus becuase she has a couple of hours to kill one afternoon doesn’t exist. This ‘abortion on a whim’ crap just doesn’t happen. Ever missed the showing you wanted of a movie and thought “Ooh I know, I’ll go have my appendix removed instead”? Thought not.
You’re arguing that terminating a pregnancy is exactly the same as killing a baby that has been born alive. I am of the opinion that this is a disingenuous attempt to get someone here to agree with you, so you can gloat about how evil pro-choicers/atheists/feminists all are. Of course, I could be wrong, you could actually think that it should be legal to kill ‘fetuses’ once they have been born alive, and are a seperate entity from the mother, in which case… Fuck.
Lets say a woman gives birth to a baby that she does not want. How is killing it once it’s been born better than taking it away and having someone adopt it? Aborting it when it is still in her uterus is different BECAUSE AT THAT POINT IT IS LIVING INSIDE HER.
Matt:
You’ll be naming it after PZ, yes?
joey:
Why?
Because you were using that claim in the first place:
A: What few 7 month abortions are done are, again, done almost exclusively for a NONVIABLE fetus.
That’s why.
(What was suggested in those comments was not making a big deal out of something, it was that you were arguing a straw fetus)
It is implicit in every one of your posts.
Liar.
The status of the umbilical cord is irrelevant to the question of abortion.
As for the umbilical chord, will that be in 2/3 or 3/4 harmony?
Why stop there Joey ?
Let’s push birth back ’till the child leaves home !
After all it is still, at this point, emptying it’s mother’s bag of doritos without telling it’s finished them and leaving dirty clothes all over the place.
“Intact dilation and extraction of VIABLE fetuses” describes INDUCED BIRTH. Such a procedure is NOT abortion and is irrelevant to the abortion debate.
Late term abortion is “intact dilation and extraction of a NONVIABLE fetus”.
When something is so rare that there aren’t even sufficient numbers to make reliable generalizations, it is not relevant to discuss it in a generalized discussion. Such things can ONLY be discussed validly and honestly on a case by case basis.
Late term abortions are generaly defined as after 20 weeks. Numbers beyond 20-24 weeks aren’t generally used because abortions after that point are SO RARE THAT THE NUMBERS ARE SO SMALL AS TO MAKE CATEGORIZATION POINTLESS. The proportion of abortions in the US after 21 weeks is 1.4%, after 24 weeks it is 0.08%. After that the numbers are so low that they are not even measurable. (Note that the rate for past 20 weeks in Canada, where early abortions are more easily accessible, is lower, 0.8%)
The entire “over 28 weeks” scenario is nothing but a dishonest, irrelevant red herring.
Amphiox:
I think the Umbilical Chord is somehow related to the Lost Chord.
Kemist:
As Christopher Titus notes, the state of Texas approves of, and carries out late term abortions all the time, what with all those prisoners sitting on abortion row, waiting to be aborted.
Jesus Fucking Christ. FFS, he can tell the difference, he is gas lighting you.
Seriously, if you think answering joey’s bullshit is going to make your position any clearer to you and have him concede a point or acknowledge he’s wrong you’re naive or stupid. All that’s going to happen is that he’s going to repeat his bullshit in hopes of getting an answer he likes.
What Ing said. FFS, Joey has been answered, the same way, by different people hundreds of fucking times. Enough.
I wish people would stop trying to drive joey away! Read #(ouch! keep it away!)520. He has a general argument in favor of infanticide. You don’t come across that every day.
John Morales:
Even if you think I’m arguing a “straw fetus” (which I’m not, no matter how rare anyone thinks it is), it doesn’t matter. What really matters to my argument back in post #586 is whether it is considered fundamentally wrong/unethical to terminate a viable fetus. Is it?
Amphiox:
Show me.
Show me.
Oh, and you evaded my question on #680. Is there something wrong about terminating a viable fetus?
Define viable, exactly with great detail. You avoid doing so for some bizarre reason, like you do all things that might cause your fuckwitted and ignorant claim to be refuted… Show us, don’t talk. Show with evidence, and I keep seeing nothing from you…
And we’ve spent over 700 posts answering your very stupid slippery slope argument.
