Sarah got an abortion


sarah

As you can see from the photo taken at the clinic, she was devastated by the experience.

Oh, wait, no, that was the wrong word. Relieved? Yeah, I think I meant to write “relieved”.

Comments

  1. opposablethumbs says

    She looks very much like I felt – absolutely great! So relieved, so happy to have my own body back to myself again.

  2. garnetstar says

    My friends who’ve had abortions told me that they felt nothing except overwhelming relief. No one mentioned any other feeling.

    I read about how a doctor in Texas handles the ridiculous nonsense he’s forced to read to women. He gathers all the clinic’s patients for that day, tells them that he has to read them the state-mandated text, reads it aloud, then says “But don’t worry about this, it’s all bullshit.” He then gives the scientific facts that rebut all the lies he just had to read (that abortion causes cancer, for example).

    Gotta love it. He might have to read that, but nothing in the law says he can’t tell his patients his own medical opinion of it.

  3. iknklast says

    I was just sick after my abortion. The anesthesia made me throw up. I got over it. I’ve never regretted it (except getting blood on the back seat of my mother-in-law’s car – I hated doing that to her).

  4. spamamander, internet amphibian says

    That was me, “yay it’s over, time to get on with my life”. No heart wrenching, soul searching, agonized anything. Pure blessed relief.

  5. says

    I was heartbroken after my abortion.
    That might have to do with the fact that I really wanted to be pregnant, but the pregnancy had gone wahoonie-shaped. That’s when abortion is tragic.
    Now, 8 years later I don’t suffer, I’m not deeply traumatized.

  6. Anna Granfors says

    Love her “Marcel The Shell With Shoes On” necklace, too. Marcel is a shell with extraordinary good sense, and was probably the perfect moral support for her. (If you haven’t seen the Marcel videos, copy/paste the quoted words above into your nearest YouTube search engine.)

    I don’t mean to diminish Sarah’s experience in any way by noting her choice of jewelry. She may ultimately have various reactions to her abortion–simply profound relief, some small grief, or something else altogether. But judging by the look on her face, I think she’s just going to go on living, without the complications that having a child that she didn’t want to bring into the world right now would bring.

  7. dianne says

    I’ve never had an abortion. But I do carry enough risk factors for having a pregnancy go bad that I would not have ever intentionally become pregnant if I weren’t in a place where I could get an abortion if I needed one. My daughter owes her life to New York’s abortion laws.

  8. Anri says

    (Puts on trilby) Well, let me tell you my opinion of what she should feel after an abortion:

    My opinion is that my opinion is of no consequence whatsoever, which is just as it should be.
    (Turns out it’s a Jack Skellington trilby)

    Best of luck to Sarah!

  9. John Horstman says

    Congratulations Sarah! I’m so happy for you! Especially given all of the barriers thrown up to prevent people from accessing abortion services, I’m very glad you were able to exercise bodily agency.

  10. ck, the Irate Lump says

    Shouldn’t she be deep in the throes of a deep post-abortion depression in that picture? Certainly the anti-abortionists couldn’t have been lying about that, too, right?

  11. loopyj says

    My abortion was fantastic! Great clinic, great doctors, and fentanyl is a helluva drug. :)

    Honestly, there are two possible joys that only women get to experience: Finding out you’re pregnant when you want to have a baby, and terminating a pregnancy when you don’t.

  12. finisterre says

    Happy for you, Sarah!

    The phrase ‘overwhelming relief’ is becoming a cliché. And there’s a very good reason for that. It’s exactly what I felt too.

  13. roberto sampson says

    Congrats, truly, to everybody here. Very courageous. You’re all heroes. She was able to terminate a pregnancy without allowing her stunted carbuncle of a conscience to interfere. Joining her in emotional numbness masquerading as plain common sense; the winners commenting above, patting each other on the back for their inability to question their own actions, or to even see a necessity for defending them in any way. And apparently this “free thought” blog attracts only people who agree that there are no philosophical/moral issues inherent in killing unborn children. So sure that their utter lack of ethical curiosity is some mark of enlightenment. Keep shouting into this echo chamber you sad sacks, and reflect on the fact that every single studied, sensible, rational belief you have just so happens to coincide with what makes your life less of a hassle, more convenient to you, requiring zero sacrifice/responsibility. Such enlightened, selfish, empty people.

  14. says

    Hey, Roberto Sampson
    Do you have a uterus?
    If not, we’ll just mark you down as another asshole guy who wants to control women’s bodies.
    If you do, feel free to put Michelle Duggar to shame, but leave the rest of us decide for ourselves.

  15. Nick Gotts says

    Keep shouting into this echo chamber you sad sacks, and reflect on the fact that every single studied, sensible, rational belief you have just so happens to coincide with what makes your life less of a hassle, more convenient to you, requiring zero sacrifice/responsibility. – roberto sampson

    Yeah, right, absolutely. When those who regularly comment here help each other out of financial trouble, give to charity, escort women through the harassment of anti-choice fanatics, campaign for political, social and economic justice, risk arrest or worse by taking direct action against corporations trashing the environment, speak up in their private lives to oppose racism, misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, antisemitism.., give their time for voluntary work – that’s all entirely selfish and requires zero sacrifice/responsibility. Of course it is, roberto sampson, of course it is. You just keep telling yourself that comforting lie about people you disagree with.

  16. says

    Well, Nick, apparently the only thing that counts in Roberto’s world is populating the world with children you cannot take care of, making sure everybody is miserable and in pain, because the alternative, getting rid of an embryo that lacks the capacity to experience pain is clearly unethical [/sarcasm]

  17. throwaway, never proofreads, every post a gamble says

    [E]very single studied, sensible, rational belief you have just so happens to coincide with what makes your life less of a hassle, more convenient to you, requiring zero sacrifice/responsibility.

    How much you want to bet Roberto will also be the type to shame single mothers for not having fathers in their child’s life?

  18. azhael says

    Yeah, because you are the one who trully understands the sacrifices and responsabilities involved in somebody else having to make those sacrifices and facing those responsabilities….
    How easy it must for you to ignore the people who own the uteri and lecture them about how a few cells are more valuable than their lives, seeing as you will never be faced with having to make that decission…
    Killing unborn children….jesus fucking christ, how disgustingly dishonest can you people get in your quest to force your will unto women….

    I hope some day as a species we manage to make it possible for males to carry a pregnancy successfully, you can bet your arse this shit about sacrifices and responsabilities over a person’s autonomy and well-being will banish into thin air…

  19. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    And apparently this “free thought” blog attracts only people who agree that there are no philosophical/moral issues inherent in killing unborn children.

    You are patently stupid, ignorant and don’t understand language. There is no such thing as unborn children. Period, end of story. Children are born. It can’t be unborn. Then it is a fetus, and should be called what it is.
    Your stupid sloganeering without intelligence is not an argument, and your patent misogyny of dismissing the full humanity of the woman with bodily autonomy is morally bankrupt. Typical of the anti-choice brigade. Stupid and immoral.

  20. Gen, Uppity Ingrate and Ilk says

    roberto sampson, if you can give me one philosophical or moral ethical argument against abortion that hasn’t been demolished before and isn’t overridden by a woman’s right to bodily autonomy, I’ll do a handstand and whistle Yankee Doodle through my ass.

  21. anteprepro says

    roberto sampson:

    She was able to terminate a pregnancy without allowing her stunted carbuncle of a conscience to interfere.

    This statement is only applicable if terminating a pregnancy is an immoral action that someone with a conscience MUST oppose. You have not established that.

    Joining her in emotional numbness masquerading as plain common sense; the winners commenting above, patting each other on the back for their inability to question their own actions, or to even see a necessity for defending them in any way.

    Inability to question their actions? Assuming one’s position is simple common sense? Not seeing the need to defend your opinions?

    Fucking project much?

    And apparently this “free thought” blog attracts only people who agree that there are no philosophical/moral issues inherent in killing unborn children.

    Ever think that maybe we have had discussions and debates on the matter? I would guess that is likely, because you seem unwilling to actually debate your own position! You just came in here to make indignant noises, whining about how we do not buy into your presumptions. Sorry, but we don’t. We don’t mindlessly accept your assumptions. We do not ignore the elements you ignore. We don’t buy into the pseudoscientific elevation of fetus to full human being. We do not buy the faulty ethical framework that makes pregnancy into an obligation to give birth. And why should we? You can’t even bothered to argue your own points. You are relying on the existence of such arguments “out there”, somewhere. But that’s exactly it: We’ve already seen the vast majority of them, and they are all shit.

    Keep shouting into this echo chamber you sad sacks,

    It is simply amazing how every unique, individualist, non-group thinking, dissenting, rebel going their own way manages to come up with the same “echo chamber” jab. It’s like clockwork.

    and reflect on the fact that every single studied, sensible, rational belief you have just so happens to coincide with what makes your life less of a hassle, more convenient to you, requiring zero sacrifice/responsibility.

    Since you are a man, shouldn’t you think about how your whining about the matter requires zero sacrifice and responsibility? How whether a woman has an abortion or gives birth has no bearing on your body? Shouldn’t you reflect on the fact that this belief you have just so happens to coincide with things that result in the control and suppression of women, and has no effect on how you live your life whatsoever?

    Also: I am a man too. My support of abortion rights does not make my life less of hassle or more convenient and does not result in less sacrifice or less responsibility. Just like your opposition to it, it does not actually affect my life. That is our privilege. I just don’t use my privilege as an excuse to make other people’s lives harder.

    Such enlightened, selfish, empty people.

    Oh no, not selfish. Anything but selfish.

    Again, you are presuming an ethical framework where abortion is inherently and obviously immoral, without bothering to actual argue the point. You can’t even be bothered to copy and paste the usual shitty arguments. Just pure bluster and insinuation.

    Go fuck yourself, you clueless, misogynist shitwad.

  22. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    Well, dismantling Roberto Samson is well in hand.

    Carry on, you good and noble people.

  23. ledasmom says

    Oh, go away, Roberto Sampson. You are boring.
    I lost a pregnancy at around six weeks some years back. Due to, presumably, some hormonal whosiwhattedness I was very “up”, nearly euphoric, while this was going on. I also do not regret this miscarriage, as through not carrying that pregnancy I did carry the subsequent one, and if you gave me the choice of one or the other I would keep the son I have. Feel free to call me a monster with a stunted conscience or whatever. You are an ass.

  24. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    I don’t understand the bit about “lack of ethical curiosity”.

    Easy, we don’t accept his unexamined presuppositions, therefore we must never have considered them *snicker*.
    Considered and dismissed them as irrational presupposition when Roe v. Wade was announced.

  25. twas brillig (stevem) says

    We don’t buy into the pseudoscientific elevation of fetus to full human being.

    Said it before and is only sidetrackable relevant, but I gotta reiterate. Even buying into the pseudoscienmess of elevating the fetus to full being status with all the rights thereof, doesn’t work out the way the forced-birthers want it to. There is no moral obligation to donate ones organs, nor even blood, to maintain an adult person’s life. The Right to Life does not give one the power to demand another’s blood nor organs. So to the “forced-birthers”, you are not simply advocating giving fetuses “full human rights”, you’re giving them more rights; i.e. the right to enslave the mother, to utilize her womb, etc. until the fetus ends it all by “popping out” into the outside world, leaving the womb behind.

  26. Saad says

    roberto, #19

    There are no deep moral or philosophical things to consider. To think there is is just to fall prey to the trick the misogynists and the religious have been successful in pulling on us for centuries.

    It’s as simple as this:

    Her body. Her decision.

    Done.

    Your stupid post also fails by calling it “killing unborn children”.

  27. chigau (違う) says

    So, roberto sampson was a drive-by.
    Although, it’s only been 9 hours. Maybe it’s time zones.

  28. roberto sampson says

    Apologies for taking so long to respond to your points, the devastating moral clarity contained within them forced me to seek the council of a variety of religious/ethical figures in my city. However, each and every Priest, Rabbi, Imam, and Monk were unable to come up with an adequate defense of my silly, old-fashioned contention that the human right to life is non-negotiable. When I told them your responses to this idea, most immediately quit their positions to become accountants. Here is my futile defense to your uber-intellectual free thinking: 

    “Bullshit” & ” Do you have a uterus?”  –  

    MY RESPONSE: I checked, and I don’t. I asked a Police Officer, and apparently, yes, this means I legally can’t say that killing an unborn child is wrong. So, touché. Very good point young lady. And congrats on your uterus and its ability to produce opinions before your brain gets in the mix.  

    “here help each other out of financial trouble, give to charity, escort women through the harassment of anti-choice fanatics, campaign for political, social and economic justice, risk arrest or worse by taking direct action against corporations trashing the environment, speak up in their private lives to oppose racism, misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, antisemitism..”  – 

    MY RESPONSE: When I said that “every single studied, sensible, rational belief you have just so happens to coincide with what makes your life less of a hassle, more convenient to you, requiring zero sacrifice/responsibility” yes, I was absolutely referring to every single aspect of your lives, any good deeds you’ve ever committed, ethical concerns you have, etc., and not the specific “studied, sensible rational” beliefs that contribute to your inability to question whether abortion might not be a fantastic blind spot in your moral vision of reality. Touché again, you are good people otherwise, therefore abortion is correct and moral. Perfect logic. Especially with regards to ableism, which would, I assume, endorse the view that terminating unborn children because they have some developmental issue is the moral thing to do.

    “the only thing that counts in Roberto’s world is populating the world with children you cannot take care of, making sure everybody is miserable and in pain, because the alternative, getting rid of an embryo that lacks the capacity to experience pain is clearly unethical”  –

    MY RESPONSE: Another fantastic truth. I hadn’t realized until the lucky lady with the uterus had deigned to tell me that the alternative to killing unborn children is a world in which everybody is miserable and in pain. Framed in that way, yes, abortion is urgently necessary all the time. I await further empirical proof that not killing unborn children will lead to a world in which “everybody is miserable and in pain,” but at this point its a mere formality, since your possession of a uterus indicates a direct connection to cosmic truth. Thanks once again for the enlightenment. 

    “How much you want to bet Roberto will also be the type to shame single mothers for not having fathers in their child’s life?” : 

    MY RESPONSE: it is absolutely true that when someone disagrees with you about the morality of killing unborn children they must be heartless assholes in some other way; racist? Probably. Woman hater? Most likely. Elderly mugger? Heck yea. Its true that the BEST way to continue in your belief that killing unborn children is just fine and dandy is by assuming that those who disagree with you on the grounds of human rights are hypocrites/nazis/wife beaters/zealots. That way you don’t have to examine your conscience when it comes to the whole unborn children killing thing.

    “How easy it must for you to ignore the people who own the uteri and lecture them about how a few cells are more valuable than their lives”  –

    MY RESPONSE: I asked a local obstetrician and shockingly yes, being pregnant IS a death sentence for the woman. I didn’t even know that! How have we survived thus far as a species with such a faulty birth process??? Thanks azhael! And you got me once again on the whole “uteri” thing. Shucks. Freethoughtblogs, your comment areas must require MENSA membership or something, you guys are tough. 

    “You are patently stupid, ignorant and don’t understand language. There is no such thing as unborn children. Period, end of story. Children are born. It can’t be unborn. Then it is a fetus, and should be called what it is.”
    MY RESPONSE: I wish I understood language. That’d be swell. I’ll deal with how wrong I was on the nonexistence of “unborn children” later on in this mea culpa. 

    “misogyny of dismissing the full humanity of the woman with bodily autonomy” 
    MY RESPONSE: This must be a grammatical structure I was unaware of until now, you must have to think reaaaaally freely to use it… I can’t really argue with this as it makes no sense to me, probably because of the language barrier. My fault, not yours of course. 

    “roberto sampson, if you can give me one philosophical or moral ethical argument against abortion that hasn’t been demolished before and isn’t overridden by a woman’s right to bodily autonomy, I’ll do a handstand and whistle Yankee Doodle through my ass.”

    MY RESPONSE: Finally, someone who isn’t too much of a “free thinker” to actually ask me what I think some of the ethical/moral issues inherent in killing unborn children might be, rather than just calling me a stupid, misogynistic, non-uterus having a-hole. Thanks I’ll be writing something on this at the bottom… 
    Anteprepro: Very good points, I’ll address them after I get through this sarcastic dismissal of the lesser lights on this comment page.  
    Opps I forgot you wrote “Go fuck yourself, you clueless, misogynist shitwad.” Not very nice, but verrrryyyyyy revealing. 

    Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden:  

    MY RESPONSE: Good name, it helps that you identify yourself as unworthy of listening to. 

    ledasmom: Oh, go away, Roberto Sampson. You are boring.
    MY RESPONSE: There is nothing boring in this world, only bores. Which are you?

    “through not carrying that pregnancy I did carry the subsequent one, and if you gave me the choice of one or the other I would keep the son I have.” 

    MY RESPONSE: I keep learning so much about reality from you all. Is your first name Sophie? I hope that whatever world in which your point is relevant to (whether killing unborn children is morally correct) also has ice cream. 

    chigau:
    “I don’t understand the bit about “lack of ethical curiosity”.”

    Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls
    Easy, we don’t accept his unexamined presuppositions, therefore we must never have considered them *snicker*. Considered and dismissed them as irrational presupposition when Roe v. Wade was announced.

    MY RESPONSE: Nothing like a freethinker whose mind magically stops functioning the moment a judicial decision is made. The “lack of ethical curiosity” will be death with  below, but thank you Chigau for not calling me a misogynist asshole fuckwad noob shit brain george bush lover etc.

    twas brillig (stevem): 
    “you are not simply advocating giving fetuses “full human rights”, you’re giving them more rights; i.e. the right to enslave the mother, to utilize her womb, etc.” 

    MY RESPONSE: That is a super strange depiction of pregnancy, are you an undergrad or something? Or perhaps you are a devout Catholic, as the woman being “enslaved,” must have been the unfortunate victim of immaculate conception and had absolutely nothing to do with her pregnancy, or perhaps you think Ridley Scott’s “Alien” is the correct way to look at pregnancy,  in which a malevolent creature “utilizes” a host’s womb to gestate and eventually consume the crew members of an intergalactic mining conglomerate’s spaceship? Personally, I think what really happens is, correct me if I’m wrong, but two adults hug really hard and then a stork comes and shoves a baby inside the woman… right? Its so unfair. Like, why does the stork come? NOBODY EVEN ASKED IT TO! 

    Saad:
    There are no deep moral or philosophical things to consider. To think there is is just to fall prey to the trick the misogynists and the religious have been successful in pulling on us for centuries. It’s as simple as this: Her body. Her decision. Done.Your stupid post also fails by calling it “killing unborn children”.

    MY RESPONSE: Who is the “us” in your conspiracy theory that have been tricked in the past? Those who really wanted to kill unborn children at the time but had the false inkling that this might not be a nice thing to do?? Its almost like you think you know how the world works…but then again if you did you would probably recognize the “deep moral or philosophical things to consider” regarding killing unborn children. Appropriate name by the way, just one less “a” and it would describe you perfectly.

  29. says

    Jebus H Christ on a dildo

    roberto sampson

    There is no such thing as an unborn child. Repeating the phrase ‘unborn children’ does not magically conjure such beings into existence. And even if they did exist, they would have no right to claim, in person or by proxy, the use of another person’s body in order to ensure their own survival.

  30. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Trite Liar and Bullshiteer

    Nothing like a freethinker whose mind magically stops functioning the moment a judicial decision is made.

    Who said my thinking was based on the decision. But rather, the thought experiment, that if I stood across the street from an abortion clinic, and took pictures of everybody going in and leaving, I would never see this “child/baby” that is allegedly being killed. I cannot prove any crime has been committed to any child or baby. Some folks lie and bullshit, and ignore reality, like you. On the other hand, I see pictures of women, fully human, with full bodily autonomy. Which you have shown no evidence, given your linkless screed of mere shallow and presuppositional opinion, to refute. That requires third party evidence.

  31. roberto sampson says

    As to the definition of “unborn children”; human beings use language to describe concepts that they are trying to communicate to other human beings. If they use words to describe those concepts that make it difficult for you to dismiss because of the implications of the concept itself, you cannot redefine those words in order to “win” an argument. This is childish. Or is it against your rules to use the word “childish”, as, in the circumscribed playground in which your mind operates, you are either a child or an adult or a fetus and so cannot exhibit the traits of a child while being above the age of eighteen, as this would be indicative of a belief that childhood might break temporal and spatial barriers thus making it possible to refer to the unborn as “children” just as one might refer to an adult as “childish”? See why you need to stop playing semantics to win arguments?

  32. anteprepro says

    Fucking Christ, why couldn’t chigau have been right?

    However, each and every Priest, Rabbi, Imam, and Monk were unable to come up with an adequate defense of my silly, old-fashioned contention that the human right to life is non-negotiable.

    Well there we go. Game has been given away. That is all you got is the naive and absolutist position that human life is sacred with no ability to accept mitigating circumstances. Toddler levels of moral philosophical thinking. If your moral framework can’t even fit into it “killing in self-defense” then you fucking goofed.

    I asked a local obstetrician and shockingly yes, being pregnant IS a death sentence for the woman. I didn’t even know that! How have we survived thus far as a species with such a faulty birth process??? Thanks azhael!

    You do know that maternal mortality is a thing, right? And here you are, gleefully mocking the idea that pregnancy can be dangerous.

    Slimy fucker.

    Finally, someone who isn’t too much of a “free thinker” to actually ask me what I think some of the ethical/moral issues inherent in killing unborn children might be, rather than just calling me a stupid, misogynistic, non-uterus having a-hole.

    Let me get this straight: You come in here, and insult us and present no argument. Then you get indignant at getting insulted….because what you REALLY wanted was for us to ask if you could kindly give us more about your opinion on the matter.

    Do you communicate with other human beings often?

    Anteprepro: Very good points, I’ll address them after I get through this sarcastic dismissal of the lesser lights on this comment page.
    Opps I forgot you wrote “Go fuck yourself, you clueless, misogynist shitwad.” Not very nice, but verrrryyyyyy revealing.

    How is it very revealing? Is this yet another point where you are imagining your own Common Sense ethical framework and just ignoring the part where you actually have to explain what the fuck you are taking issue with and why?

    Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden:
    MY RESPONSE: Good name, it helps that you identify yourself as unworthy of listening to.

    See above.

    That is a super strange depiction of pregnancy, are you an undergrad or something? Or perhaps you are a devout Catholic, as the woman being “enslaved,” must have been the unfortunate victim of immaculate conception and had absolutely nothing to do with her pregnancy, or perhaps you think Ridley Scott’s “Alien” is the correct way to look at pregnancy, in which a malevolent creature “utilizes” a host’s womb to gestate and eventually consume the crew members of an intergalactic mining conglomerate’s spaceship? Personally, I think what really happens is, correct me if I’m wrong, but two adults hug really hard and then a stork comes and shoves a baby inside the woman… right? Its so unfair. Like, why does the stork come? NOBODY EVEN ASKED IT TO!

    And here we have it: The first actual argument roberto has actually presented. And it is essentially that women are obligated to be pregnant and give birth, because they had sex.

    Do you know what you consent to when you have sex, roberto? Having sex. That’s it. You can get STDs from sex too, but that doesn’t mean that you are henceforth forbidden for seeking medical treatment if that happens, because you consented to clamydia when you consented to sex.

    All you have in your arsenal are idiotic excuses to blame and shame and restrict women.
    Why is that, roberto? Why is that?

  33. says

    Oh gee, do we have an forced birther in the thread?
    It looks like we do.
    I hope they’ve learned how to blockquote correctly.
    I also hope they come away from this thread realizing that women are autonomous human beings with the right to bodily autonomy–a right that all human beings possess. And a right that prevents any other human being from using their body without their consent. So look at that. When you treat women as human beings who get to decide what happens to and with their bodies, there is no problem with abortion. Because even if the fetus is an unborn child…even if the fetus has all the rights that every other living human being has…that still doesn’t give the fetus a right to make use of a woman’s body against her wishes. If a woman wants to be pregnant, then she gives her consent to allow a fetus to sustain itself using her body. If she doesn’t want to be pregnant, there is no consent. So just as no one can compel our resident forced birther to give blood or give a kidney even if it means saving someone else’s life, so too should no one be able to force a woman to remain pregnant against her wishes.

    I do have to laugh at one thing. Xe thought criticizing the use of “unborn child” was an attempt to win an argument.

  34. azhael says

    So, basically, if you have sex you are consenting to the possibility of pregnancy and if it occurs you just suck it up. Also, in most cases a pregnancy is not lethal (then again, in some it fucking is) so a future potential human gets to make use of your body whether you like it or not because that potential matters more than the potential that you might actually die or suffer negative consequence to your health or general well-being. I expect this extends after birth? Would you say that anybody with children is morally obligated under all circumstances to suspend their bodily autonomy for the benefit of their children (as long as it’s not lethal i guess)?
    That’s it, apparently, folks, that’s as far as Roberto has gone to actually make an argument. I’m sure you are all as surprised as i am to encounter such a beast for the first time, as this is certainly revolutionary thinking from a superior mind.
    Regarding one of your ridiculous claims, Roberto, if you ever have a car accident i’m sure you’ll tell the paramedics that you can’t possible accept treatment as you are morally obligated to suffer the consequences of driving a car, which you did in full knowledge of the possibility for an undesired accident. After all, car accidents aren’t always lethal…

  35. says

    roberto sampson #39:

    As to the definition of “unborn children”; human beings use language to describe concepts that they are trying to communicate to other human beings. … [blah blah blah]

    If I try to make it illegal for you to do something on the grounds that your activities are killing Cantabriopottomibeasts, would it not be reasonable of you to point out that Cantabriopottomibeasts don’t exist?

    You wish to make killing ‘unborn children’ illegal. They, like Cantabriopottomibeasts, do not exist.

    Now, please address the actual fucking issue. Why should one being, mythical or not, be granted the right to the use of another person’s body?

  36. anteprepro says

    roberto:

    As to the definition of “unborn children”; human beings use language to describe concepts that they are trying to communicate to other human beings. If they use words to describe those concepts that make it difficult for you to dismiss because of the implications of the concept itself, you cannot redefine those words in order to “win” an argument. This is childish. …. See why you need to stop playing semantics to win arguments?

    Utterly ironic. You use the inaccurate term “unborn children” entirely as emotional blackmail. Terms like fetus or embryo exist, and are more accurate. But you prefer your own term entirely because it is part of a semantic game, taking the personhood of an autonomous, thinking actual child, and covertly shoving it into your description of what is essentially a clump of cells that might someday become the former. You use it to hide your own ignorance, and to keep other people ignorant. To obfuscate and to manipulate. Because that is all you have. Smoke and mirrors. When you look at these matters with precision and clarity, it becomes obvious that you and those like you are know-nothings supported only by righteous indignation at the idea of women not being hindered for the high crime of having sex, and by your moral certitude that only remains firmly in place insofar as your scientific illiteracy is allowed to reign supreme.

    You have nothing. It is obvious. The best thing you have to offer is a bundle of bad jokes. Fuck off already.

  37. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    As to the definition of “unborn children”; human beings use language to describe concepts that they are trying to communicate to other human beings. If they use words to describe those concepts that make it difficult for you to dismiss because of the implications of the concept itself, you cannot redefine those words in order to “win” an argument.

    That is what you forced birthers do, is to make the choice emotional, rather than reason based Unborn Child/Baby is an oxymoron (emphasis on moron) of the highest order. It is meaningless in reality, where what you are talking about is a fetus. You are a sloganeering fuckwit without the ability to do freethinking, which is challenging dogma, namely the dogma of religious persons and their reasons for their stupid arguments. We ignore religious dogma, look at the facts, and see a fully human woman compared to a fetus, who isn’t and won’t be a person until it is born. You lie and bullshit. We see that to. Stop lying and bullshitting to yourself, then you will stop lying and bullshitting to us.

  38. roberto sampson says

    The reason that I responded to this blog post celebrating a young woman’s abortion was the unthinking congratulations proffered by all her supporters, the trivializing of such an ethically fraught subject. I don’t know if I believe in heaven or hell, but one might assume that hell is a reversal of everything that is good and pure, and in such a place, women would be congratulated on their abortions just like they are for the birth of their children, just like this woman was here. The “lack of ethical curiosity” inherent in this tone of frivolity in the face of what is, at best, a moral conundrum, and at worst a great injustice is deeply unsettling.

    Examine yourself, and please understand that if your flippant attitude towards killing unborn children was mixed with the social conventions popular only 50 years ago, and predictive screening technology was only slightly different, all of the people whom you seek to defend now (the gay, the trans, the maligned of society) would be worthy of abortion if their mother judged that bringing them into the world would be too much of a burden. Yet you give the same absolute right of life and death to women now whose prejudices and “unexamined presuppositions”, in 50 years hence, will be seen as benighted in some way or another that we cannot possibly predict. And still, you mock those who would rather play it safe and protect innocents.

    You weigh “bodily autonomy” of the mother more than “actual existence” of the child in the ethical balance, and dare to scoff at those who point out the arrogance and insanity of that position. Bodily autonomy is not an absolute right, read the law on this. The right to life is. Each individual has the right to make decisions about sex, about contraception, about what they do with their bodies, but the moment that their actions result in the creation of life, of another human being, those same rights should be extended to that life. The moment you start negotiating a line at which someone is no longer or not yet a human being is the moment at which all societies have fallen into the hazard. And the result is evidenced here in this blog, where unthinking, amoral moralists sit contented with their views that a woman gets to decide if the life growing inside of her is a human being or not. What logic is there to that?

    Is a human being only a human being when it can sustain itself outside the womb? I know 27 year olds who can’t sustain themselves outside the womb. Is a human being only a human being when they feel pain? A mouse feels pain, and yet we don’t expect it to be a “free thinker” like all of you. Is a human being only a human being when it is no longer “a ball of cells?” From a warped enough perspective, we are all just balls of cells, but I guarantee it you all are much closer to that warped perspective than I am.

    The real, inconvenient fact is that there is no logical point at which a human being becomes a human being, a “person”, other than the point of conception, when an entirely unique combination of DNA comes into existence, an encyclopedia of potential that has never existed before in the 14 billion years of our universe. And you think that if we sneak in early enough to snuff it out we aren’t committing a crime?

    I hate to break it to you, but the road you’re walking towards whatever feminist/progressive utopia you see on the horizon is paved with the unfortunate unwanted victims of your “lack of ethical curiosity.” In the distant past, the unwanted were left to die of exposure, dashed upon rocks, sacrificed to the exigencies of that brief moment in time in the life of a mother, or a father, or a society too weak to provide for the unwanted. Now, we pretend that if we can sneak in, under cover of darkness, before the fetus (which is a human by any sense of the definition) can rightfully be called an infant by our culture’s current (and sure to change) definition of the word, and kill that potentiality, we are somehow within the good.

    Your moral imaginations cannot extend inside the womb to the life of an innocent who did not ask to be brought into this world (although, lets face it, being in a womb does not mean you are not already “in the world”), and you’re lack of imagination is nothing new. Humans have been eating their young when it was convenient to them for millennia. But go on, clap each other on the backs as you chew, secure in your belief that there is no god, that we are just biological robots, that you will never have to make an account of your meal.

  39. says

    roberto:

    I asked a local obstetrician and shockingly yes, being pregnant IS a death sentence for the woman. I didn’t even know that! How have we survived thus far as a species with such a faulty birth process??? Thanks azhael!

    Insensitive asshole much? Women around the world are still dying from pregnancy complications.
    Here’s something that should clear that ignorance up:

    Complications during pregnancy and childbirth are a leading cause of death and disability among women of reproductive age in developing countries. The maternal mortality ratio represents the risk associated with each pregnancy, i.e. the obstetric risk. It is also a MDG indicator.
    http://www.who.int/healthinfo/statistics/indmaternalmortality/en/

    Here is a list of adverse effects of pregnancy:

    Normal, frequent or expectable temporary side effects of pregnancy:

    exhaustion (weariness common from first weeks)
    altered appetite and senses of taste and smell
    nausea and vomiting (50% of women, first trimester)
    heartburn and indigestion
    constipation
    weight gain
    dizziness and light-headedness
    bloating, swelling, fluid retention
    hemmorhoids
    abdominal cramps
    yeast infections
    congested, bloody nose
    acne and mild skin disorders
    skin discoloration (chloasma, face and abdomen)
    mild to severe backache and strain
    increased headaches
    difficulty sleeping, and discomfort while sleeping
    increased urination and incontinence
    bleeding gums
    pica
    breast pain and discharge
    swelling of joints, leg cramps, joint pain
    difficulty sitting, standing in later pregnancy
    inability to take regular medications
    shortness of breath
    higher blood pressure
    hair loss or increased facial/body hair
    tendency to anemia
    curtailment of ability to participate in some sports and activities
    infection including from serious and potentially fatal disease
    (pregnant women are immune suppressed compared with non-pregnant women, and are more susceptible to fungal and certain other diseases)
    extreme pain on delivery
    hormonal mood changes, including normal post-partum depression
    continued post-partum exhaustion and recovery period (exacerbated if a c-section — major surgery — is required, sometimes taking up to a full year to fully recover)
    Normal, expectable, or frequent PERMANENT side effects of pregnancy:

    stretch marks (worse in younger women)
    loose skin
    permanent weight gain or redistribution
    abdominal and vaginal muscle weakness
    pelvic floor disorder (occurring in as many as 35% of middle-aged former child-bearers and 50% of elderly former child-bearers, associated with urinary and rectal incontinence, discomfort and reduced quality of life — aka prolapsed utuerus, the malady sometimes badly fixed by the transvaginal mesh)
    changes to breasts
    increased foot size
    varicose veins
    scarring from episiotomy or c-section
    other permanent aesthetic changes to the body (all of these are downplayed by women, because the culture values youth and beauty)
    increased proclivity for hemmorhoids
    loss of dental and bone calcium (cavities and osteoporosis)
    higher lifetime risk of developing Altzheimer’s
    newer research indicates microchimeric cells, other bi-directional exchanges of DNA, chromosomes, and other bodily material between fetus and mother (including with “unrelated” gestational surrogates)
    Occasional complications and side effects:

    complications of episiotomy
    spousal/partner abuse
    hyperemesis gravidarum
    temporary and permanent injury to back
    severe scarring requiring later surgery
    (especially after additional pregnancies)
    dropped (prolapsed) uterus (especially after additional pregnancies, and other pelvic floor weaknesses — 11% of women, including cystocele, rectocele, and enterocele)
    pre-eclampsia (edema and hypertension, the most common complication of pregnancy, associated with eclampsia, and affecting 7 – 10% of pregnancies)
    eclampsia (convulsions, coma during pregnancy or labor, high risk of death)
    gestational diabetes
    placenta previa
    anemia (which can be life-threatening)
    thrombocytopenic purpura
    severe cramping
    embolism (blood clots)
    medical disability requiring full bed rest (frequently ordered during part of many pregnancies varying from days to months for health of either mother or baby)
    diastasis recti, also torn abdominal muscles
    mitral valve stenosis (most common cardiac complication)
    serious infection and disease (e.g. increased risk of tuberculosis)
    hormonal imbalance
    ectopic pregnancy (risk of death)
    broken bones (ribcage, “tail bone”)
    hemorrhage and
    numerous other complications of delivery
    refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease
    aggravation of pre-pregnancy diseases and conditions (e.g. epilepsy is present in .5% of pregnant women, and the pregnancy alters drug metabolism and treatment prospects all the while it increases the number and frequency of seizures)
    severe post-partum depression and psychosis
    research now indicates a possible link between ovarian cancer and female fertility treatments, including “egg harvesting” from infertile women and donors
    research also now indicates correlations between lower breast cancer survival rates and proximity in time to onset of cancer of last pregnancy
    research also indicates a correlation between having six or more pregnancies and a risk of coronary and cardiovascular disease
    Less common (but serious) complications:

    peripartum cardiomyopathy
    cardiopulmonary arrest
    magnesium toxicity
    severe hypoxemia/acidosis
    massive embolism
    increased intracranial pressure, brainstem infarction
    molar pregnancy, gestational trophoblastic disease
    (like a pregnancy-induced cancer)
    malignant arrhythmia
    circulatory collapse
    placental abruption
    obstetric fistula
    More permanent side effects:
    future infertility
    permanent disability
    death.

    Also, I’m a man and I am 100% in favor of a woman’s right to choose. If she wants to have a child, great. If she doesn’t want to be pregnant and wants to terminate the pregnancy, great. Either way, it’s her life. Her body. Her choice. No fetus…no legislators…no men…no one other than the woman in question gets to decide.

  40. throwaway, never proofreads, every post a gamble says

    roberto sampson @giant wall of poorly formatted text

    throwaway @24

    How much you want to bet Roberto will also be the type to shame single mothers for not having fathers in their child’s life?

    MY RESPONSE: it is absolutely true that when someone disagrees with you about the morality of killing unborn children they must be heartless assholes in some other way; racist? Probably. Woman hater? Most likely. Elderly mugger? Heck yea. Its true that the BEST way to continue in your belief that killing unborn children is just fine and dandy is by assuming that those who disagree with you on the grounds of human rights are hypocrites/nazis/wife beaters/zealots. That way you don’t have to examine your conscience when it comes to the whole unborn children killing thing.

    The implication, honey, is that you have not yet thought through the consequences of outlawing abortion and forcing women to give birth.