I’ll try one last time with an analogy.
Suppose someone breaks into your house at night.
Is it wrong to use deadly force on that person to evict hir not knowing if xe represents a danger to you or your family ?
How about after xe has left on hir own with a pack of cookies, is it oky-doky to use a shotgun on hir ?
Is there something different between these situations regarding the use of deadly force ?
Hey Joe,
So what’s this argument in favor of infanticide you mentioned in #520? You’ve said it’s a “completely separate argument,” so it doesn’t apparently have any connection to abortion (why you brought it up on these threads, then, I have no idea*). In any case, I’m curious. Explain and defend your position in favor of infanticide.
*Feel free to explain that as well.
define viable, or shut the fuck up about it. For example, do you consider a fetus that will die within days of being born viable?
Kemist:
It stops there (cutting the umbilical chord) because it can no longer be argued that the completely detached baby is part of the woman’s body. So you can no longer use the “bodily autonomy” argument.
Now, if you want to argue from a “personhood” perspective, then you’re right…it doesn’t have to stop there. And as I’ve presented in the previous thread, Peter Singer makes rational arguments that personhood can be placed at point in time significantly past the birth event.
Nerd:
I’m okay with the generally accepted definition of viable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_viability
Have you all had your fill of indulging Joey’s hoggling?
And most of us here think Singer is full of bullshit. So, drop that ignorant and sophist animal rights egghead from your ideas if you wish to convince us of anything. We all have a good definition of a person, but it appears you are attempting to be the amoral idjit who thinks that post birth deliberate of an infant to be considered good.
SC:
You probably missed the earlier thread. Here you go…
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/04/03/irrational-humans/#comments
Sorry, until you accept the generally accepted legal and medical definitions of live birth, you are in no position to make such accepted definitions. Especially when you avoided the example I stated. Is a fetus who will die in a day or two, even at 9 months, viable? Answer directly.
Sorry Joey, you still aren’t making your point. That requires precision of definitions, which you are vague on when they impede your inane and fuckwitted lack of argument.
It is so much easier to say “this is what I think and this is the evidence to back it up”. But you are unable to make such a declarative statement. Tells me a lot about the real quality of your insipid thinking.
kemist:
So…in other words, there are certain circumstances where it is wrong to terminate a viable fetus? Is that what you’re suggesting?
Define viable, and show who pays for non-normal situations…
Nope! There are certain circumstances where it is wrong to terminate a born infant.
Observe:
Man, you’re as stupid as two truckloads of broken hammers.
It’s been explained to you, in great detail, and several times, that this is patently false, and why this argument make no more fucking sense than my leaving home does.
What part of separated blood systems and outside vs inside the body don’t you understand ? Do we have to post a drawing ?
How about, when it’s out, it’s already done all the fucking bodily damage it was capable of doing in the entire pregnancy, including shredding our insides and starting a fatal infection/bleeding or irreparable damage to reproductive organs?
The. fucking. point. of. abortion. is. to. stop. pregnancy. because. my. body. belongs. to. me.
Baby safely outside of me != my body
Are any of those words too difficult for you ?
WHAT!? This is what Joey was getting at the whole time! WHO COULD HAVE FORSEEN THIS!? HE WAS SO STEALTHY AND UNTO A CHESSMASTER!
and all he had to do was redefine birth to mean zeplin!
No.
That’s a link to a comment thread. I want you to summarize your general argument in favor of infanticide. Now.
***
Meh, probably. I guess we’ll never be treated to joey’s argument in favor of killing puppies.
:(
Nerd:
Not sure about a day or two, or even 9 months. Let’s just say this. A fetus is “viable” is if it’s capable of living 90 years after birth. How bout that?
So what is your point? As I mentioned, the entire notion of viability is completely irrelevant to my (or any) bodily autonomy argument.
I’ll try to keep this veeeerrrryyyyy simple.
Other person inside house without Ogg’s permission.
Bad, bad person. Ogg hit you bad, kill you even. Get out huhgh, hgugh.