    However, each and every Priest, Rabbi, Imam, and Monk were unable to come up with an adequate defense of my silly, old-fashioned contention that the human right to life is non-negotiable.

    Of course they weren’t as it’s all predicated upon a presupposition that god(s) exist and that humanity are its special little creation. You think we’d take that argument seriously here?

  41. says

    roberto @47:

    The reason that I responded to this blog post celebrating a young woman’s abortion was the unthinking congratulations proffered by all her supporters, the trivializing of such an ethically fraught subject

    Actually, the people here have had this discussion many, many times, so the support people have expressed for Sarah comes after having thought about this topic and reached a conclusion. This is not the first abortion related thread people here have participated in. The commentariat here is quite familiar with your objections. Objections I should point out, that have been dismantled for decades. It’s not our fault that you’ve jumped into a discussion on a subject you’re woefully ignorant on.
    Now toddle off and read those links above that I gave you.
    Then read up on bodily autonomy.
    I sincerely hope that you’ll change and become a person who supports women’s rights. There aren’t enough people out there who do and far too many who don’t. Currently you are among the people on this planet who do not support women’s rights. You ought to change that. Now.

  42. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    the trivializing of such an ethically fraught subject.

    Only in your presuppositional delusion mind.

    Examine yourself, and please understand that if your flippant attitude towards killing unborn children

    There are no “unborn children” being born, and you cannot with solid and conclusive physical evidence show it is not a fetus. YOU LIE AND BULLSHIT WITH YOUR DEFINITION OF WHAT IS BEING TERMINATED. Shut the fuck up about that, and you MAY have a glimmering of a rational idea. But I doubt it. Solid religious dogma from A to Z. Not one original thought you present. Just slogans and fuckwittery, easily dismissed by EVIDENCE, which is looking beyond your slogans to reality.

  43. says

    However, each and every Priest, Rabbi, Imam, and Monk were unable to come up with an adequate defense of my silly, old-fashioned contention that the human right to life is non-negotiable.

    I wonder how consistent this belief is.
    Death penalty?
    Torture?
    War?
    Killing in self-defense?
    Or is it just in a discussion of abortion where this right is a concern? Inquiring minds want to know. *I* want to know.

  44. says

    roberto sampson #47:

    Bodily autonomy is not an absolute right, read the law on this. The right to life is.

    Bullshit. Name me one instance in which I could be forced to donate so much as a single drop of my blood, even if the putative recipient needs it n order to save their life. Even if I caused their condition by, for instance, running them over in the street, I could not be legally forced to make such a donation.

  45. Owlmirror says

    As to the definition of “unborn children”; human beings use language to describe concepts that they are trying to communicate to other human beings. If they use words to describe those concepts that make it difficult for you to dismiss because of the implications of the concept itself, you cannot redefine those words in order to “win” an argument. This is childish.

    So . . . you’re being willfully childish?

    After all, the “concept” that was originally being communicated was “embryo at about 5 weeks gestation”.

  46. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Your moral imaginations cannot extend inside the womb to the life of an innocent

    Show me this innocent “person” so I can take a direct picture of it. Your lies and bullshit are that I can’t do that. I can only take pictures of equipment, not of the “child itself”. YOU LIE AND BULLSHIT WITH EVERY POST. SHUT THE FUCK UP. You aren’t saying anything that wasn’t conclusive refuted back in the ’80s.

  47. roberto sampson says

    Quick Wikipedia on Bodily Autonomy:

    United States[edit]
    The United States Constitution does not contain any specific provisions regarding the rights one has with respect to his or her physical body or the specific extent to which the state can act upon bodies.[10] However, the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld rights to privacy, which, as articulated by Julie Lane, often protects rights to bodily integrity. In Griswold v. Connecticut the Court supported women’s rights to obtain birth control (and thus, retain reproductive autonomy) without marital consent. Similarly, a woman’s right to privacy in obtaining abortions (also a key reproductive right) was protected Roe v. Wade. In McFall v. Shimp, the court ruled that a person cannot be forced to donate body parts like bone marrow, even if such a donation would save another person’s life.
    Conversely, the Supreme Court has also protected the right of governmental entities to infringe upon bodily integrity. Examples include laws prohibiting the use of drugs, laws prohibiting euthanasia, laws requiring the use of seatbelts and helmets, strip searches of prisoners, and forced blood tests.[11]

    Note that I didn’t say it was an “absolute” right. The right to life is absolute, although if someone has committed a crime or poses an imminent threat, that right might be lessened. Wait 50 years after society has come to the conclusion that you’re all a very frightening bunch of social darwinians. Congratulations on coming to your conclusions after having multiple discussions on the issue. They are still wrong.

  48. roberto sampson says

    Conclusively refuted in what world? You’re actually saying that because we can’t see an unborn child that it doesn’t exist? Are you anti-telescope or something?

  49. throwaway, never proofreads, every post a gamble says

    You weigh “bodily autonomy” of the mother more than “actual existence” of the child in the ethical balance, and dare to scoff

    *chortle* “dare to scoff!”

    at those who point out the arrogance and insanity of that position.

    Oh how daaaare we scoff at the moral authority of one roberto sampson!

    Bodily autonomy is not an absolute right, read the law on this. The right to life is. Each individual has the right to make decisions about sex, about contraception, about what they do with their bodies, but the moment that their actions result in the creation of life, of another human being, those same rights should be extended to that life.

    I’d cite the thought experiment where there was a near fatal car accident and the only thing keeping the other person alive is your body, but I’m sure you’ve already thought of that.

    The moment you start negotiating a line at which someone is no longer or not yet a human being is the moment at which all societies have fallen into the hazard.

    The hazard? Are we on a fucking golf course?

    And the result is evidenced here in this blog, where unthinking, amoral moralists

    Amoral moralists… great band name, but a horrible presupposition that you are the counter to ‘amoral’. That has not yet been established.

    sit contented with their views that a woman gets to decide if the life growing inside of her is a human being or not. What logic is there to that?

    Nobody has the right to use anyone else’s body to their benefit if it is against the will of the owner of that body. Seems simple enough.

  50. roberto sampson says

    I guess, what you’re all saying is that, if you look at things a certain way, they can comply completely with your self identification as “moral right thinking people.” Sure, if you want to kill unborn children there are all sorts of perfectly logical ways of eliminating the moral considerations, and I’m sure you’re all very good at doing that given the responses on this blog. Societies and cultures have existed in which daily human sacrifice was considered entirely moral and logically consistent. That doesn’t mean it was “right.” If you had six trillion arguments on these benighted pages in which you found a logical justification for killing unborn children, chief amongst them defining the idea of unborn children into nonexistence, you would still be wrong. Because you would be advocating the killing of unborn children. See how that works? I really hope you guys run for office in this or any country. And yet you actually feel that your way of thinking will prevail. You are only a hiccup in the march to true human rights. And you think you are its fruition.

  51. says

    roberto:
    Hold on, let me fix something real quick like.

    The real, inconvenient fact is that there is no logical point at which a human being becomes a human being, a “person”, other than the point of conception, when an entirely unique combination of DNA comes into existence, an encyclopedia of potential that has never existed before in the 14 billion years of our universe. And you think that if we sneak in early enough to snuff it out we aren’t committing a crime? is that no human being-whether they are 98, 53, 19, or a fetus-has the right to use the body of another human being.

    So why are you trying to give fetuses the right to use a woman’s body? That’s not a right that any human has. And since you’re in favor of violating bodily autonomy for the survival of a human being? That knocking on your door will be the doctors looking to drain some of your blood, take one of your kidneys, and use some of your bone marrow to save lives. No, you don’t get to refuse the process.

  52. throwaway, never proofreads, every post a gamble says

    roberto sampson @57

    Conclusively refuted in what world? You’re actually saying that because we can’t see an unborn child that it doesn’t exist? Are you anti-telescope or something?

    It’s refuted due to the fact that “unborn children” is an abstract term not found in reality. You have children and you have fetuses. You have not-yet-dead-men and dead-men. In no way would you ever need to clarify that the killing was of a not-yet-dead-man. Nor would you need to clarify that the removal of tissue was what could be called a not-yet-existing-child.

  53. throwaway, never proofreads, every post a gamble says

    roberto sampson @61

    And yet you actually feel that your way of thinking will prevail. You are only a hiccup in the march to true human rights. And you think you are its fruition.

    I swear I heard some sort of patriotic din as this conclusion was being wrought upon the world in all its cacophonous triviality.

  54. says

    roberto @57:
    I can tell you this…you’re not going to gain any ground here. You may as well pack it in, bc we’ve dealt with you Forced Birthers for many years now. We’re pretty tireless and your shit will not go unchallenged.

    Conclusively refuted in what world? You’re actually saying that because we can’t see an unborn child that it doesn’t exist? Are you anti-telescope or something?

    Wow, are you new to thinking? That’s not at all what was said. People are disagreeing with your use of ‘unborn child’ rather than fetus. ‘Unborn child’ is an anti-choice/Forced Birther term designed to appeal to the emotions and make people view fetuses as if they were a 6 month old baby. Children exist outside of a woman’s body and are not leeching her body of resources to survive. Fetuses exist inside of a woman’s body and do leech resources from her body to survive.
    Once a woman gives birth to a fetus, that’s when it gains the right to life, bc that’s the point where it is deemed to not just be a human being, but a legal person, entitled to rights. It’s at that point that it becomes a child.

  55. Lofty says

    roberto sampson, do you believe that the act of a human ovum fusing with a human sperm automatically and instantly becomes an “unborn child”? Is there a moment where a “soul” is injected by a sky tyrant to seal the fusion? Is magic involved? All I see happening for a considerable time afterwards is cell division, not a fully functional homunculus from day 1. Multicellular blobs have no feelings.

  56. roberto sampson says

    You seem to want to play this post-modern game of defining words that you don’t like into non-existence, when in fact every single concept that we have is abstract. Semantic gymnastics could very easily allow the murder of all sorts of undesirables, though most people don’t find it palatable to do the work. But if you want to define the word fetus, lets google it:

    noun
    an unborn offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human baby more than eight weeks after conception.

    Unborn human baby. Is the dictionary inconvenient to your logical justification for killing unborn human babys? Or have you already discussed how the dictionary defines words in ways that don’t help your arguments, and therefore shouldn’t be read? I’m not really clear on what you all believe…

  57. Owlmirror says

    You weigh “bodily autonomy” of the mother more than “actual existence” of the child in the ethical balance, and dare to scoff at those who point out the arrogance and insanity of that position. Bodily autonomy is not an absolute right, read the law on this. The right to life is.

    I am pretty sure that you are wrong, here. Would you agree that someone with two failed kidneys has a right to one of yours?

    Is a human being only a human being when it can sustain itself outside the womb? I know 27 year olds who can’t sustain themselves outside the womb.

    You know a 27-year-old that is still attached to their mother via an umbilical cord, getting oxygen and other nutrients that way and no other? Their lungs don’t work and their digestive systems don’t work?

    The real, inconvenient fact is that there is no logical point at which a human being becomes a human being, a “person”

    Obviously false, else brain function would not be a measure of when a human is considered dead.

    And you think that if we sneak in early enough to snuff it out we aren’t committing a crime?

    Actually, most people opposed to abortion seem to be of the mind that it is not and should not be a crime to terminate a very early pregnancy. There have been people making arguments similar to yours; to criminalize all abortions by defining a fertilized egg as a person, and thus making abortion legally equivalent to murder. Yet all these efforts have failed, so far. Even opponents of abortion seem to be unwilling to go that far.

    Humans have been eating their young when it was convenient to them for millennia.

    Nonsense. Even when infanticide occurred historically, it was from exposure, not cannibalism.

    But go on, clap each other on the backs as you chew, secure in your belief that there is no god, that we are just biological robots, that you will never have to make an account of your meal.

    Taking into account your hyperbole. . . What makes you think that a hypothetical god would oppose abortion? A huge number of pregnancies fail spontaneously, murdered — according to you — by your god. There’s also the historically high infant mortality rate; your god murders plenty of born children.

  58. Seven of Mine: Shrieking Feminist Harpy says

    Oh look. Another forced-birther who can’t wrap his bigoted brain around the concept that the lives of pregnant people matter. Fetuses = people with unalienable rights. People with uteri = ambulatory incubators whose rights get discarded in the presence of a fetus. Fuck off roberto sampson.

  59. says

    roberto @69:
    I thought you didn’t want to play the dictionary game. I see you’ve also ignored a key thing: even if a fetus were an actual child…even if a fetus could somehow be a 50 year old man…it still would not have the right to use a woman’s body against her permission. Why are you trying to grant fetuses a right that no other human being has? And where does this right stop? Why does this right stop? I mean seriously, if fetuses have the right to use a woman’s body against her wishes, what other circumstances can a human being use the body of another against their wishes?
    You accuse of us not thinking, when you’ve not thought through your position at all. We’ve already dealt with the questions you’ve raised and arrived at our conclusions based on logic, reason, evidence, and empathy.

  60. anteprepro says

    You weigh “bodily autonomy” of the mother more than “actual existence” of the child in the ethical balance, and dare to scoff at those who point out the arrogance and insanity of that position. Bodily autonomy is not an absolute right, read the law on this. The right to life is.

    “Read the law on this”? Really?

    Weren’t you the one who said this?
    “Nothing like a freethinker whose mind magically stops functioning the moment a judicial decision is made.”

    Really?

    Each individual has the right to make decisions about sex, about contraception, about what they do with their bodies, but the moment that their actions result in the creation of life, of another human being, those same rights should be extended to that life.

    Do other people have a right to reside inside of other people’s bodies without permission?
    Do other people have a right to use other people’s organs without permission?

    Why does an Unborn Child get rights that no one else does?

    Just to make it clear: Your ethics are overly simplistic and you are an idiot.

    Is a human being only a human being when they feel pain? A mouse feels pain, and yet we don’t expect it to be a “free thinker” like all of you.

    IS a human being only a human being when they have a body? Well, lions have bodies, are they humans?
    Is a human being only a human being when they aren’t dead? Well, flowers aren’t dead, are they humans?

    Can you even logic?

    The real, inconvenient fact is that there is no logical point at which a human being becomes a human being, a “person”, other than the point of conception, when an entirely unique combination of DNA comes into existence,

    The real inconvenient fact is that you were right until you reached the word “other”. Then you just flat out asserted that zygotes are people, because DNA is magic. I’m sorry, that is just laughable bullshit.

    The right to life is absolute, although if someone has committed a crime or poses an imminent threat, that right might be lessened.

    “Absolute”, but might be lessened.

    Okaaaaaaaay….

    Societies and cultures have existed in which daily human sacrifice was considered entirely moral and logically consistent. That doesn’t mean it was “right.” If you had six trillion arguments on these benighted pages in which you found a logical justification for killing unborn children, chief amongst them defining the idea of unborn children into nonexistence, you would still be wrong. Because you would be advocating the killing of unborn children. See how that works?

    So basically your position that abortion is wrong is just axiomatic. You have no real reason, it is just so. Grand.

    You aren’t worth our time.

  61. Seven of Mine: Shrieking Feminist Harpy says

    protip, roberto @ 69: when you reach the point that your argument rests upon citing the dictionary, it’s time to admit that you have no fucking argument.

  62. says

    The right to life is absolute, although if someone has committed a crime or poses an imminent threat, that right might be lessened.

    Thankfully there’s no evidence that the god of the bible exists, bc if he did, and got angry at humanity again, we might all see our right to life lessened just long enough for the ensuing global genocide to occur.

    Then we’d be dead. BC Yahweh loves killing human beings.

  63. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    The right to life is absolute,

    only in your delusional mind, otherwise Roe V. Wade wouldn’t be the law of the land. YOU LIE AND BULLSHIT WITH EVERY POST. Proven liars and bullshitter can be dismissed without third party evidence, WHICH IS ALSO MISSING FROM YOUR POSTS.
    Your opinion is dismissed as fuckwittery, as there is no evidence for it. So, what is your options? Shutting the fuck up is the only honest and with integrity response. YOU ARE NOT CAPABLE OF RESPONDING WITH HONESTY AND INTEGRITY.

  64. Owlmirror says

    Note that I didn’t say it was an “absolute” right. The right to life is absolute, although if someone has committed a crime or poses an imminent threat, that right might be lessened.

    Um, no. Any right that is “lessened” is by definition non-absolute.

    I realize you want to have it both ways, but you can’t have it both ways.

    an unborn offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human baby more than eight weeks after conception.

    So you agree that you have no argument here, in this case, when the embryo was less than eight weeks? Aborting a five-week embryo is OK?

  65. ledasmom says

    I also note that Roberto Sampson does not appear to comprehend that, if somebody had the power to retroactively bring the embryo I lost to term, in the process disposing of the son I have, one or the other would be gone in either case; also he does not appear to comprehend the word “miscarriage”; also, hypotheticals appear to be beyond him. Also, and I cannot say this often enough, he is boring. I do not know what sort of revelation he expects us to have as a result of his pointless commenting, but frankly I’d rather go through another miscarriage than see any more of him.

  66. roberto sampson says

    No, I’ll play the dictionary game because the rest of the world doesn’t believe in the language you’ve created on this silly little site to justify your beliefs. You have no empathy. You’ve simply closed your eyes to the lives that your “logic” deems unworthy.

    Does a human being have the right to “leech resources” from another? I guess that’s the way you’ve all chosen to define what happens during pregnancy huh? And tell me again how your world view is anything but depraved?

    Infanticide was extremely common in all human societies before the advent of the abrahamic religions. It was done through exposure and outright homicide. If you’d like to hear about the eating or sacrificing of children throughout human culture pre-christianity maybe you should read a book or two not endorsed by the nincompoop atheists you revere. Its always so funny to me that atheists call out this so-called “tyrant” god for asking abraham to sacrifice his son, and then use this “tyranny” to dismiss god, and thus claim that there’s nothing inherently wrong with killing unborn children. Yikes, there goes that phrase again….I thought you guys said it didn’t exist? Unborn children. Holy shoot there it is again, A UNICORN.

  67. roberto sampson says

    Hahaha basically in your super logical, reasoned world, pregnancy is equivalent to a stranger somehow infesting a woman’s womb, holding her hostage for those sweet sweet bodily fluids. Warped and depraved. Good luck to you all in getting a date. Haha holy crap ya weirdos.

  68. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    You have no empathy.

    Wrong liar and bullshitter, we have empathy for the proven and evidence person, the woman. We have no empathy for something that is more of person than the woman in YOUR DELUSIONAL MIND.

    Infanticide

    Abortion isn’t infanticide, EXCEPT IN YOUR DELUSIONAL MIND WHERE A FETUS IS A PERSON OF MORE HUMANITY THAN THE WOMAN.
    Stop your lying an bullshitting. Nobody here is impressed with your delusions. Prima facie evidence: The oxymoron: Unborn children. They don’t exist except in your diseased mind.

  69. roberto sampson says

    Does this stuff work on your Grindr profiles? “About me: Babies are parasites. We can kill them : ) : ) : )”

  70. roberto sampson says

    MORE HUMANITY. You can measure humanity now can you? Humanity is an abstract thought. You’d have to have beliefs in an immaterial truth to humanity to actually measure it. Because you obviously don’t, you can’t use it to argue a damned thing.

  71. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    About me: Babies are parasites. We can kill them

    WRONG FUCKWIT. There are no babies in the womb. ONLY FETUSES.
    Your slogans show with prima facie evidence you can’t think.

  72. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    You can measure humanity now can you? H

    Yes, born people, versus fetuses occupying real people, with full bodily autonomy, called women. If you won’t see that, you show you are with prima facie evidence a misogynist, thinking women are third class citizens, behind males and fetuses. Whereas I see them as the equivalent of male, and fetuses as a half assembled what the fuck ever.

  73. anteprepro says

    You know, roberto, it would really help your comedy routine if you actually had any fucking idea what you were talking about. No matter how many witty cultural references you can squeeze into a bit, it all fall flats when the entire sketch is based on faulty, ill-informed assumptions. Unless we are just supposed to laugh at your incompetence and the absurdity of it all. In which case, well done.

  74. says

    roberto @81:
    Any chance you’ll quote the comment and nym of the person you’re responding to?

    Does a human being have the right to “leech resources” from another? I guess that’s the way you’ve all chosen to define what happens during pregnancy huh? And tell me again how your world view is anything but depraved?

    I can just imagine how you’d respond if I’d gone with my first coughcoughparasitecoughcough choice. I guess you don’t think that fetuses leech resources from the pregnant woman? How do you think a fetus survives then? You can argue about my word choice all you want, but to survive, a fetus has to use a woman’s body. That’s leeching resources. You might know that if you knew a damn thing about pregnancy.

    I notice you didn’t answer the question either.

    Infanticide was extremely common in all human societies before the advent of the abrahamic religions. It was done through exposure and outright homicide. If you’d like to hear about the eating or sacrificing of children throughout human culture pre-christianity maybe you should read a book or two not endorsed by the nincompoop atheists you revere. Its always so funny to me that atheists call out this so-called “tyrant” god for asking abraham to sacrifice his son, and then use this “tyranny” to dismiss god, and thus claim that there’s nothing inherently wrong with killing unborn children. Yikes, there goes that phrase again….I thought you guys said it didn’t exist? Unborn children. Holy shoot there it is again, A UNICORN.

    You’re such a smugnoramus.
    No one has said that there is no human being in the womb of a pregnant women. Yes. There is a human being in the body of a pregnant woman. We aren’t calling it an “unborn child” because children are *born*. Fetuses are not. Inside the mother, it’s a fetus. Outside the mother, it’s a child.

    Your infanticide non-sequitor is just that. I know you think you’ve got a point, but you don’t. Infanticide is not the same thing as abortion. You’re so fond of dictionaries, you ought to go check the definitions of both words. I’ll even give you a head’s up: only one of those terms means the termination of a pregnancy.

    So, when are you going to get around to answering whether or not a human being has the right to leech resources from another human?
    Or phrased differently since you have such delicate fee fees do you think a human being has the right to use another’s body against their wishes?

  75. Owlmirror says

    Infanticide was extremely common in all human societies before the advent of the abrahamic religions.

    And afterwards as well.

    If you’d like to hear about the eating or sacrificing of children throughout human culture pre-christianity maybe you should read a book or two not endorsed by the nincompoop atheists you revere.

    You mean like the bible, where God murders millions of born children, and where God says he will make people eat their children?

    Its always so funny to me that atheists call out this so-called “tyrant” god for asking abraham to sacrifice his son.

    Hm. But abraham’s son was a born child (actually a young man, according to later commentary). Are you saying that it’s OK to murder people once they are born?

    There is no inconsistency of us, because of course we would argue that Isaac — once he was born — did have a right to bodily autonomy and life.

    and then use this “tyranny” to dismiss god, and thus claim that there’s nothing inherently wrong with killing unborn children

    Once again, I’ll point out that God murders millions of born children in the bible. And in real life, God causes millions of abortions. Isn’t he murdering the “unborn children” himself, according to you?

  76. says

    roberto sampson #81:

    When you’re done with the appeals to emotion, please answer the point raised by myself, Tony, Seven of Mine, anteprepro and others. (It’s not that I think you’re avoiding the question… Oh hold on, yes, I think you’re avoiding the question.)

    In what cases is any person, anywhere, given the legal right to the use of a second person’s body, or parts thereof, without that second person’s permission?

    If you cannot name any other cases, why are you demanding the extension of more rights to foetuses than are granted to fully-formed human beings?

  77. says

    roberto @82:

    Hahaha basically in your super logical, reasoned world, pregnancy is equivalent to a stranger somehow infesting a woman’s womb, holding her hostage for those sweet sweet bodily fluids.

    Not that far off-base actually. Human being. In pregnant woman’s body. Uses resources for nine months.

    Warped and depraved. Good luck to you all in getting a date. Haha holy crap ya weirdos.

    I’ve dated more than my share of men. My support for the reproductive rights of women hasn’t been an obstacle to my dating life.

  78. says

    roberto @84:

    Does this stuff work on your Grindr profiles? “About me: Babies are parasites. We can kill them : ) : ) : )”

    Real subtle on the homophobia there.
    Fucking shitspigot.

    (btw, we recognize that babies and fetuses are not the same thing. You won’t find anyone around here supporting infanticide.)

  79. throwaway, never proofreads, every post a gamble says

    The not-yet children in their not-yet cribs, snuggled by their not-yet blankets and grinning their not-yet grins. The mother, in her not-yet panic about her not-yet financial problems. How to afford the not-yet diapers? Who will provide the not-yet daycare? Yet all the not-yets which should be considered, according to the not-yet saints, are the not-yet sufferers in their not-yet life. These not-yets are stirring in the at-present mind of an at-present woman making decisions that will save the not-yet child, and may solve her not-yet problems.

  80. anteprepro says

    Tony!: He refuses to admit that there is any difference between abortion and infanticide. Even if he did, I’m sure he would shriek out “slippery slope”. The infanticide angle has become his big new theme here. Though he is now adding in Biblical mumbo-jumbo and casual homophobia, so maybe he is gonna transform into a full-fledged fundagelical rethuglican troll.

  81. throwaway, never proofreads, every post a gamble says

    When are women people? Not yet, say the not-yet saints.

  82. Owlmirror says

    Just to recap:

    The original post is not about infanticide. It is not about terminating a fetus even close to viability. It is about ending a five-weeks-gestation embryo.

  83. anteprepro says

    Roberto is one step away from singing “Every Sperm is Sacred”

    Also, roberto, if you believed what you believed, why you are not at a funeral right now?

    http://miscarriage.about.com/od/riskfactors/a/miscarriage-statistics.htm

    Your precious zygotes and embryos are dying in droves. Silently and unnoticed. No one weeps for them. But you know that they are Living Human Beings, with Unique DNA! You know that they are morally equivalent to children that are walking, talking, thinking, breathing, and feeling! Why do you not spread the word about their horrible fates? Why do you not find them the world’s smallest coffins and the world’s smallest tombstones? Why do you not attend their funerals? Why do you not weep for them?

  84. says

    Why do you not spread the word about their horrible fates? Why do you not find them the world’s smallest coffins and the world’s smallest tombstones? Why do you not attend their funerals? Why do you not weep for them?

    Why do you not curse the god you worship for killing them?

  85. anteprepro says

    Owlmirror:

    Just to recap:
    The original post is not about infanticide. It is not about terminating a fetus even close to viability. It is about ending a five-weeks-gestation embryo.

    You filthy moral relativists and your filthy logic and your filthy math and your filthy scientific distinctions between things. Killing an embryo inside of you is just like taking a 12 year old and throwing them into a pool of hydrochloric acid. It is the same, and you will know that it is the same when your terrible horrible aborting ways leads to throwing 12 year olds into pools of hydrochloric acid! Then you will see! Then you will all see!

  86. anteprepro says

    Ooo, Tony!, this is the bit where we find out whether he REALLY supports “Every Sperm is Sacred” or not. Everyone, get your youtube ready so that we can all join in for the chorus!

  87. Owlmirror says

    Killing an embryo inside of you is just like taking a 12 year old and throwing them into a pool of hydrochloric acid taking them up a mountain, binding them on an altar, cutting their throat, and setting them on fire, for the greater glory of Yahweh Elohim.

    FTFY

  88. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Conclusion: Abortion saves souls.

    But, without any conclusive physical evidence that souls exist, this is a presuppositional and fuckwitted presupposition without evidence, and therefore dismissed without evidence….. Why can’t forced birthers see that?

  89. roberto sampson says

    To define pregnancy as “the use of a second person’s body” to sustain life is proof positive evidence of your inhumanity. You equate unborn children with mosquitoes or tape-worms, and you wonder why your ideology will never win. Most people haven’t had enough time to allow their reason to drive them mad. You have.

    However I will venture a defense of your inhuman, reductionist definition of pregnancy (please note the following assumes consensual sex, healthy pregnancy etc.): Stripped of gender, you say that a “human body” has the right to bodily autonomy. Since you have no definition of when a “human body” becomes a “human body,” ( and I would say the idea of answering the question scares you) and because the “location” of a human body does not determine whether it is a “human body,” we can assume that pregnancy, in the terms of “bodily autonomy” is nothing more than one Human Body inside of another Human Body.

    1) All Human Body’s have the right to Bodily Autonomy.

    2) If a Human Body begin’s to exist inside of another Human Body, and an act of aggression is required to remove that Human Body from the Outer Human Body, then the Inner Human Body’s right to Bodily Autonomy has been infringed.

    OR

    1) All Human Bodies Have the right to Bodily Autonomy, no matter the location of said Human Body.

    2) A Reproductive Act is a biological function that may result in the production of a Human Body.

    3) Human Bodies that consent to a Reproductive Act implicitly consent to the possibility of creating another Human Body.

    4) If a Human Body Begins to Exist as a result of a Consenting Reproductive Act, the right to Bodily Autonomy is inherent to the Human Body that began to exist inside of the consenting Human Body.

  90. roberto sampson says

    And yes I believe that contraception should be freely available, do not believe in sperm being sacred, and do not think that you need to believe in god to be pro-life. I think at the very least you need to be a little bit humble about where negotiating the levels of humanity has gotten us throughout history.

  91. anteprepro says

    More of roberto’s idiocies:

    If a Human Body begin’s to exist inside of another Human Body, and an act of aggression is required to remove that Human Body from the Outer Human Body, then the Inner Human Body’s right to Bodily Autonomy has been infringed.

    First, no their bodily autonomy is not being infringed by being removed.
    Second, define act of aggression.
    Third, you conveniently elide the fact that the bodily autonomy of the “outer human” is being infringed upon. Great work.

    Human Bodies that consent to a Reproductive Act implicitly consent to the possibility of creating another Human Body.

    And, no, they don’t. Already mentioned the idiocy of this assumption in the post that you skipped over because I was insufficiently polite to you. Consenting to sex is not consenting to pregnancy is not consenting to birth. Just like consenting to sex is not consenting to STDs is not consenting to avoid treatment of STDs.

  92. Lofty says

    Data point: making abortion illegal does not make abortion rates drop, it only makes abortions unsafe.

    ABORTION LAW

    • Highly restrictive abortion laws are not associated with lower abortion rates. For example, the abortion rate is 29 per 1,000 women of childbearing age in Africa and 32 per 1,000 in Latin America—regions in which abortion is illegal under most circumstances in the majority of countries. The rate is 12 per 1,000 in Western Europe, where abortion is generally permitted on broad grounds.

    Source

  93. anteprepro says

    roberto sampson:

    I think at the very least you need to be a little bit humble about where negotiating the levels of humanity has gotten us throughout history.

    I think you need to be a lot of a bit humble. About everything.

    Also, yes, we get it, you are trying to Godwin the thread without actually using the word Nazi or Hitler. You’ve done it. Good for you. Your slippery slope is still just a slippery slope, so fuck off already.

  94. roberto sampson says

    Also if you’re talking globally, consent to being an organ donor is not required, but implicit, in many European countries. That is, if you die in an accident it doesn’t matter if you’ve consented to be a donor, you’re viable organs will be used to save the life of someone to whom you’ve not given permission or consent. When you realize that life and death is more important than bodily autonomy, maybe you’ll be able to come back in from the cold of your logic and reasoning.

  95. says

    roberto @110:

    To define pregnancy as “the use of a second person’s body” to sustain life is proof positive evidence of your inhumanity. You equate unborn children with mosquitoes or tape-worms, and you wonder why your ideology will never win. Most people haven’t had enough time to allow their reason to drive them mad. You have.

    ::scratches head…looks around:::
    Did anyone in this thread define pregnancy as “the use of a second person’s body”? No? Didn’t think so.
    Pretty sure the commenters here understand that pregnancy is the development of an embryo or fetus inside a uterus.

  96. anteprepro says

    Disingenuous fuckwit, are you ever made to donate organs when you are STILL ALIVE? You know, the point in a person’s existence when your rights apply and actually matter? The fact that countries like the U.S. respect some bodily autonomy rights even when people aren’t even fucking alive does nothing to undermine the importance of bodily autonomy: It just illustrates the ridiculous level of priority it is given, even to fucking corpses. And it makes it even more ridiculous that pregnant women don’t get the same rights or same level of concern.

    Why don’t you try logic and reasoning for a change? It might be refreshing, at least for us.

  97. anteprepro says

    An Exercise in Incomplete Lists.

    Today, presents….

    Things more important than living, breathing, thinking, and feeling girls and women:

    Fetuses.
    Embryos.
    Zygotes.
    roberto’s icky feeling about abortion.
    And corpses.

  98. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    When you realize that life and death is more important than bodily autonomy,

    Whose death, the non-person, or the Fully Human Female with full bodily autonomy, or your imaginary child/baby in the womb of said female, fully human with complete bodily autonomy?
    YOU LOSE LOSER. YOU HAVE NO COGENT ARGUMENT.

  99. says

    roberto sampson #117:

    Also if you’re talking globally, consent to being an organ donor is not required, but implicit, in many European countries. That is, if you die in an accident it doesn’t matter if you’ve consented to be a donor, you’re viable organs will be used to save the life of someone to whom you’ve not given permission or consent. When you realize that life and death is more important than bodily autonomy, maybe you’ll be able to come back in from the cold of your logic and reasoning.

    When you’re dead, you no longer exist as a person, and therefore have no rights.

  100. roberto sampson says

    Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls
    20 December 2014 at 8:03 pm
    When you realize that life and death is more important than bodily autonomy,
    Whose death, the non-person, or the Fully Human Female with full bodily autonomy, or your imaginary child/baby in the womb of said female, fully human with complete bodily autonomy?
    YOU LOSE LOSER. YOU HAVE NO COGENT ARGUMENT.

    Haven’t argued yet for forcing a woman to die in child birth. You’re not actually reading what I’m saying are you? If a woman can bring a baby to term without a danger to her life, her rights to Bodily Autonomy are ethically meaningless when compared to her Baby’s right to life.

  101. roberto sampson says

    Also, please define when a non-person becomes a person. How is someone fully human? When is complete bodily autonomy conferred upon said “full human.”

  102. anteprepro says

    I wonder when roberto is going to talk about the full humanity of corpses. Corpses are people too! They have unique human DNA! You know the HORRORS of people defining others as “not truly human”, do you want that happen here!? If you define corpses as not people, and strip them of property rights, and bury them in the ground or burn them without their express verbal consent, then it is slippery slope until all old people are forced into old folks homes that are also concentration camps.

  103. says

    roberto @110:

    If a Human Body begin’s to exist inside of another Human Body, and an act of aggression is required to remove that Human Body from the Outer Human Body, then the Inner Human Body’s right to Bodily Autonomy has been infringed.

    Does the inner human body have the right to make use of the resources of the outer human body?
    Even *if* fetii were granted bodily autonomy that doesn’t also grant the fetus a right to use a woman’s body to survive.

    However I will venture a defense of your inhuman, reductionist definition of pregnancy (please note the following assumes consensual sex, healthy pregnancy etc.): Stripped of gender, you say that a “human body” has the right to bodily autonomy.

    No. A human person has human rights. Though biologically human, a fetus isn’t a person. It has no human rights.

    And even if a fetus had human rights, none of those human rights includes the right to live inside of and leech the resources off another human being.

    You are so in over your head here.

    If a Human Body begin’s to exist inside of another Human Body, and an act of aggression is required to remove that Human Body from the Outer Human Body, then the Inner Human Body’s right to Bodily Autonomy has been infringed.

    You don’t understand bodily autonomy. Nor do you yet comprehend that the fetus has no right to be inside a pregnant woman if she doesn’t consent.

    @117:

    Also if you’re talking globally, consent to being an organ donor is not required, but implicit, in many European countries. That is, if you die in an accident it doesn’t matter if you’ve consented to be a donor, you’re viable organs will be used to save the life of someone to whom you’ve not given permission or consent. When you realize that life and death is more important than bodily autonomy, maybe you’ll be able to come back in from the cold of your logic and reasoning.

    So you’re fine with doctors forcibly taking one of your kidneys so that Person X in Kalamazoo- who will die without a kidney transplant-will survive?
    You’re fine with someone forcibly taking pints of your blood to a blood bank–against your wishes–so that others might survive?
    And bone marrow? There are people out there in need of bone marrow transplants. You will have some of your bone marrow taken against your will so that others can survive.

  104. anteprepro says

    If a woman can bring a baby to term without a danger to her life, her rights to Bodily Autonomy are ethically meaningless when compared to her Baby’s right to life.

    That’s, just, like, your opinion, man.

    Also: Not a baby.

    Also also: your moral reasoning still seems to be toddler level at best.

  105. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Haven’t argued yet for forcing a woman to die in child birth.

    Irrelevant fuckwit.

    You’re not actually reading what I’m saying are you?

    Yes, you are a typical forced birth fuckwit without cogency, and EVIDENCE.
    WHERE IS YOUR REFUTATION TO MY THOUGHT EXPERIMENT ABOVE? Easy stupid, you don’t have one, and we both know that. LIAR AND BULLSHITTER.

  106. roberto sampson says

    So-called “Consent to Birth” is very problematic to you follks, because, of course, who is a mother giving consent to if not the other party in the transaction? But if that Consent is possible than the mother must indeed be giving Consent to the Unborn Child, which would follow logically that the Unborn Child is a Legal Person capable of receiving Consent from its Mother.