Strange person outside house. Ogg not hurt you. Makes no sense. You not inside house.
SC
Nah…I’m too lazy right now. If you want the arguments, then you can read my comments on that thread.
I don’t give a shit about your illogical and sophist fuckwitted argument. It is bullshit. What I care about is reality. Show me where viable feti are being regularly abort. Put up or shut the fuck up. If there is no such abortions happening, what are you going on and on about? Make your point with one longer declarative post, and stop this shot posts of idiotic hints and non-sequitors.
Yes because no one has done this for joey, before! Go ahead though, I’m sure you’re the one that will break this endless cycle of bullshit!
hoggle hoggle hoggle
Aww, what did poor Brother Og have to do with this?
—
Joey, if you’re too fucking lazy to make the relevant arguments, then why are you even fucking here? Why, as I asked before, do you think your dumbass word games are more important than our access to reproductive health services?
Chord Blood would be a good band name.
fuck it, if people are actually going to play this game let’s move forward in the script
*reading in monotone* Why yes Joey there are situations where it would be wrong to kill a viable fetus such as in your example, what is your point?
kemist:
The strange person may not be in your house, but he’s loitering on your yard.
*impatient monotone* yestherearetimeswhenitiswrongtokillafetusbecauseitisbasicallyababyjoeywhatisyourpoint.
Oh, is that so? Shoot the fuck out of him, then! Smash the born baby’s head with a big fucking rock! MOVE THE FUCK ON!
As I have repeatedly asked and been ignored Joey. Do you even know how to frame an argument with declarative sentences Joey, and back them up with evidence???
Are you really this stupid naturally, or does it take special training ? A few crayons up your nose maybe ?
You’d shoot or beat up someone because he’s loitering on your yard?
Are you fucking insane in the membrane ?
It claims this, but with every one of its posts, it implicitly tries to link the two.
Pitiful dishonesty.
SC:
Not bad, not bad. I think I’d go with Lost Chord Blood though.
And it runs away when challenged.
Pathetic cowardice.
I know.
I blame it on the SIWOTI and long week-end.
I am reaching the end of my patience, though.
I already have.
Brother Ogg good talking funny-brain people.
How about Severed Chord Blood?
We have a band here that’s called The Lost Fingers.
Amphiox:
‘S okay, I still like hooking it up with the Lost Chord.
It goes with Joey’s infanticide obsession.
If not Lost Chord Blood, then Umbilical Chord Pulsation.
*I find it indicative of Joey’s non-cognitive status that he hasn’t corrected his misspelling, in spite of all the extremely obvious jokes going on.
[meta]
joey: I see joey is orbiting some
strangestupid attractor, endlessly reiterating the same garbage over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over…Okay y’all, I got in touch with the Jackson Women’s Clinic in Mississippi. They ARE their own access fund. They’re also their own action organization. Basically, this little place is the entire pro-choice movement in their area. They take donations, but only through snail-mail as far as I can tell. There’s a Facebook page dating from the October personhood bill.
Donations to their grassroots activity can be made through here:
http://wakeupmississippi.org/
And to the clinic directly for financial assistance:
http://www.jacksonwomenshealth.com/
From DailyKos during the MS personhood bill run:
Quote source
joey has got to be irritating to try and meet up with anywhere – you tell him “Ok, we’re going to be in the theater, see you there…” and three hours later, you find him wandering around in the parking lot.
“What the hell are you doing out here?”
“Well, I just have such trouble telling if you’re inside or outside of the building!”
“You moron, we told you we were going to be inside!”
“…I’m not sure of the difference…”
Well, I tellya what, joey. Go find a big fencepost. Experiment around to see if you cen determine the difference between it being near your body and inside your body.
We’ll wait.
Via Texas’s own Lilith Fund: Buy a vibrator, support an abortion fund!
@Anri
He couldn’t even make it TO the theater because he apparently hasn’t solved Zeno’s paradox.
Right… I didn’t know just how old and threadbare joey’s wanking argument actually is. This is from “The Way It Was” about abortion in the illegal era, when it was squalid and vicious and women died from it, all the time.