    Bodily Autonomy in the case of organ donations in European Nations where consent is automatic nationwide in the event of death: The state has recognized the supremacy of the right to life over the right to bodily autonomy in its dismissal of the requirement of consent on the part of the donating party. Seems logical and humane.

    Bodily autonomy’s inferior status to the right to life in the case of pregnancy would be further supported considering both the Mother and the Unborn Child are actually alive.

  107. says

    roberto @125:

    If a woman can bring a baby to term without a danger to her life, her rights to Bodily Autonomy are ethically meaningless when compared to her Baby’s right to life.

    You didn’t need to express your horrible misogyny in such naked terms; we already knew how you felt from your first post. You view women as less than human. You think they should be enslaved to a fetus for nine months, bc you think fetii have the right to use their bodies.

    I don’t think I’ve said it yet, but holy fuck…you’re an incredibly vile shitstain.

  108. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Also, please define when a non-person becomes a person.

    Ever hear of Birth, with irrevocable changes? You lose again abject loser. Until you understand the difference of in the womb to outside of the womb, you are one fool to be IGNORED.

  109. says

    roberto @132, further showing how much he doesn’t understand what he’s talking about:

    Bodily Autonomy in the case of organ donations in European Nations where consent is automatic nationwide in the event of death: The state has recognized the supremacy of the right to life over the right to bodily autonomy in its dismissal of the requirement of consent on the part of the donating party. Seems logical and humane.

    Dead people don’t have bodily autonomy. There’s no violation there. Only living human beings possess legal personhood and the rights conferred as a result. None of those rights includes the right to use others’ bodies against their consent.

  110. anteprepro says

    roberto

    But if that Consent is possible than the mother must indeed be giving Consent to the Unborn Child, which would follow logically that the Unborn Child is a Legal Person capable of receiving Consent from its Mother.

    Word games. Is that really all you have left?

    Bodily Autonomy in the case of organ donations in European Nations where consent is automatic nationwide in the event of death: The state has recognized the supremacy of the right to life over the right to bodily autonomy in its dismissal of the requirement of consent on the part of the donating party. Seems logical and humane

    THE DONATING PARTY IS DEAD, YOU FUCKING IMBECILE.

  111. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Seems logical and humane.

    Only to forced presuppisitional birther. In other words, a STUPID FUCKWITTED IDJIT.

  112. roberto sampson says

    If an unborn child is only allowed to live inside of its mother with her consent, she is implicitly giving consent to the unborn child, which confers the status of legal person upon the unborn child. If a woman denies consent to the unborn child’s living inside of her, the mother is implicitly conferring the status of legal person upon the unborn child as she has declined to give him consent, and only a legal person can be declined consent. Therefore, if a female wants to abort her unborn child, she must deny that unborn child consent, thereby conferring legal personhood upon that child, and full protection under the law.

    Consent to Birth operates in the same way. If you want to get legalistic about the woman’s legal rights than pregnancy has to be seen as a legal transaction. A legal transaction must take place between at least two legal persons. Tough avenue for you all.

  113. The Mellow Monkey says

    roberto sampson @ 132

    Bodily Autonomy in the case of organ donations in European Nations where consent is automatic nationwide in the event of death: The state has recognized the supremacy of the right to life over the right to bodily autonomy in its dismissal of the requirement of consent on the part of the donating party.

    [Bolding mine.]

    A dead body does not possess bodily autonomy because it is no longer biologically autonomous. You’re comparing the rights of living, autonomous people to the treatment of dead bodies. Do you not grasp the problem?

  114. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    If an unborn child is

    Every thing beyond this point is stupidity. there is no such thing as an “unborn child”. There is a fetus, and if you won’t/can’t use the proper terminology, you have no cogent argument. You have nothing but stupidity.

  115. says

    roberto sampson #132:

    So-called “Consent to Birth” is very problematic to you follks, because, of course, who is a mother giving consent to if not the other party in the transaction? But if that Consent is possible than the mother must indeed be giving Consent to the Unborn Child, which would follow logically that the Unborn Child is a Legal Person capable of receiving Consent from its Mother.

    What? The only time the phrase ‘consent to birth’ appears on this entire page is in your own comment.

    Bodily Autonomy in the case of organ donations in European Nations where consent is automatic nationwide in the event of death: The state has recognized the supremacy of the right to life over the right to bodily autonomy in its dismissal of the requirement of consent on the part of the donating party. Seems logical and humane.

    This has been answered. Please note that continuing to raise issues which have already addressed is behaviour which may get you banned from the thread. See the rules.

    Bodily autonomy’s inferior status to the right to life in the case of pregnancy would be further supported considering both the Mother and the Unborn Child are actually alive.

    And this has also already been addressed. You’ve cited no cases where a person’s body or parts thereof may be used by another person, so even if we go with your inane ‘unborn child’ definition of ’embryo,’ you’ve failed to show why that ‘unborn child’ should have such rights.

    Please address the actual arguments placed before you, and quit ignoring what people are saying.

  116. says

    roberto @132 demonstrating that logic…he has it not:

    So-called “Consent to Birth” is very problematic to you follks, because, of course, who is a mother giving consent to if not the other party in the transaction? But if that Consent is possible than the mother must indeed be giving Consent to the Unborn Child, which would follow logically that the Unborn Child is a Legal Person capable of receiving Consent from its Mother.

    Despite the efforts of you forced birthers pushing fetal personhood bills, fetuses do not have human rights.

    Also, in your example above? The woman also has the right to deny consent, since no one has the right to use another person’s body against their wishes. Yes, many women consent to remain pregnant. They wish for the fetus to fully develop within them. Other women do not consent to remaining pregnant and want to terminate their pregnancy. All women should have the right to make whatever reproductive decisions they choose.

    BTW, why do fetii get the extra special right to use the body of another human being, but the rest of us don’t? If I were dying right now and needed a kidney transplant to survive, I can’t compel anyone to give me one. I don’t have that right. No one has that right. So why are you giving this extra right to a fetus?

    BTW, none of this is problematic to us.

  117. anteprepro says

    roberto, Internet Attorney:

    Therefore, if a female wants to abort her unborn child, she must deny that unborn child consent, thereby conferring legal personhood upon that child, and full protection under the law.

    Sounds legit. *tokes* You should have totally gone to law school, man.

  118. says

    roberto @138:

    If an unborn child is only allowed to live inside of its mother with her consent, she is implicitly giving consent to the unborn child, which confers the status of legal person upon the unborn child.

    You write the law now?

    And, once again, since you can’t comprehend this: even if a fetus were a full, legal person, with all the rights that other people have, none of those rights includes the right to dwell within and use the body of another–in this case, a pregnant woman–against their wishes. You’re trying to grant fetuses an extra right that no human being has and you’ve yet to explain why, let alone justified your reasoning.

  119. roberto sampson says

    So we’ve had the argument that a woman must give her consent to go take a pregnancy to term. As I’ve shown, this doesn’t work if you seek to deny the unborn child legal person hood.

    We’ve also had bodily autonomy: An argument that presupposes that bodily autonomy outweighs the right to life, which is yet to be seen.

    All you have left is: when does a person have the right to live off of another person’s body, leeching its nutrients. Not a very good argument because there are very many absolutely unique legal realities that cannot be analogized, and in the case of two legal persons with competing interests: for the mother, bodily autonomy, the unborn child, bodily autonomy (as I’ve shown in the above “All Human Bodies Have the Right to Bodily Autonomy”) AND the right to life, in a court of law the legal person with the absolute most to lose in the court’s decision, and without the added factor of fault which is possessed by the mother, any decision would come down upon the side of the unborn child.

  120. anteprepro says

    The “consent to birth” thing is probably based on my 114. Where I also say “consent to sex is not consent to STDs”. So he could use the same “logic” to argue that I am somehow claiming the legal personhood of STDs. Instead of, you know, using the term in a broader sense and not in a specific legal sense. Heaven forbid, right?

  121. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Roberto, I” still waiting across the street from the abortion clinic to PHOTOGRAPH your claim that some baby/child is being killed. Until you are able to refute such direct and conclusive physical evidence of there not being any children/babies being killed, YOU ARE NOTHING BUT A LIAR AND BULLSHITTER.
    Show some honesty and integrity, Either refute with better than direct photographic evidence, or admit you can’t do so. Otherwise, every statement by you is prima facie evidence you don’t get the picture, and therefore, the conclusive physical evidence.

  122. Saad says

    roberto,

    Who is the “us” in your conspiracy theory that have been tricked in the past? Those who really wanted to kill unborn children at the time but had the false inkling that this might not be a nice thing to do?? Its almost like you think you know how the world works…but then again if you did you would probably recognize the “deep moral or philosophical things to consider” regarding killing unborn children.

    Nah, no philosophical stuff. Just simply this:

    When there’s a fetus inside a person’s body, that person gets to decide, not roberto.

    Your stupid superstitions about magic human fetus are just amusing. They’re nothing I’m taking seriously. You think you’re some champion of human rights, but you’re just an idiotic misogynist. You just want to tell women what to do with their bodies.

  123. roberto sampson says

    IF All these things were decided in a court of law between two legal persons. Which is where it’d have to be decided if you want to use all your Consent to Birth, Consent to Conception legalisms. So I’m going to get drunk, you people really have nothing to offer in the way of arguments that actually make sense. Just armchair legalese and inept attempts to redefine terms that you find uncomfortable. Have good lives lovelies.

  124. Saad says

    roberto, #150

    inept attempts to redefine terms that you find uncomfortable.

    Like you with bodily autonomy, child, fetus and rights.

    Glad you decided to fuck off.

  125. anteprepro says

    Judge Roberto Presiding:

    So we’ve had the argument that a woman must give her consent to go take a pregnancy to term. As I’ve shown, this doesn’t work if you seek to deny the unborn child legal person hood.

    You’ve only shown that you are a sophist. Your point is inane and nonsensical if you don’t conveniently take my words out of context and play with definitions.

    We’ve also had bodily autonomy: An argument that presupposes that bodily autonomy outweighs the right to life, which is yet to be seen.

    No one said bodily autonomy outweighs right to life. But you did argue the opposite. Multiple times. Incompetently.

    Bodily autonomy is a right. People have multiple rights. And they are not absolute rights, despite your simplistic whinings to the contrary. In the case of a woman having an abortion, the fetus’s right to life is mitigated compared to, say, an infant’s, or the mother’s. This means that the woman’s right to bodily autonomy and health and life trumps the fetus’s, who is dependent on her and is “human” in the sense of potential to be human almost exclusively.

    I am sorry that you apparently cannot imagine taking into account multiple factors at once, or can’t imagine the idea of mitigating factors or rights not being absolute. But you are a disingenuous idiot, so I suppose I shouldn’t feel sorry for you at all.

  126. says

    roberto @146:

    So we’ve had the argument that a woman must give her consent to go take a pregnancy to term. As I’ve shown, this doesn’t work if you seek to deny the unborn child legal person hood.

    I’ve read every one of your comments in this thread and you’ve shown nothing of the sort in any of them. It doesn’t matter whether a fetus is legally a person. Whether it is or not matters not one whit. None of the rights granted by legal personhood include the right to use the body of another person against their wishes. You just keep on dancing around that fact.

    Pathetic misogynistic shitspigot is pathetic.

    @ 150
    I wonder how long the flounce will last…

  127. anteprepro says

    Judge Roberto’s Verdict:

    . you people really have nothing to offer in the way of arguments that actually make sense. Just armchair legalese and inept attempts to redefine terms that you find uncomfortable.

    I hope everyone turned off their irony meters for this one.

  128. The Mellow Monkey says

    roberto sampson @ 150

    IF All these things were decided in a court of law between two legal persons. Which is where it’d have to be decided if you want to use all your Consent to Birth, Consent to Conception legalisms.

    McFall v. Shimp. The court ruled that it is unacceptable to force another person to donate body parts, even in a situation of medical necessity.

  129. roberto sampson says

    1) Thought experiment: “If a bunch of people that agree with each other start coming up with arguments for why killing unborn children is correct, will their arguments be powerful?”

    2) “If a bunch of people believe that the uniqueness of a situation eliminates consideration of the right to life in every case, do they actually have any idea what they’re talking about or are they just talking to people that agree with each other.”

    3) “If a group of people that agree with each other have come to the conclusion that the Bodily Autonomy of an individual supersedes every competing interest in a situation of their own making were to actually argue this in a court of law, how soon would they be reminded that they were using legal words to trump moral principles and should not have attempted to do so?”

    4) If a moron were outside of a building with a camera to document the murder of a baby/child, and he made no attempt to intercede, he would be a moron outside of a building.

    5) If a moron were to go around the side of a building in which a baby/child were murdered looking for evidence of other babies/children murdered, he would do well to point his camera into a dumpster, where he would find the dismembered remains of babies/children that existed in the world, alive inside their mother’s womb.

    6) If a moron mistakes a pregnant woman for a woman with a beer belly, it is not anybody else’s fault. It is the moron’s fault, and not evidence for the nonexistence of unborn babies, but evidence for the existence of morons.

    7) If you cannot refute an argument that seeks to extend human rights to unborn children, you can always pretend that the creator of the argument hates women. Then you can go back to trying to find a date by telling women that you called someone out for hating women. These women will not respect you any more than before. You are probably ugly.

  130. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    d without the added factor of fault

    What fault misogynist fuckwit?

  131. anteprepro says

    Also, roberto, because you are back, let me reiterate that “consent to birth” is not a legal term or “legalism” or “legalese”. “Consent” was not being used in the legal sense there. This would have been obvious if you read virtually anything at all that I was saying. And, as I have mentioned before, you are an idiot.

    Carry on.

  132. Saad says

    Tony, #154

    I wonder how long the flounce will last…

    Fifteen minutes.

    1) Thought experiment: “If a bunch of people that agree with each other start coming up with arguments for why killing unborn children is correct, will their arguments be powerful?”

    Terminating a pregnancy is not killing.

    I’m not even able to have an actual argument with you, because your terminology is screwed up to begin with. You’re a fucking joke.

  133. The Mellow Monkey says

    Good call, Daz.

    I still can’t get over the fact that roberto-the-fifteen-minute-wonder thinks people capable of pregnancy have the same level of “bodily autonomy” as dead bodies. Hell, we’re not even on par with animals or some other friendlier form of dehumanization. Corpses!

  134. anteprepro says

    The Mellow Monkey: I imagine it’s the new direction the Republican “pro-life” movement is going to go in: Corpse Rights. Because we care about life so much that we are gonna protect the sacred rights of the unborn, the dead, and virtually no one alive who isn’t rich. AMERICA!

  135. roberto sampson says

    Btw Tony!, it seems you don’t really know what you’re talking about. Neither do any of you understand that mentioning “consent” is to open up the possibility of a legal adjudication of “fault” which is a term used in legal proceedings to indicate “responsibility” for a deleterious event or injury. I am only using the words you all use to argue for the inherent right to “bodily autonomy.” If you want to pretend to be legal scholars then you should be prepared to deal with the implications of turning pregnancy into a legal exchange between two parties. Since you are obviously unable to do so, you’ve said “Wait we don’t mean consent in a “legal” way.” Well in what way do you mean it? Because I can guarantee you that your way will always, in the end, become a legal question which would confer personhood upon the unborn child. I’m afraid that avenue is not left open to you, despite your pretenses. You have mostly shown yourselves incapable of an actual argument that doesn’t either redefine terms that you don’t like/don’t support your ad hoc assertions that humanity is defined as you define it and apparently think that framing pregnancy as “One Human being Using Another Human Being’s Body to Sustain its Own Life” is tantamount to eliminating the responsibility of the state to protect innocent human life. This is why I mentioned echo chambers in the beginning of this whole fiasco. But I’m assuming you people spend so much time on this group of sites because you don’t have professions that require you to posit arguments in the real world to people who disagree with you, thus your shock that what you thought were “slam dunk” justifications are easily dismantled. I would suggest getting out into the world a little bit, and recognize that the conclusions you’ve drawn are not then written in stone because you came to them as a group. Within the confines of this website, which I stumbled upon and felt the moral duty to administer a reality check to, you may all presume to be scholars of deep standing, but having a look at your profiles, you all turn out to be, no offense, amateurs. In short, just because you worship at the feet of academics you agree with, does not make you academics, nor does it imbue you with a modicum of nuance and subtlety. Or the ability to adapt to a new challenge. Maybe you should enroll in Sunday School somewhere?

  136. says

    roberto @157:

    7) If you cannot refute an argument that seeks to extend human rights to unborn children, you can always pretend that the creator of the argument hates women.

    We didn’t fail to refute this “argument”. Did you miss where I pointed out that even *if* you extend human rights to a fetus, it still doesn’t gain this extra right to use the body of a pregnant woman? Did you think that one of our human rights was the right to the use of another person’s body for our survival?

    And yes, when your argument results in the enslavement of women, I will call you a misogynistic shitstain. Or shitspigot. Hell, you’re both!

  137. Saad says

    Chief Justice roberto, how many milliseconds after intercourse do you suggest a woman lose rights over her body? Have you decided at which moment post-coitus there is a child inside her?

    And what must the penalty be for the unruly wench should she dare not be pregnant anymore? Prison or are you more of a stoning kinda dude?

  138. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Well in what way do you mean it? Because I can guarantee you that your way will always, in the end, become a legal question which would confer personhood upon the unborn child

    Since “uborn childs” are an oxy moron, moron, why should any claim you say see the light of day without a link to third party evidence. You and your unevidenced opinions are dismissed without evidence. Welcome to skepticism, where YOU MUST BACK UP EVERY CLAIM WITH THIRD PARTY EVIDENCE.. Or, you are simply dismissed without evidence……

  139. Rey Fox says

    Congrats, truly, to everybody here.

    Thank you!

    Very courageous. You’re all heroes.

    Ah, well, heh…I’m just doing my best.

    and reflect on the fact that every single studied, sensible, rational belief you have just so happens to coincide with what makes your life less of a hassle, more convenient to you, requiring zero sacrifice/responsibility.

    Sounds good!

    Ah, I do love when they try to guilt-trip.

  140. Rey Fox says

    I also sure do hope Roberto was able to bust a nut to that self-righteous screed. Can’t imagine why else he wrote it.

  141. anteprepro says

    Rey Fox:

    I also sure do hope Roberto was able to bust a nut to that self-righteous screed. Can’t imagine why else he wrote it.

    Judging by the motives he ascribes to us: So that he can evade responsibilities and/or get laid. I imagine that he will be e-mailing his work to nearest Republican congresscritter to get some of whatever sweet action he is after out of this deal. 5-10 business days. Just in time for a rockin’ New Year’s Eve party.

  142. throwaway, never proofreads, every post a gamble says

    Because I can guarantee you that your way will always, in the end, become a legal question which would confer personhood upon the unborn child.

    Didn’t we grant that personhood, then challenge you to find a case where another person was granted the use of another person’s body, yet you didn’t rise to that occasion? I’m pretty sure that’s what I saw happening.