From a physician’s account on page 4:
http://motherjones.com/politics/2004/09/way-it-was?page=4
Yeah… fuck all of that. Legal abortion saves lives, and lack of it destroys them; that’s what matters.
(Own emphasis)
Powerful article. Wanted to highlight this as so very fucking true. If only more people would realize this.
Amphiox:
Not running away. My arguments have been documented for all to see. Why would I keep on repeating them over and over again? Not fault if you guys can’t comprehend them.
Speaking of cowardice, I’ve already asked you twice whether it is fundamentally wrong to terminate a viable fetus. Maybe I missed it, but have you actually answered the question yet? Because the question really cuts into the argument of why one would reason that moving the “birth” line to the cutting of the umbilical chord is justifiable or not.
John Morales:
And yet when I don’t endlessly reiterate the same garbage over and over and over and over again, then I’m labeled a “coward” by “running away”. Go figure.
joey:
Would you state, in clear terms, without obfuscation, what you are trying to accomplish here? Seriously. What, precisely, do you want to make clear here? You’re giving up some valuable time, so you must have some reason for being here. If you could snap your fingers and, with one sentence, convince me of something regarding abortion, what is that one thing you want me to understand?
Joey, try saying something different, like responding to questions put forth here.
By the way, it’s an umbilical CORD, not a musical chord.
As for terminating a viable fetus, I’m going to say on my own account that it is not fundamentally wrong to terminate a viable fetus. I’d choose the life of the mother over the life of the fetus, in a situation where that was the choice.
But I’m going to ask you to define “viable” in a way that everyone will unanimously agree on. Would a fetus that could live if placed on a machine for the next fifty years be viable?
I personally define the moment of birth as clear of the birth canal, before the cutting of the cord, but I leave it up to the mother and her chosen physician to define it as they choose, and I will defend her right to do so. If a doctor sees a seriously-deformed child, ends its life and tells the mother it was born dead, AND he is the doctor she chose, I have no voice in the matter, but would agree that the right thing was done.
You seem to be playing some sort of game where you want to catch us in something you can twist to fit your agenda. To which I say, twist and be damned.
The question itself is irrelevant and transparently dishonest to even ask in the manner that you have.
And yet here you are, still asking it.
Pathetic liar.
But for what it’s worth, that minuscule part of the question that is even worthy of response, I have answered. Several times.
Learn to read.
And to be generous, for the last time, to our favorite post-embryonic marsupial, I will say it as explicitly and simply as possible.
The part of the question that is transparently dishonest is the “fundamentally” part.
Since it is obvious from the responses Joey isn’t being honest and forthright, —>killfile for terminal insipidity and inability to get to a point. Boring….
Ogvorbis:
I thought my arguments have been pretty darn clear. But alright, to summarize all that i’ve argued here…
(1) The woman has full and complete autonomy over her own body.
(2) The fetus that is still attached to the woman via the umbilical chord is still part of the woman’s body.
So given premises (1) and (2), it logically follows that the woman has full and complete autonomy over the fetus that is still connected to the woman via the umbilical chord.
So if you want to disagree with my conclusion, you have to give reasons why either of the two premises are not true. That is all. The subject of choice, viability, women’s reasons, etc. do not come into play UNLESS they are used to refute either of the two premises.
Menyambal:
I already gave an example. I said that a fetus that is capable of living 90 years (normally, without machine assistance) could be considered “viable”. Does anyone disagree with the way viable is used here?
Amphiox:
Well, that has been my point all along. The issue of viability is completely irrelevant and has no effect at all on my argument…UNLESS it is posited that it’s somehow wrong to terminate a viable fetus.
Being connected to something via a tube is not the same as it being part of your body.
Comment by joey blocked. [unkill][show comment]
Still telling us about the evils of imaginary 8.9 month abortions, are we? Well, firstly, fuck off, and secondly, you are very close to being zapped by kemist’s dark side lightning.
@ Cassandra
Good luck.
I warn you, you’re currently arguing with someone who has trouble with inside vs outside. Use very small words and uncomplicated sentences.