  143. Rey Fox says

    Capitalizing Words makes them Important.

    The reason that I responded to this blog post celebrating a young woman’s abortion was the unthinking congratulations proffered by all her supporters, the trivializing of such an ethically fraught subject.

    It’s cute how you think that folks here haven’t thought about this issue, probably more than you have. Or that folks here haven’t been directly affected by it and had to think about it for that reason, again probably thinking about it more than you.

    Good luck to you all in getting a date.
    Does this stuff work on your Grindr profiles?

    It’s especially cute how you think that we’re all male and/or not in relationships. I mean, that’s like grade school-level trolling there.

  144. throwaway, never proofreads, every post a gamble says

    Anyway, congratulations to Sarah and her dead unborn child! It could have grown up to be another Roberto Sampson and for that we’re grateful!

  145. Rey Fox says

    If a Human Body Begins to Exist as a result of a Consenting Reproductive Act, the right to Bodily Autonomy is inherent to the Human Body that began to exist inside of the consenting Human Body.

    Now hold on a minute, what about the Babbies Existing due to Nonconsenting Reproductive Act? Do they not have the Right to Consent to Exist? If not, why not?

  146. chigau (違う) says

    So.
    Why do I always seem to miss the Epic ones?
    .
    and I was negligent.
    roberto sampson
    please go fuck yourself.
    and you haven’t explained ethical curiosity,
    and learn to <blockquote>
    and learn to use the [return] key, walls-of-text are a pain to read
    and you have failed most miserably, BabyJesus is crying

  147. Rey Fox says

    Anyway, congratulations to Sarah

    Yep yep. Any act that Deeply Upsets people like Roberto and doesn’t make any other harmful impact on the world is all right by me.

  148. roberto sampson says

    Man oh man. Lets recap, your arguments are:

    Brilliant Argument #1: Human rights do not include the “extra right to use the body of a pregnant woman.” This is a very vague idea, but once again, if you’re going to use this argument from “human rights” then you will of course be conferring legal personhood upon the unborn child, and then the adjudication in a court of law would be as follows: Pregnant Woman sues Unborn Child for taking residence in her uterus. Defense: Pregnant Woman caused Unborn Child to take residence in her uterus, Unborn Child finds herself there through no fault of her own, and if evicted, the court would be administering a death sentence, which is cruel and unusual punishment even if Unborn Child is guilty of unlawfully squatting in Plaintiff’s Uterus. Defense would request a period of 9 months residence in Plaintiff’s Uterus, followed by swift eviction. Judge: The Court cannot in good conscience administer a death sentence to Unborn Child, as it had no agency in beginning to exist in Plaintiff’s Uterus, and the balance of outcomes to such a decision would result in an unconstitutional cruel and unusual punishment. Therefore, Court must request that plaintiff’s Bodily Autonomy be suspended until such time as Unborn Child can gather his things and abscond from the premises without instantly dying as a result. Case dismissed.”

    Brilliant Argument # 2: A Woman Has the Right To Do What She Will With Her Body. That’s fine. You have yet to defend your contention that “Bodily Autonomy” outweighs “The Right To Life,” nor an adequate distinction between the mother’s body and the unborn child’s. You have no support for your ad hoc positions on when a fetus “becomes” a human person, and you have given absolutely no precedent for any other instance in the law in which the state makes a comparable decision about the various gradations of “humanity” possessed by a given individual, and therefore cannot support your contention that humanity starts at birth, or 24 weeks or any other formulation.

    Brilliant Argument # 3: Forced pregnancy is the “enslavement” of women. This is hyperbole and an appeal to emotion, and does not make a case for why human life within the womb is less important than “bodily autonomy” outside of the womb.

    Brilliant Argument # 4: “If as you claim the foetus is a person, then there is a person who may be granted or refused the right to use its host’s body. The issue of consent is only raised if your claim is correct. We call this a ‘hypothetical.’ Do keep up, there’s a good chap.” – Daz: Keeper of the Hairy-Eared Dwarf Lemur of Atheism

    The REASON that we’ve been arguing about the unborn child/fetus as a person is because none of you have offered anything more than an ad hoc definition of when, in your wisdom, a human being becomes a human being. Since you seem incapable of presenting anything more than a definition of “human person” as whenever or where you say it is, we have been forced to deal with all of your amateurish legalistic blustering.

    Brilliant Argument #5: “I still can’t get over the fact that roberto-the-fifteen-minute-wonder thinks people capable of pregnancy have the same level of “bodily autonomy” as dead bodies. Hell, we’re not even on par with animals or some other friendlier form of dehumanization. Corpses!”

    Try to keep up: legal consideration is not a one-to-one equation between analogous parties , for example:
    The Bodily Autonomy of a corpse is to the Bodily Autonomy of A Pregnant Woman vs. The Right to Life of a Patient in Need of A Kidney Vs. The Right to Life of An Unborn Child.

    The point that you misunderstand is this: Courts consider legal concepts AS CONCEPTS with their own requisite value in balancing the claims of one party against the claims of another. EX: Bodily Autonomy AS A CONCEPT vs. The Right to Life AS A CONCEPT. In a court of law where the interests of two parties are weighed against one another, the STATE has come to the conclusion that “Bodily Autonomy” is of a lesser interest to the State than the preservation of “Human Life” in the case of European countries which do not require donor consent. This was brought up to show that Bodily Autonomy in the U.S. is weighed in a court’s decision as a right conferred by the Right to Privacy, but if a true court preceding were held concerning pregnancy as a legal transaction between two individuals, as you all seem to want to argue (since you don’t have a standing or authority to confer “humanity” upon a fetus) a variety of considerations, (Fault, the First Amendment, Cruel and Unusual Punishment etc.) which would largely mitigate that claim.

    All in all, you must offer a legitimate way of conferring humanity upon an unborn child to avoid the legalistic mess your arguments lead to. Anybody wanna try? Or would you just like to ban me because I’m kicking your asses?

  149. anteprepro says

    chigau:

    and you have failed most miserably, BabyJesus is crying

    And right before his birfday, too.

    For shame, roberto. And he is a corpse too, so you would think that you of all people could show a dead baby some fucking respect already. Though, perhaps the problem is that the baby jesus was an actual baby? Was the Baby Jesus not fetal enough for you, roberto? If he was a dead fetus, would you start caring? WOULD YOU START CARING THEN, ROBERTO!!?!?

  150. anteprepro says

    Try to keep up: legal consideration is not a one-to-one equation between analogous parties , for example:
    The Bodily Autonomy of a corpse is to the Bodily Autonomy of A Pregnant Woman vs. The Right to Life of a Patient in Need of A Kidney Vs. The Right to Life of An Unborn Child.

    Again, you can’t get it through your thick skull that it is incredibly fucking problematic that you are using the non-rights of fucking corpses (that shouldn’t have rights anyway because they aren’t fucking alive) as an excuse to stripping living women of rights.

    It is hard to express just how frustratingly stupid and amoral you are.

  151. Lofty says

    Or would you just like to ban me because I’m kicking your asses?

    Lamest ass kicking, evah. Good grief, troll, you haven’t even accurately defined the beginning or end of legal personhood where bodily autonomy is absolute.

  152. Rey Fox says

    Jeez, it really is Pigeon Chess in here tonight.

    The “legalist” arguments really kinda fall short given that, technically, abortion is legal in the United States and many other places.

  153. says

    roberto sampson #186:

    I’m just gonna reply to the one you aimed at me.

    Brilliant Argument # 4: “If as you claim the foetus is a person, then there is a person who may be granted or refused the right to use its host’s body. The issue of consent is only raised if your claim is correct. We call this a ‘hypothetical.’ Do keep up, there’s a good chap.”

    The REASON that we’ve been arguing about the unborn child/fetus as a person is because none of you have offered anything more than an ad hoc definition of when, in your wisdom, a human being becomes a human being. Since you seem incapable of presenting anything more than a definition of “human person” as whenever or where you say it is, we have been forced to deal with all of your amateurish legalistic blustering.

    I do not care if you decide that a human being is created the moment sperm meets egg.

    Even if, as I stated in the very quote you claim to be trying to reply to, the foetus is considered to be a person, then that hypothetical person still does not have the right to the use of another person’s body.

    Such a right is not granted in any other scenario, which means you need to explain why you wish to extend more rights to the alleged foetal-person than others are granted.

    <blockquote>Please use blockquotes</blockquote>
    Produces:

    Please use blockquotes

  154. anteprepro says

    I think it is more like Chimp Chess. Slightly smarter, able to actually play the game for a turn or two, wearing a cute little tux and top hat and able to dance for our amusement, but also contains more random screeching and throwing of shit.

  155. The Mellow Monkey says

    Or would you just like to ban me because I’m kicking your asses?

    The big brain am winning again! I am the greetest! Mwa-ha-ha-ha! Now I am leaving Earth for no raisin!

    Seriously, is a cartoon character writing this?

  156. says

    All in all, you must offer a legitimate way of conferring humanity upon an unborn child to avoid the legalistic mess your arguments lead to.

    My thinky organ feels like a pretzel.

    Why must we confer humanity on it? If it’s a person, it doesn’t have the right to use another’s body. If it’s not a person, it can’t have a right to anything.

  157. says

    Human rights do not include the “extra right to use the body of a pregnant woman.”

    Yeah, full stop. A human does not have the right to forcibly use the body of another human. No exceptions.

    This is a very vague idea,

    Ummm, no. It’s quite concrete. You cannot, under any circumstances, force someone else to donate even one drop of blood so that some other person can live. I am in charge of every cell of my body.

    So, with all your ridiculous fact-free posts until now, I would like to ask what your definition of “Child” is.

    Oh, and this piece of bullshit is precious:

    The REASON that we’ve been arguing about the unborn child/fetus as a person is because none of you have offered anything more than an ad hoc definition of when, in your wisdom, a human being becomes a human being. Since you seem incapable of presenting anything more than a definition of “human person” as whenever or where you say it is, we have been forced to deal with all of your amateurish legalistic blustering.

    I have seen this argument many times, and I have come to the conclusion, as everyone should, that NATURE knows when a human being becomes a human being — it’s FUCKING BIRTH! Nature knows when it’s time for that lump of cells to be brought into the world and start to be a human being.

    And all your absurd thoughts, that have no scientific backing, are worthless.

  158. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Unborn Child

    No such thing. The fact that you keep up such fuckwittery tells me you have nothing. And YOUR LACK OF CITATIONS is conclusive prima facie evidence you have nothing. Your entire spiel is dimissed without evidence. Try third party evidence,which for your case in non-existent. That should tell you something.

  159. roberto sampson says

    1) “Lamest ass kicking, evah. Good grief, troll, you haven’t even accurately defined the beginning or end of legal personhood where bodily autonomy is absolute.”

    Don’t get it yet do you? Humanity is ASSUMED by the law. It actually isn’t a question, unless your referring the history of slavery/segregation laws, where the U.S. tried to negotiate humanity down by fractions. Remember that? You might find yourself thrown into that same dustbin my friend. .Anyway, Humanity is ASSUMED by the law. If you would like to terminate human life, it is YOU who has to come up with a definition of “Legal Personhood.” If no attempt to terminate a pregnancy is made, then the distinction is immaterial. But because you need to justify your contention that terminating pregnancies is morally neutrally, the burden of proof is UPON YOU. Waiting for something cogent.

    2) Daz: Keeper of the Hairy-Eared Dwarf Lemur of Atheism: As I’ve already said, the fact that the uniqueness of the scenario means that yes, no easily applicable case exists to provide precedence for one person’s use of another person’s body, this is really not as impressive as you think it is. Each case adjudicated between individuals is completely unique, “the right to use another person’s body” while not explicitly stated in any statutes, is implicit in a whole host of marital and child protections statutes. You really do not have a slam dunk case here my friend, believe me. Just one instance which might interest you: It is illegal for pregnant women to take Accutane. Why? Because the life of the baby will be put in jeopardy, BECAUSE, IMPLICITLY, the baby is USING the mother’s body to sustain its life.

    …..Waiting for a rejoinder of some strength from you Mr. Darrow.

  160. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    All in all, you must offer a legitimate way of conferring humanity upon an unborn child to avoid the legalistic mess your arguments lead to. Anybody wanna try? Or would you just like to ban me because I’m kicking your asses?

    There is no “unborn child”. Delusion one. Humanity for the fetus must be shown with third party evidence, your mere opinonion is dismissed as fuckwittery. Delusion two. You lost the argument without third party evidence before you even started. It was refuted back in the ’80s, and your fuckwitted views change nothing. You have nothing. You lost. YOU FAILED.

  161. anteprepro says

    Each case adjudicated between individuals is completely unique, “the right to use another person’s body” while not explicitly stated in any statutes, is implicit in a whole host of marital and child protections statutes.

    Only for a weird definition of the word “body”. The alternative is if you are arguing that there is legally mandated breast feeding and that marital rape doesn’t exist.

    In other words: You are full of shit.

  162. chigau (違う) says

    roberto sampson
    Are you refusing to use <blockquote> or is it too difficult for you?
    and BabbyJesus is still weeping at your failure.

    look

    return key

  163. says

    the right to use another person’s body” while not explicitly stated in any statutes, is implicit in a whole host of marital and child protections statutes.

    Really? Which ones?

    Seriously, which laws give a person’s spouse or child the right to demand use of their body? Not their resources, their money or their time. Their body.

  164. roberto sampson says

    “No such thing. The fact that you keep up such fuckwittery tells me you have nothing. And YOUR LACK OF CITATIONS is conclusive prima facie evidence you have nothing. Your entire spiel is dimissed without evidence. Try third party evidence,which for your case in non-existent. That should tell you something.”

    Hah, apparently you’ve all footnoted your atheistic blogese throughout this sad display. Alas, “Fuckwittery,” and latin pomposity do no refute cogent logical arguments Logic doesn’t need footnotes, and no, I don’t have the time to do your research into these issues for you. If you think that I’m trolling you because I am both defending my points with ease and revealing your own points for the empty sanctimonies that they are, please actually refute what I’m saying. Please define humanity. Please define when legal personhood begins. None of you can. You make claims like “At Birth.” This is simply a claim. Talk about lack of citations.

    “Why must we confer humanity on it? If it’s a person, it doesn’t have the right to use another’s body. If it’s not a person, it can’t have a right to anything.”

    Once again, I would agree with you IF you weren’t terminating the pregnancy. But since you are arguing for the legality and morality of terminating pregnancies, it is UP TO YOU to define when humanity starts, and then confine your legal and moral abortions to the time period BEFORE humanity starts. Understand yet?

  165. anteprepro says

    Roberto is absolutely soulcrushing. You get him to move the bishop diagonally. He moves the rook horizontally all by himself! And you think he is just about the move the pawn properly when he leaps on the board and takes a shit, and then runs down the hallway howling. Fucking fuck, bring back the damn pigeon.

  166. says

    Humanity is ASSUMED by the law.

    Umm, Humanity of “born” persons *may* be assumed[1]. You are far from showing that a clump of cells constitutes Humanity. Please bring peer reviewed scientific studies to the discussion.

    [1] I do not admit that in USAn society that all “born” persons are considered human. Please show that all “born” persons are treated as fully human.

  167. anteprepro says

    roberto

    Logic doesn’t need footnotes, and no, I don’t have the time to do your research into these issues for you.

    A clear demonstration that you don’t know how logic works. Logic is working from premises to reach broader or narrower conclusions. Those premises are factual. Facts need citations. If you deriving something from First Principles in a blog comment section, you are doing it wrong. Either out of sheer incompetence or incredible lack of good faith.

  168. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    If you think that I’m trolling you because I am both defending my points with ease a

    Nope, you haven’t defended “unborn child” except in your delusional mind. My though experiment about taking pictures from across the street demolished WITH EVIDENCE

  169. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    If you think that I’m trolling you because I am both defending my points with ease a

    *sorry, keyboard posting not indended*
    Nope, you haven’t defended “unborn child” except in your delusional mind. My though experiment about taking pictures from across the street demolished WITH EVIDENCE your claim of “UNBORN CHILD” being a LIE. And you never, ever, refuted that evidence with more evidence. Your mere word is never evidence, just more bullshit.

  170. roberto sampson says

    You would think that such brilliant atheists would actually be able to refute these arguments wouldn’t you? Maybe you all need to get out into the real world, where you can’t call people trolls for pointing out why you are demonstrably wrong in almost all logical senses.

    Daz: Keeper of the Hairy-Eared Dwarf Lemur of Atheism: Is it your contention that the law has not developed levers of control that include the regulation of what a pregnant woman can do to her fetus (except in the abnormal and erroneous abortion consensus)? Do you really think these questions have not been posed to courts? Oh wait, none of you are lawyers, though you seem to be under the impression that you are. Do some research into the subject and understand that there are legal responsibilities enforced upon pregnant women all the time that are implicitly supported by the idea that an unborn child is relying upon her body for its health. Don’t fall into this trap of thinking: “Gee, if I can frame a situation so that it SOUNDS completely insane: “NAME ME ONE EXAMPLE WHERE A HUMAN IS FORCED TO ALLOW ANOTHER HUMAN LIVE OFF THEIR BODY!!?!” then I have won the argument hooray. This is not strong. There are no trump cards in the Law for you to discover.

    Also, still waiting on your definition of human life guys, c’mon now….

  171. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    IF you weren’t terminating the pregnancy

    Show us, with EVIDENCE, at what point a woman becomes less of a person/human than the fetus. AT ALL POINTS OF PREGNANCY. THE DEFAULT IS THAT THE WOMAN IS FULLY PERSON/HUMAN, WHEREAS THE FETUS IS NOT.
    Citations, or shut the fuck up loser.

  172. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Also, still waiting on your definition of human life guys, c’mon now….

    And we are awaiting any THIRD PARTY EVIDENCE TO SHOW THE WOMAN IS LESS HUMAN THAN THE FETUS.
    Until we see your evidence, the woman wins 1 billion times out of one billion.

  173. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    You would think that such brilliant atheists would actually be able to refute these arguments wouldn’t you?

    They were refuted fifty years ago loser. You lost before you started. You pretensions of adequacy or arguments are LAUGHED AT. You are comedic, not serious, just trolling. Third party evidence to support your fuckwittery might change that. But until then, dismissed without evidence, like every other forced birther…..

  174. anteprepro says

    Shorter roberto: “Nope nope nope habeas corpus nope nope LOGIC nope nope NO U nope I WIN!!!”

    —–

    Damn, this argumentation strategy actually is starting to seem strangely familiar. Anyone else think roberto could be someone’s sockpuppet account? Ringing anyone else’s bells?

  175. roberto sampson says

    1) “It is not up to anyone here to determine when humanity starts. It is up to you to explain why you would extend more rights to your alleged-fully-human-feotal-person than are granted to non-foetal-people.”