Also, when he’ll see that he cannot get out of the corner you’ve put him into, he’ll go for a while and then start the very same argument all over again with other people.
I think we are in presence of an ancient ghoul. Poor thing seems to have a brain in an advanced state of decomposition.
A. R:
Well, I don’t know why, but I’m in the unholy experiment with grafts & mutation mood right now.
Oh, I’m certainly not going to continue the argument! I don’t enjoy beating my head against brick walls any more than anyone else… Anyway, Joey’s a lot less fun than Mr. Star Trek Proves Jesus. At least that one has interesting drivel.
And anyway, the longer he babbles, the more tempted I am to propose that someone ought to give him a direct blood transfusion and then smash him in the head with a big rock because by his logic he is a part of their body.
But over here in the real world, apart from the world of word-game wankery, that would be wrong.
No it hasn’t. ANYONE can look at any of your posts and see that this statement is a bald-faced falsehood.
Pathetic liar.
And yet you are the one keeps bringing up again and again and again.
Pitiful liar.
No. The “unless” part is also irrelevant and a blatant piece of transparent dishonesty.
Odious liar.
Go fuck yourself.
A classic example of the fallacy of binary thinking. Except in this particular post-natal marsupial’s case, it is obviously a deliberately dishonest front, rather than simple incompetence.
Huh, so Joey has no clear concept of the difference between “inside” and “outside”… wait …
*light dawns*
It’s JOEY!
JOEY is the one who’s always standing in the doorway of the cinema, shop, train station etc etc.
I hate him so very much.
First off, you have not been clear. Thank you for stating your thoughts in clear and unambiguous terms.
Second, this is bullshit. Once the foetus has passed through the birth canal, whether the umbilicus has been cut or not, it is a baby. Outside the womb and through the birth canal is a birth. And you have been told this again and again and again and again.
Third, you have denied again and again and again that you are in favour of limiting a woman’s right to bodily autonomy yet here you are bringing up a strawman to bring that into doubt.
You are a liar. You refuse to actually read what anyone writes. You are a poor excuse for a human being.
And I wish to hell that I had a killfile on this so I could avoid reading the disingenuous misogyny you spout.
I had to travel back across the country yesterday, which is I haven’t responded to any new posts.
Amphiox:
But you guys are the ones falling for the “fallacy of binary thinking” by arguing the inside vs. outside criterion. No one still has explained at what precise moment the fetus becomes a baby? Is it when the head comes out? Is it when most (51%) of the fetus is out? Is it considered “out” when 99% of the body is out but only a foot is still left inside the mother? When? Throughout the entire time of labor, at what instances would it be permissible to terminate it?
Ogvorbis:
What you’re implying here is if 100% of the fetus is outside the mother, then it’s considered a baby. So if only the head is out (and the rest of the body is still inside the birth canal), is it still considered a fetus and permissible to terminate it?
Lol. Where? If anything, the views that I’ve presented here are THE MOST pro-chioce and pro-bodily-autonomy views here…by far.
Joey were not fucking idiots. You are made. Go away. Asking againw illl not magically get you the answer you want
ING:
You guys won’t answer the questions because you’re afraid of the answers. Bottom line.
And you deny your ‘just so’ stories.
G’bye.
fify POINTLESS ONE.
Oh look has Joey finally broken character?
Jiey people have answered you…we just refuse to follow your script. Thank you fpor finally admiting it
joey:
Seems like a perfect opportunity to use a guillotine. Chances like that don’t come along every day.
Ooops! Babies are born all the time. So I guess chances like that do come along every day. Oh, happy world!
@Pteryxx (750):
That is relevant to my interests… Mental note: Donate to charity when you get home *glance side-to-side casual-like*
That’s a lie: you have consistently refused to say what your views are.
How can you be so vague, Joey? At what precise moment is “most” of the baby out? Is it 51%? 50.1%? 50.01%? Is it measured by mass or by volume? Does the gunge adhering to it count? Come on, until you answer these questions, we can’t possibly answer yours! And of course, if you do, we’ll still say you’re not being precise enough.