    Wrong again. Those who wish to terminate a pregnancy must make a cogent defense of their contention that doing so is not TAKING A HUMAN LIFE. Your whole response just begs the question. You can’t say that we shouldn’t give a fetus more rights than a legal person without conferring the right of personhood to the fetus, which would bring this whole thing into a court of law, and put the mother and infant on equal legal standing, which would not provide a good outcome for your side.

    2) “Nope, you haven’t defended “unborn child” except in your delusional mind. My though experiment about taking pictures from across the street demolished WITH EVIDENCE your claim of “UNBORN CHILD” being a LIE. And you never, ever, refuted that evidence with more evidence. Your mere word is never evidence, just more bullshit.”

    Unborn child is not a concept that needs to be defended. Semantic wordplay neither changes the status of the unborn child or the fetus, as both are synonymous with each other in every accepted dictionary, except whichever one you all decide to publish in order to win arguments by redefining terms to suit you. Nobody on EARTH thinks that unborn children “don’t exist”, as this would pretend that a women’s womb is actually outside of the materialistic universe, and thus the contents of which are not in existence. This is silly. Its like saying a Kangaroo ceases to exist when its jumps into its mother’s pouch. Is this really something you wish you use in order to argue for abortion? Seems cartoonishly weak.

    3)” Nobody here apart from you gives a flying fuck whether a foetus is a person or not.”

    Ummmm. Isn’t that the problem with you guys in the first place? See, now thats what i meant by a “LACK OF ETHICAL CURIOSITY”

    4)” A clear demonstration that you don’t know how logic works. Logic is working from premises to reach broader or narrower conclusions. Those premises are factual. Facts need citations. If you deriving something from First Principles in a blog comment section, you are doing it wrong. Either out of sheer incompetence or incredible lack of good faith.”

    I wasn’t aware that we were all embarking on an exercise in formal logic here, if so I’d love to hear your premises. The logic I’ve used to come to my arguments is not set in strict syllogism form, sure, which is all the more reason why you should be able to refute it no? Yet all I’m hearing is insults and ad hoc assertions about when humanity starts that CANNOT POSSIBLY have footnotes.

  176. roberto sampson says

    Once again, the humanity of the mother is not in question, and doesn’t HAVE to be in question because nobody is arguing for her TERMINATION. It is UP TO YOU to declare when Humanity begins. And you haven’t. And you can’t. And that’s why you’re wrong so far. Nobody will even venture a guess! haha.

  177. says

    Those who wish to terminate a pregnancy must make a cogent defense of their contention that doing so is not TAKING A HUMAN LIFE.

    Nope. You need to show conclusively that a fetus is a human life. So far, we’ve seen your opinion. Give us a fact. Give us a generally accepted theorem.

  178. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Those who wish to terminate a pregnancy must make a cogent defense of their contention that doing so is not TAKING A HUMAN LIFE.

    Only in YOUR delusional view. The fetus won’t be fully human until born stupid fuckwit.

    I wasn’t aware that we were all embarking on an exercise in formal logic here

    You aren’t showing any logic, since you can’t refute a simple thought experiment showing your “unborn child” is fuckwittery. What an abject., but arrogant loser you are.

    Unborn child

    Oxymorons from a moron. Stop being stupid. REPEATING STUPIDITY SHOWS FURTHER STUPIDITY AND NON-COGENT ARGUMENTS.

  179. says

    ‘Unborn child’ is not an issue, even though it’s a stupid thing to say.

    ‘Unborn Child’ does not have any more rights than born-people have, and born people do not have the right to the use of another’s body.

    If you wish to argue about this, then argue about the consignment of rights, not about whether the fucking foetus has ‘humanity’; which issue is so much of a red herring that it’s being eaten by a friggin’ seagull as we speak.

  180. roberto sampson says

    You would think that such brilliant atheists would actually be able to refute these arguments wouldn’t you?
    They were refuted fifty years ago loser. You lost before you started. You pretensions of adequacy or arguments are LAUGHED AT. You are comedic, not serious, just trolling. Third party evidence to support your fuckwittery might change that. But until then, dismissed without evidence, like every other forced birther…..

    Third party evidence for what? Trolling is now redefined as “Damn, these arguments were refuted 50 years ago, yet, gee I just can’t remember how to do it so I’ll call you a ‘fuckwhit.'” Haha the veneer of intellectual accomplishment is rusting away here.

  181. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    the humanity of the mother is not in question

    YEP IS IS UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE A WOMAN HAS MORE HUMANITY/PERSONHOOD THAN A FETUS.

  182. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Third party evidence for what?

    THAT THE FETUS IS MORE HUMAN/A PERSON THAN THE WOMAN.

  183. anteprepro says

    roberto trumpets about how superior his logic is. Then claims this isn’t about formal logic.
    roberto complains about legalese. Then starts spouting legal terms and insists that all words that have legal definitions must be using the legal specific definition at all times, insofar as it is convenient for him.

    roberto just says a lot of things, apparently.

  184. throwaway, never proofreads, every post a gamble says

    Those who wish to terminate a pregnancy must make a cogent defense of their contention that doing so is not TAKING A HUMAN LIFE.

    I’ll grant it is a human life if you can establish that the fundamental thing which must be done with human life is to preserve it at all costs.

    Is this (imgur.com) worth preserving at all costs? Can you explain why or why not?

  185. roberto sampson says

    1) Gee. I guess if I were arguing for abortion I would have to prove when human personhood begins:
    “Nope. You need to show conclusively that a fetus is a human life. So far, we’ve seen your opinion. Give us a fact. Give us a generally accepted theorem.”

    Then again, I’m not, and so you have to. When are fetuses not human beings given the right to life? At what point? Waiting.

    2) “The fetus won’t be fully human until born stupid fuckwit.”

    Hmm, another ad hoc statement. How do ya figure there slappy?

    3) “You aren’t showing any logic, since you can’t refute a simple thought experiment showing your “unborn child” is fuckwittery. What an abject., but arrogant loser you are.”

    Hmm, if one is not being deliberately obtuse, she would conclude “Unborn means still inside the womb. The womb is inside the materialist universe in which we live, therefor the fetus is also inside the materialistic universe in which we live, alive, and is not yet born, born meaning outside of the womb in the simplest sense. Therefore we must refer to the child as unborn.”

    4) “Oxymorons from a moron. Stop being stupid. REPEATING STUPIDITY SHOWS FURTHER STUPIDITY AND NON-COGENT ARGUMENTS.”

    Oxymorons are: a figure of speech in which apparently contradictory terms appear in conjunction (e.g., faith unfaithful kept him falsely true ). Child and unborn are not oxymorons, though if you were trying to make the insane case that unborn children don’t exist, I could see how that blurry contention might be attractive to you.

    5) “If you wish to argue about this, then argue about the consignment of rights, not about whether the fucking foetus has ‘humanity’; which issue is so much of a red herring that it’s being eaten by a friggin’ seagull as we speak.”

    Consignment of rights in what sense? The issue of humanity is not a red herring, it is the issue.

    6) “YEP IS IS UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE A WOMAN HAS MORE HUMANITY/PERSONHOOD THAN A FETUS. ”

    You still haven’t defined in what way we we are defining humanity and personhood. Even if a woman had “more” Humanity/Personhood, which is iffy because you have no system of any sort to quantify those categories, it does not follow that killing a fetus of “lesser humanity” is somehow a logical or moral act.

    7) “roberto trumpets about how superior his logic is. Then claims this isn’t about formal logic.
    roberto complains about legalese. Then starts spouting legal terms and insists that all words that have legal definitions must be using the legal specific definition at all times, insofar as it is convenient for him.
    roberto just says a lot of things, apparently.”

    Im not saying my logic is superior, I’m saying my arguments are until you can refute them or offer a satisfactory basis for deciding a given level of humanity to unborn children.

    Abortion is a question of the law, we are discussing what amounts to a legal construction, and you are all perfectly happy to use legal terms when they support your ideas, but when you are forced to understand the implications of your use of them you seem to suddenly go shy. If you are appealing to something other than the legal basis for why abortion is correct, what are you appealing to?

  186. throwaway, never proofreads, every post a gamble says

    If you are appealing to something other than the legal basis for why abortion is correct, what are you appealing to?

    The fact that it’s a medical procedure where all the bits of parasitic growth tissue get removed from a person’s body.

  187. roberto sampson says

    1) I’ll grant it is a human life if you can establish that the fundamental thing which must be done with human life is to preserve it at all costs.
    Is this (imgur.com) worth preserving at all costs? Can you explain why or why not?

    Not at all costs. If the life of the mother is in jeopardy then I am pro-abortion. However, if it is a question of economics or convenience, I would much prefer to protect human life against these considerations. The state should also provide far more support to mothers that would be undergoing a major hardship in bringing a pregnancy to term/caring for a child.

  188. roberto sampson says

    Parasitic growth tissue = human being. This may fly in your circles, but in the vast history of western ethical thought, religious and irreligious, this is an extreme outlier. Please try to understand that the goal of full female emancipation should not come at the cost of women relegating the beauty of what they alone can accomplish to the status of a parasitic growth. This is surely not the human condition, whether spirit and soul exist or not.

  189. says

    This is my last try.

    Consignment of rights in what sense? The issue of humanity is not a red herring, it is the issue.

    If the foetus is not a person, we have nothing to discuss, since I assume you would not consider killing a non-person to be an immoral act.

    You say the foetus is a person. Okay, all along I have granted that as a hypothetical. What I’ve said, constantly, is that no non-foetal person is granted the right to the forced use of another person’s body. By granting Hypothetical Foetal-Person that right, you are therefore granting HF-P more rights than other people are granted.

    On what grounds?

  190. roberto sampson says

    Ok Daz, please refer my points about the various statutes in state and local law in which recognition of a fetus’ special claims upon the mother’s body are implicit in their formulations. I’m exhausted and need to go to bed, but there are all sorts of laws regarding this, and the extension of the responsibilities of mothers and fathers to their children would be easy enough to argue on the same grounds.

    “If the foetus is not a person, we have nothing to discuss, since I assume you would not consider killing a non-person to be an immoral act.”

    This is exactly what we are discussing. It is my contention that, because you think abortion is a moral good or at least morally neutral, because a fetus is not a legal person, you must support your contention that it is not a legal person. The burden of proof is not on those who would allow all pregnancies to progress as they would, but for those who seek to interrupt them to show why this is morally neutral. In order to do so, you have to show when a fetus becomes a human being.

  191. Seven of Mine: Shrieking Feminist Harpy says

    Please try to understand that the goal of full female emancipation should not come at the cost of women relegating the beauty of what they alone can accomplish to the status of a parasitic growth.

    Please understand that the goal of full female (-bodied people) emancipation should not come at the cost of those people thinking their lives matter at least as much as mindless cluster of cells!

  192. says

    Ok Daz, please refer my points about the various statutes in state and local law in which recognition of a fetus’ special claims upon the mother’s body are implicit in their formulations.

    Well if we’re merely arguing about what the law is what’s your beef? Abortion is already legal. Assuming we’re arguing about what the law should be, what the fuck is the point in directing me to look at current law?

    This is exactly what we are discussing. It is my contention that, because you think abortion is a moral good or at least morally neutral, because a fetus is not a legal person, you must support your contention that it is not a legal person.

    Oh for Frigg’s sake. What part of ‘even if‘ did you find difficult to comprehend? This has been your problem throughout this entire conversation: you’re telling me what I’m saying based on a position you feel comfortable arguing against, instead of bothering to take in what I’m actually fucking saying. I am sat here right in front of you, but you’re busily rushing outside to construct a straw-Daz to argue with.

  193. Rey Fox says

    Do some research into the subject and understand that there are legal responsibilities enforced upon pregnant women all the time that are implicitly supported by the idea that an unborn child is relying upon her body for its health.

    Do some more research and you’ll learn that abortion is legal.

  194. Seven of Mine: Shrieking Feminist Harpy says

    In order to do so, you have to show when a fetus becomes a human being.

    AT. BIRTH.

    You dishonest fuckwits do this every time. Sit there and dissemble and pretend that well gawsh you just can’t think of any other point at which we could decide that the fetus is a person than contraception. HOW ABOUT THE POINT AT WHICH IT IS NO LONGER DEPENDENT ON SOMEONE ELSE’S BODY FOR ITS BASIC FUNCTIONING?!

  195. Rey Fox says

    Please try to understand that the goal of full female emancipation should not come at the cost of women relegating the beauty of what they alone can accomplish to the status of a parasitic growth.

    Please try to understand that you’re talking about women as if there weren’t several of them in the room right now talking to you.

    This is surely not the human condition, whether spirit and soul exist or not.

    There are more things in the human condition than are dreamt of in your philsophy.

    However, if it is a question of economics or convenience, I would much prefer to protect human life against these considerations.

    Good thing it ain’t your decision.

  196. roberto sampson says

    OUCH. You guys won. I definitely couldn’t dismantle these arguments if I tried. I feel so enriched by this experience. Finally, worthy opponents. Even if I didn’t need to go to bed I wouldn’t even try to explain to Daz why he’s mixing up categories of argument, or why whatever current laws are do not equate with moral absolutes. I mean, just ask all those slaves who were legally 3/5ths of a person why dont ya? They’ll tell you the law at any given moment in history is THE ABSOLUTE MORAL TRUTH. Also, the at birth idea. Whiz bang boom. That one is equally tough. I’d definitely never be able to show you why that is ridiculous.

    Goodnight guys. Good luck with the free thinking. Free thinking means coming to the conclusion that we’re all soulless biological robots right? Sounds good.

  197. says

    So, will Mr. Sampson call for men to be fitted with sperm catchers? After all if women aren’t allow control of their ova and fetuses why should men be allowed control of their sperm?

  198. rq says

    In order to do so, you have to show when a fetus becomes a human being.

    Actually, first you have to show when the pregnant person stops being a human being and becomes a (hopefully mobile) incubator with no right to her own body.
    Also:

    If the life of the mother is in jeopardy then I am pro-abortion.

    During pregnancy, the life of the pregnant person (who may or may not already be a mother) is constantly in jeopardy. Your ‘major hardship’ often ends in permanent consequences up to and including death.

    Oh, this stuff has been covered? And here I thought roberto was here to learn. *sigh*

  199. Gen, Uppity Ingrate and Ilk says

    Even if the fetus *is* a person (which you haven’t shown at all), no person has the right to override another person’s bodily autonomy. Should everyone be forced to donate blood or organs (while they’re alive) just because there are some people who will die without these organs?

  200. Beatrice, an amateur cynic looking for a happy thought says

    roberto sampson,

    So, abortion should be illegal at all points of pregnancy.

    1. Woman has a miscarriage at x weeks. Should an investigation be done? If she already has children, those children taken away from her until the moment investigation is complete? She goes for prison if state can show that she has done something that could influence the pregnancy?
    Hm…. but where’s the limit to that?
    I mean, if it would be enough to show something could influence a pregnancy negatively, that would mean you could put nearly every woman who had a miscarriage in jail.
    Maybe she fell off a bike.
    Maybe she didn’t eat enough.
    Maybe she didn’t eat the right food.
    etc.

    And if you only prosecute those that you can prove caused a miscarriage… that could mean a lot of murderers of those couple-of-weeks old fetuses get off free.

    2. “Proven deliberate” miscarriages and abortions.. oh, that’s a tough crime. If a punishment for murder is 20 years in a given country, should the same be applied to cruel murder of a 23-weeks-old fetus?
    I think you mentioned above that she should be allowed to murder a fetus if it’s posing a significant danger to her health. But how can that be right? The fetus is a person, and poor little thing isn’t doing it deliberately.

  201. Maureen Brian says

    Dearie me! That was a painful read but well done, team.

    I’m still stuck back at 36 where Roberto Sampson claims to have consulted a rabbi. I venture to suggest that either this person never existed – in which case Roberto lies! – or that the gentleman in question was no rabbi but a con-artist in a kippah.

    I know that there are disagreements within Judaism on just about everything but I’m not aware that there is a faction actively fighting the long established notion that the newborn acquires full human status as it leaves the birth canal and draws its first breath.

    Arguments about the when, why and if of abortion – a separate question – within Judaism do not seem to challenge that basic proposition. Yet Roberto rambles on as though his imaginary rabbi agrees with him.

    So if this god – it is the same god, isn’t it? – can hold two entirely contradictory opinions not just at the same moment but every day since the beginning of forever then should not more respect be shown by the likes of Roberto to those of us who base our ethical notions on things proven to exist and be useful, like knowledge, reason, empathy?

  202. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Free thinking means coming to the conclusion that we’re all soulless biological robots right? Sounds good.

    Only in your delusional presuppositional mind. What there is of it.

  203. azhael says

    Roberto said:

    The real, inconvenient fact is that there is no logical point at which a human being becomes a human being, a “person”, other than the point of conception, when an entirely unique combination of DNA comes into existence

    Riddle me this, Roberto: Human quimeras. Monozygotic twins.

    He also said that abortion is infanticide.
    Me an my brother were aborted (that is, my mother’s pregnancies were artificially terminated) and yet we are both very much alive. How could that be?

    Finally, if i’m in a situation where i’m unable to sustain my own life autonomously and would require the use of somebody else’s organs to survive, denying me that use is not murder, it’s me dying because i can’t survive on my own, there’s a difference. Otherwise, you Roberto, right now, are a multiple murderer at a scale that boggles the mind.

  204. azhael says

    Every time one of my cells divides, mutations occur, and a completely new, fully human, DNA combination appears. Are each and every one of these unique human cells people, Roberto?

  205. anteprepro says

    I am assuming that Roberto has only finally left because they realized they really should get back to organizing funerals for unattached embryos and all those poor zygotes that passed well before their time. Or perhaps he was late for his corpse rights rally. But regardless, it is certain that he Won. Totally. He debate clubbed the shit out of us. His worldview was totally coherent and not shitty and overly simplistic and poorly thought out and inconsistently applied. Not at all. Bravo Roberto. You sure showed us. That seventh time you shit on the chess board really sealed your victory in the game of chimp chess. Absolutely Flawless.

  206. azhael says

    Oh, can i just say that Roberto’s post @81 is some of the funniest shit i’ve ever heard here? It is absolutely priceless, from the ridiculous claim that infanticide was rampant until abrahamic religions appeared and put an end to it by telling tales of slaughtering “unborn babies” inside their mother’s womb because their imaginary god told them so, to the extraordinarily dishonest and obtuse comparisson between murdering your autonomous, several years old son, to a bundle of cells dying on their own without the use of someone’s body because they are not viable. Pure comedy gold.

  207. says

    I don’t know whether robertosampson will be back throwing out his opinions again or not, but:

    1) Gee. I guess if I were arguing for abortion I would have to prove when human personhood begins:
    “Nope. You need to show conclusively that a fetus is a human life. So far, we’ve seen your opinion. Give us a fact. Give us a generally accepted theorem.”