No. There, you dishonest little shit, you’ve got your answer.
No, it doesn’t.
Dear Joey,
Please stop spouting strawmen and red herrings like some freaky fountain of bullshit. You’re a dishonest asshat.
Sincerely,
Pentatomid
Holy shit is this STILL going on?
Joey, here you go. I’ll see if I can help you. All atheists believe in killing viable babies. All of us. All babies. We are on a millennia long crusade of baby murder in which our only goal is to kill as many babies as we can. We’ll kill them in the womb, out of the womb, exiting the womb, hell entering the womb if we can manage it. Basically the only good baby is a dead baby.
I am a firm believer in abortion and a woman’s right to choose right up until over 9000 weeks past gestation. Which is why I am exceptionally nice to my mother, the woman has her hands figuratively around my balls. I SAID FIGURATIVELY.
Simply put, women have the right to choose when to kill babies. Any babies. Even other people’s babies. At any time. In any place. For ever and ever, amen. Okay? Happy? Baby killing is not only tolerated it is a necessary good. Killing babies is splendid, fun and produced Chicken McNuggets….you didn’t think that was real chicken did you?
Can we get off the utterly irrelevant 8.99999 month “abortions” now and focus on reality?
Louis
Louis… I think I love you and I want to have your baby… So we can eat it.
(The having your bay part might be problematic, since I’m male and all that…)
Pentomid,
Oh the male thing is no problem, I’m male and I have sellotaped two uteri to my body, one on each arm, so I can have double recreational abortions. As a man I am twice as good as any woman (natch) so I have to keep my end up. I even rent a third uterus at the weekends.
Gotta do my part.
Louis
SC #731
I’d go with Chord Prolapse myself and First Inversion for the first album title.
Louis,
Louis, How could you?! You misspelled my name! You… It’s over between us, Louis… Well, not really.
I was thinking of taping a uterus to my forehead. Seemed as good a place as any.
Pentatomid,
I can only apologise for being an utter idiot. Even my comparative sleep deprived state is no excuse for my casual rudeness and lack of attention to detail.
I shall of course beat myself with a kettle flex for this transgression.
And enjoyment of course, but I’ll keep that to a minimum.
Louis
Gaah… the lone Mississippi clinic, and one of the last in Alabama, have the same owner and are both under pressure to close.
http://www.salon.com/2012/04/12/abortion_options_fade_in_south/singleton/
I thought that legislation to punish a particular individual or a particular business was unconstitutional? Bills of Attainder, I believe?
And this is why such a simple regulation, “requiring physicians to have admitting privileges at a local hospital”, can kill a clinic:
Source
And there’s the confluence of reasonable-sounding regulations with religious ownership of necessary health-care facilities.
Og: I have no idea about that side of it, but the MS bill is designed and intended to drive this one clinic out of business. It affects no other business, and in fact no other OB/GYNs. The two OB/GYNs who work at the Jackson clinic, but don’t have local admitting privileges, are not local doctors – they fly in from out of state, for their own safety.
From the second article I quoted, but I have other sources for it. Last I heard, the owner intends to file suit to keep the clinic open if Bryant signs this TRAP bill into law.
Um, theoretically. I suspect that the actual instances of this that do not involve extreme and imminent danger to the woman will be so few and far between – if not to say essentially non-existant – that we can safely ignore this in the same way that I need not reinforce my parasol against flying sharks.
I mean – it’s possible that a shark beiong airlifted over my town might somehow get out of his tank and the hull of the airplane and bite me as it fell directly down on to me. but this is such a remote chance as to not really be worth my time and effort to consider except realisticly.
Seriously, about that fencepost: find one about three feet long, preferably a 4 X 4. Walk over to it and grasp it with your hand. You are now ‘connected’ to it.
Now, sit on it, and get, let’s say, 18″ past your anus. Now, it certainly coundn’t be said that it was fully inside of you, could it? Yet – and I’m just guessing here – you would have little difficulty in determining the (perhaps subtle) differences between these two states, yes?
Now – why do you think the average woman would have more difficulty in determining a similar difference in the state of a birth process?
Stupidity?