    Then again, I’m not, and so you have to. When are fetuses not human beings given the right to life? At what point? Waiting.

    See, this right here is how we know your critical thinking skills are crap. YOU are the one arguing terminating a pregnancy is killing a human being. YOU are the one who needs to show conclusively that a fetus is a human being. Once you show that, then YOU have to show why this human being should have more rights than any other human being in the world. That’s the way it works.

  208. anteprepro says

    Anne

    I read, I think about trying to post something, and one of you has already said what I was thinking, and better.

    That’s never stopped me before :P

    Even if you are just repeating something someone else said, if you want to chime in, do it. It never hurts to have someone back up what someone else is saying in these discussions. It makes it harder for The Dishonest Hack of the Day to ignore the important points.

  209. says

    I don’t know
    I’m sick. Maybe this thread is just a spectre vomited out by my brain.
    I’m still trying to imagine a 27 year old who cannot exist outside of the womb. I’m trying to imagine the belly of the woman who’s been carrying that 27 yo for about 28 years. I’m wondering how Roberto got to know them, since they’re still inside, and how said entity’s age is being calculated since there’s no birthday…


    Then there’s this little tale that “in many European countries you don’t get asked if you want your organs donated or not”. Of course, no evidence is ever given for that. Actually, only Bulgaria has a law that declares your living will void “in case of an emergency”. In all other countries you either have to opt in or, *gasp*, to opt out. Because you would not burden a living person with the thought that they might end up as spare parts even though at that point they have ceased to exist.
    Let’s just call it what it is Roberto did there: lying.

    He then goes on to tell us that even though a corpse is dead and a pregnant woman isn’t, this is totes comparable because the law apparently only considers concepts (I have no idea how this is supposed to work, but I’ll simply ignore this for the moment.) Then he goes on how you cannot compare a pregnancy to any other situation where you might or might not donate parts of your body because pregnancy is so unique.
    Apparently in Roberto-world you can have cake and eat it, too.

    And last (on my list) but not least there’s “if you can consent to let the fetus use your body you therefore make the fetus a full human person because otherwise you could not give them consent”. This apparently means that if you let your cat sit on your lap and your cat gets the right to vote at 18. And you’Re going to jail because remember how you let the cat out all day at age 2? That’s child abuse…

  210. opposablethumbs says

    Hell, the damn cat probably has a clearer grasp of any concept you care to mention than roberto does.
    What a display of sanctimonious ignorance he has given us.
    Hey roberto, somebody somewhere (a lot of somebodies, actually) needs a kidney/some bone marrow/half a liver/a lung – and they’re even related to you! Pony up, pal. What’s that, you don’t think anybody has the right to take your organs against your will? Tough, that’s what you’ve been advocating – just as long as you thought your body was off the table.
    You won’t give up your organs to a stranger at someone else’s demand, against your will, at risk to your life and health. Stop demanding I give up mine.

  211. opposablethumbs says

    Oh, and as roberto seems to like silly thought experiments so much, here’s one – ‘Beto, cariño, if you could turn back time and stop me from getting the two abortions I did have, would you? Yes? But then, you callous unfeeling monster, you would have prevented my two actual children from ever being conceived! The thinking, feeling biochemistry undergraduate! The thinking, feeling conservatoire student! The actual loved and wanted children, who would never have existed if you had forcibly prevented me from exercising my free choice to abort two approximately ten-gramme blobs of as-yet undifferentiated cells some time earlier.
    Phew, I’m glad you weren’t around to try and stop me, ‘Beto – I like my kids. They’re smart, compassionate and decent human beings, unlike you. (not to mention you’d have been in trouble for harassment, of course)

  212. says

    I’m also wondering why I wasn’t offered the apparently 100% fail-proof test that can calculate at 5 weeks if a given woman is going to experience a severe, life threatening complication from pregnancy or childbirth. Because apparently that’s possible now, or Roberto wouldn’t know which women are allowed to save their own lives with an abortion at week 6 or so…

  213. throwaway, never proofreads, every post a gamble says

    Roberto also didn’t want to admit that the economic slavery of women in failed states where abortion is illegal causes far more harm than scraping a lump of cells out of the uterus ever did.

    Not to mention that abortions would not decrease under such illegality, they would merely become less safe.

    But apparently that chicken embryo I linked to has more rights than a fully grown woman.

  214. roberto sampson, the incompetent says

    Dear Unemployed Atheist Sycophants,

    READ things by authors who write about reality. Then you might not sound like a bunch of unemployed atheist sycophants.

    For instance: http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/aabadie/pconsent.pdf
    Thats a pretty good explanation of what one of you scholars claimed I was lying about concerning organ donation in continental europe. So wordly, yee atheists are, yet cannot perform a simple google search.

    Another instance: http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2014/12/19/prenatal_testing_predicting_fetal_abnormalities_with_alarming_inaccuracy.html

    How many thousands upon thousands of viable children have been murdered because a “reasoning, rational scientific” test deemed them unworthy of life? You must realize that the religious authorities which you rightly condemn, though guilty of atrocities throughout history, are not alone. Reason, rationality, and science have led to all sorts of barbaric medical procedures that seemed absolutely justified in the moment. Hubris and arrogance are no excuse to murder unborn children.

    Circular Logic = When Roberto refuses to allow for a redefinition of terms (Ex: Unborn Children) that make your goal of killing unborn children morally neutral.

    For a fellow atheist with an actual ethical consciousness (as opposed to your paltry posing), see good old Christopher Hitchens, far smarter than all of you and just as dismissive of the idea that “unborn children” don’t exist as I am:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8HhTKzmvas

    Once again, this blog, you people, are jokes. You use logic and rationality to eliminate your moral responsibilities, and when your logical arguments are called out for their implicit ad hoc assertions you cannot respond with anything but feminist claptrap: “You want to kill women!” “You want to enslave women!” “You don’t think women are human!”

    Ha. This is why your movement is dead in the water. Why feminism, beyond the admirable goal of legal gender equality, is a joke outside of gender studies programs. Programs, I might add, that churn out unthinking, unemployable nincompoops with no actual purpose beyond yelling on blogs written by second-rate biologists with funky beards. The speed with which you reply to my intermittent posts suggests a lack of professional/familial responsibility indicative of the empty, selfish philosophical structure within which you live.

    In short, PRETENDING to be smart does not make it so. You are rabble. And there is nothing beautiful in your world because you will always find a way to reduce beauty to its component ugliness.

    Ok I have to get back to my job/family/responsibilities/productive role in the community, I’m sure you all will read and watch the articles and links I’ve included here because you’re such free thinkers. And then immediately respond because you have nothing better to do as a result of your nihilistic philosophies/disbelief in the very notion of duty and responsibility/ possession of no higher education other than sad English Literature/Gender Studies degrees which have no value in the job market. Hehe.

  215. roberto sampson says

    By the way I realize I just responded under the name Rosemary Clark, who must’ve forgot to sign out of google before leaving the library, so don’t go insulting this random woman.

    [I’ll assume that’s an accurate explanation of what happened, and not that you accidentally switched to a sock puppet you use elsewhere. I’ve corrected the name on that comment. –pzm]

  216. throwaway, never proofreads, every post a gamble says

    Dear Unemployed Atheist Sycophants,

    Oh shoot, I was hoping to respond to your post but it wasn’t addressed to me.

    As for ‘posturing’, I don’t think you could get any more contorted than that projection…

    Thats a pretty good explanation of what one of you scholars claimed I was lying about concerning organ donation in continental europe.

    *does a CTRL+F for “rosemary”*
    1 Result Found
    Smells like a gym sock.

  217. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    READ things by authors who write about reality.

    Oh, you mean delusional fools who sloganeer like forced birth fuckwits like yourself?

    By the way I realize I just responded under the name Rosemary Clark, who must’ve forgot to sign out of google before leaving the library, so don’t go insulting this random woman.

    Another piece of prima facie evidence of your dishonestly, lies and bullshit.

    How many thousands upon thousands of viable children

    NONE. NO CHILD IS ABORTED. Liar and bullshitter for making such a stupid and solidly refuted claim.

    ou use logic and rationality to eliminate your moral responsibilities,

    What moral responsibilities, They haven’t been stated with evidence to show they aren’t imposed by religious thinking and other delusions.

    In short, PRETENDING to be smart does not make it so.

    Except you aren’t smart. Your “UNBORN CHILD” is prima facie evidence of your lies, bullshit, and presuppositions. Until you show conclusive PHYSICAL evidence for a fetus being more a person with more rights and privileges than the woman, the woman and her desires win every time. Your opinion is dismissed for what it is. Misogynist trash and fuckwittery.

  218. throwaway, never proofreads, every post a gamble says

    Roberto: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/12/world/12abortion.html

    *drops mic*

    Now, you can argue all you want about where a babby begins, what defines ‘Human Being’, you can do all that shit. But when you wilfully ignore the actual, present, sentient, cognizant, aware, human being in the form of ‘pregnant woman’, that makes you a misogynistic fuckwit, no matter what legal mumbo jumbo you try to conjure up with regard to ‘consent.’ If it means more women will die due to biological impulses, and you cannot regulate the morality of these people without also reaching into the bedrooms of these women, then what else is there to solve the problem of these actual, living, individual, conscious women dying preventable deaths? How about safe and legal abortions?

  219. Ichthyic says

    Ok Daz, please refer my points about the various statutes in state and local law in which recognition of a fetus’ special claims upon the mother’s body are implicit in their formulations.

    so… this lends credence to your argument how exactly?

    local legislatures are famous for making a mockery of reason and logic, let alone making decisions based on evidence.

    as are you yourself, so I guess it shouldn’t surprise me you would cite them as support.

    You use logic and rationality to eliminate your moral responsibilities,

    no, we use these tools to EVALUATE our moral responsibilities. these things are sorely lacking in your own determination of same.

    also, your constant citing of people and laws instead of evidence and an actual argument speaks volumes to your level of authoritarianism.

    you better run a self-check on that, if you want to ever get taken seriously… by anyone.

  220. Maureen Brian says

    For the nine-millionth time …

    People who write about Europe as though it were a single state are simply advertising their own ignorance. As several of us here can confirm, from the experience of living in one of Europe’s many countries, the situation varies among the many countries.

    The UK is part of Europe and this is the current situation here. An individual may give instructions before death – by carrying a donor card, by leaving a will or by making a deathbed statement that s/he wishes to be a donor. The immediate family can, however, over-ride that instruction after death. Yes, the possibility of a presumed consent or opt-out system has been discussed but no action has been taken to implement either.

    Other countries have different arrangements but their implementation, where different, depends as much upon public education as it does on the law. Recent experience in the UK shows that a different approach, a more sensitive approach to seeking the family’s agreement and the training of medical staff to make the request both increase the availability of donor organs. The safeguards for those who have a religious objection to any interference with the corpse would have to be pretty tight for an assumption of consent to become law here.

    If they are not already bored to death with your unsubstantiated assertions, roberto sampson, perhaps others will be able to explain how things happen in the other 40-odd countries.

    So you now you have two things to explain. How a previously autonomous person with all the accepted rights and protections of an individual can suddenly lose those rights – on what basis? by what law? – the minute that it becomes possible that she is pregnant. And now, also, what on earth organ donation post mortem has to do with organ donation from one living person to another living person, which requires always informed consent, consent which can be withdrawn at any stage. Or, indeed, with a woman’s responsibility and right to make decisions about her own body and her own health.

    Surely you have realised by now that “I say this because I am right and I am right because I say it” doesn’t cut much ice on this blog? Or are you simply going to repeat yourself ad nauseam because you cannot even tell us why you think as you do?

    If you have no argument then you have no case and, thus far, we have no evidence that you have any arguments at all – just wild, emotional outbursts.

    Oh, and if writing as Rosemary Clark was a mere administrative glitch why did you refer to yourself in the third person?

  221. Saad says

    If the fetus is a person, it means it doesn’t have any rights on the woman’s body and can’t use the woman’s body against her will.

    This is because no person has the right to use another person’s body against their will.

    You lose even if I blindly accept that a fetus is a person.

    Thanks for playing though.

  222. Ichthyic says

    I’ve corrected the name on that comment. –pzm

    LOL

    you probably should be consistent, and correct it on ALL of their comments, just to be sure…

  223. dianne says

    Argue with an anti-choice advocate long enough and eventually he will reveal that his motivation is to hurt women. Period. There simply is no logical argument for “protecting the fetus” to be made. It falls apart if you look at it even slightly carefully. And even if you had someone who knew no biology at all and therefore didn’t understand that a fetus simply isn’t a baby, that doesn’t explain why the anti-woman shit never has any interest in protecting fetuses and embryos from miscarriage. None at all. Never. Far more embryos die from miscarriage than abortion, but the “pro-life” movement doesn’t care. No, they’re simply out to torture and enslave women, end of story.

  224. Brony, Social Justice Cenobite says

    It’ interesting the way that It interesting how theists are dependent on non-present persons to make other people do things. They insist people do things a certain way because of a continually non-present god, and they insist on enslaving women because of non-present persons.

    Actually now that I think about it theist is the wrong term here. I think it’s authoritarian again because that explains the pro-choice atheists too. Any attempt to assert authority over another. I’m going to think about this one some more because the non-present, non-sentient thing that can’t be communicated with is a very potent means of control once you get enough people on board with it.

    Just for fun does anyone want to switch the definition of a word or two that roberto is likely to use to something else? If he wants to assert the right to wave away the terms my developmental biology text book uses it’s only fair that we get to do that too. Maybe the women here can suggest a few words that are particularly useful for forced birthers? These idiots remind me of this Saturday Night Live sketch for some reason.

    @roberto 267
    Wow you are one piece of work. Easily the most offensive person I have encountered this week.

    How many thousands upon thousands of viable children have been murdered because a “reasoning, rational scientific” test deemed them unworthy of life?… Hubris and arrogance are no excuse to murder unborn children.
    Circular Logic = When Roberto refuses to allow for a redefinition of terms (Ex: Unborn Children) that make your goal of killing unborn children morally neutral.
    For a fellow atheist with an actual ethical consciousness (as opposed to your paltry posing), see good old Christopher Hitchens, far smarter than all of you and just as dismissive of the idea that “unborn children” don’t exist as I am

    You really look detached from reality. No children were harmed or killed. I’m not seeing any children here. Besides the fact that nearly every comment you have made indicates that you really need a dictionary badly, your reason and logic is utter shit.
    Why do you think we would care what Hitchens thinks? Have you seen how we argue with each other?
    I don’t think you want to kill women personally, or that you think women are not human. But you sure do want to enslave women. When you assert that you can control their bodies that is enslavement. PERIOD.
    Actually some slave masters killed slaves on a regular basis so actually, yeah I don’t think that it’s too much of a stretch to think that you could kill women. It comes with the slavery. If you would force women to do things against their will that can even get them killed on occasion it’s not too far a leap to get rid of some that are inconvenient for you. I’m not saying that you actually do want to kill women. I’m saying that It’s not hard to believe that you might want to kill women.

    Ha. This is why your movement is dead in the water. Why feminism, beyond the admirable goal of legal gender equality, is a joke outside of gender studies programs. Programs, I might add, that churn out unthinking, unemployable nincompoops with no actual purpose beyond yelling on blogs written by second-rate biologists with funky beards. The speed with which you reply to my intermittent posts suggests a lack of professional/familial responsibility indicative of the empty, selfish philosophical structure within which you live.

    Well now you are starting to get amusing. To me anyway. See psychological projection. You came here to us. We are here picking at forced birther arguments on a regular basis, it’s our thing here. So of course we would be able to answer you quickly. You on the other hand would not be here if you did not see us as a threat to your ability to control women.
    I’m not even worried about your thoughts on our intelligence. After all when you have to constantly call things by other names in order to get anything done (you know that religious doctors and scientists that are professionally involved with pregnancy use embryo, fetus and more right?)
    There are no links that you could offer. There are no arguments that justify slavery. You are simply a bad human being that makes the world a worse place.

  225. ck, the Irate Lump says

    I really hate the phrase “unborn children”. It’s nonsense (might as well be talking about “unborn adults” or “unborn seniors”), and intended at emotional manipulation because they know people don’t have the kind of emotional attachment to fetuses and embryos as they do to children.

  226. A. Noyd says

    dianne (#280)

    There simply is no logical argument for “protecting the fetus” to be made. It falls apart if you look at it even slightly carefully.

    It falls apart even if you completely ignore the pregnant people or accept they should have their right to bodily autonomy removed. Quite simply, you can’t protect a fetus from death by bringing it to term. It’s not like we’re choosing here between killing a fetus and giving birth to an immortal. Death is inevitable for everyone. Abortion just makes the inevitable happen sooner.

    However, a fetus doesn’t even know it exists and certainly doesn’t understand what death is. It won’t anguish over its demise. If it is brought to term and lives long enough to develop a sense of self and an awareness of death, it might suffer greatly at the thought of dying. Then there’s all the other pain and suffering that it will endure outside the womb (such as, perhaps, being forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term).

    So really, getting an abortion is the best means to protect a fetus. Carrying it to term and giving birth will always do it more harm.

  227. dianne says

    I really hate the phrase “unborn children”. It’s nonsense (might as well be talking about “unborn adults” or “unborn seniors”),

    –ck

    Unborn corpses. (As A Noyd points out, no one gives birth to immortals.)

    But aren’t we ignoring the REAL issue here? What about the (dramatic pause) unconceived children? Won’t someone please think of them? What if your father had said no? Where would you be then? Huh? Abstinence is murder!

  228. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    If the forced birth fuckwits were seriously interested in reducing the number of abortions, there is a simple and easy answer. They pay a very high fraction of the quarter of a million dollars it takes to get a fetus raised to adult hood with college vocational education.
    Now Roberto, why aren’t you putting your money where you mouth is hypocrite? Offer all those poor and POC women the quarter of a million in escrow. See how many abortions you stop. But here’s the clincher, since YOU have the problem with abortion, YOU and those of like mind should be paying the monies. Not one dime from the general government fund.
    Too simple and practical for you meager mind, I know.

  229. Ichthyic says

    What if your father had said no? Where would you be then? Huh? Abstinence is murder!

    Sounds like a line Glen Quagmire might use at a bar.

  230. Rey Fox says

    How dare you atheists not get formal studying in something that funnels money to the ultra-rich.

  231. ck, the Irate Lump says

    Roberto seems highly concerned that people may be unemployed because they’re posting on Saturdays and Sundays? Maybe Roberto should think before using the standard, lazy right wing insult of calling your opponents “unemployed”, but I suspect that would be asking too much. It’s also a little ironic that the very next comment admits to using a library computer after getting all elitist on us.