Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Health / The Ladies Banning Abortion...
Posted by Dan Savage on Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 1:24 PM
...doesn't reduce the number of abortions.
Restricting the availability of legal abortion does not appear to reduce the number of women trying to end unwanted pregnancies, a major report suggests. The Guttmacher Institute's survey found abortion occurs at roughly equal rates in regions where it is legal and regions where it is highly restricted.
Banning abortion only makes abortions more dangerous and kills women—which is what many opponents of abortion are after, really. They want people who have sex to be punished. Seventy-thousand woman die every year as a result of unsafe abortions in countries where abortion is illegal. So let's just say it, shall we? American opponents of reproductive freedom—people who seek to ban abortion—are trying to kill American women. The end.
Guess what does reduce the number of abortions? Improved access to contraception.
Share via
1
New Oklahoma law will publicy post details of women’s abortions online.
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/10/08/okla…
Semi-relevant article I came across today.
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/10/08/okla…
Semi-relevant article I came across today.
5
@3: Your analysis of the Guttmacher Institute's work is infinitely more non-scientific. You obviously know nothing about them.
6
Dan, your rational approach here completely fails to take into account the fact that the opponents of abortion believe in a magical soul that makes them right and you wrong, because - surely you're aware - two-celled zygotes have souls, but fags don't. I'm pretty sure women don't, either, in that particular cosmology, so there's no conflict in passing laws that kill them! See how that works?
7
It's all about control and hatred of women by the extremists who call themselves religious but who hate Christ's teachings.
9
@5 - Actually, I think #3 is trying to preempt criticism of Dan's post. See, it is presenting a potential criticism- that the study is clearly "crappy" - and then refuting that critique by asserting that calling the study "crappy" doesn't make it "crappy."
He's issuing a challenge to the naysayers: back up your criticism with evidence. Or at least that's how I'll interpret it.
He's issuing a challenge to the naysayers: back up your criticism with evidence. Or at least that's how I'll interpret it.
10
Does outlawing murder end murder?
Does outlawing Gay bashing end Gay bashing?
Should we legalize murder and Gay bashing?
Admit it-
people who want to outlaw murder and Gay bashing don't care about reducing murder and Gay bashing; they just want to punish people who murder and Gay bash.
Does outlawing Gay bashing end Gay bashing?
Should we legalize murder and Gay bashing?
Admit it-
people who want to outlaw murder and Gay bashing don't care about reducing murder and Gay bashing; they just want to punish people who murder and Gay bash.
11
How are those who seek to protect the lives of the yet to be born "opponents of reproductive freedom"? The fact that a pregnancy exist is evidence of your "reproductive freedom". Abortion is about trying to shirk responsibility for choices already made.
12
@10; the implication being that nonprocreative sex is on the same moral plane as murder and assault?
15
And so life comes to imitate sarcasm: thank you, @3, 10, and 11 for aptly demonstrating my point that fear, misconception, and tribal ideology will always trump facts.
16
14
We will gladly allow abortions in the 0.03% of cases resulting from rape if you join us in protecting the other 99.97% of the 800,000 babies a year slaughtered for convenience.
We will gladly allow abortions in the 0.03% of cases resulting from rape if you join us in protecting the other 99.97% of the 800,000 babies a year slaughtered for convenience.
19
Yes, but how else will we maintain an underclass as a source of cheap labor and military recruits for the empire?
20
In a democracy legalized abortion makes every citizen an accomplice to the slaughter. If abortion is illegal and people chooses to break the law and kill their children the onus rests only on them.
21
The majority of sensible americans don't "seek to ban" abortions when the life of the mother is at risk but we recognize the sanctity of life and what we do want is to restrict extreme procedures like partial birth abortions and the like. Unlike Savage most people want to see abortions carried out rarely by adults and under well extreme circumstances. Not something promoted alongside contraceptives like Savage wants. It always surprises me and it really shouldn't that those who are the most vociferous about the promotion of abortion are those who have renounced or see no need to having a reproductive future and want women to follow suit. Makes you wonder.
22
15
Let us hope that science, reason and justice can eventually overcome selfessness and irresponsibility.
Let us hope that science, reason and justice can eventually overcome selfessness and irresponsibility.
23
It always amazes me how the people who make the most noise about wanting to ban abortion and claim it's because they care so much about the "babies" lose all interest in the life or health of any of those babies the moment they are born.
24
Loveschild (21) you are an idiot.
I am the parent of two and an abortion activist and provider. If you don't like abortion, don't have one. If you don't want other people to have them, support access to inexpensive, effective contraception for all age groups. The point of the Guttmacher Institute study (which replicates the findings of countless other studies, you idiot @ #3) is that most effective tactic in limiting abortion is to make contraception widely available. If you really hate abortion, do what works to limit it.
I am the parent of two and an abortion activist and provider. If you don't like abortion, don't have one. If you don't want other people to have them, support access to inexpensive, effective contraception for all age groups. The point of the Guttmacher Institute study (which replicates the findings of countless other studies, you idiot @ #3) is that most effective tactic in limiting abortion is to make contraception widely available. If you really hate abortion, do what works to limit it.
26
Ugh, so much anti-choice trollage.
What should the punishment be for a woman who has an abortion? How much jail time should she do?
And don't say "none" because if I hire someone to kill my husband, I do time. If Abortion = Murder, then hiring someone to commit that murder is just as much a felony as any other hire job to commit adult murder.
So how much time should one in four american women be forced to get for having an abortion?
While we're at it, I would like to remind you that in the days before abortion was legal, women who had back-alley abortions that went wrong were routinely denied medical care until they confessed that they'd had an abortion and ratted out the doctor or boyfriend. And no matter how good and Godly and life-worshipping you think you've raised her, anti-choicers: that could be your daughter, scared, alone and dying of a perforated uterus while being yelled at by a police officer in her last moments.
Pro-life my ass.
What should the punishment be for a woman who has an abortion? How much jail time should she do?
And don't say "none" because if I hire someone to kill my husband, I do time. If Abortion = Murder, then hiring someone to commit that murder is just as much a felony as any other hire job to commit adult murder.
So how much time should one in four american women be forced to get for having an abortion?
While we're at it, I would like to remind you that in the days before abortion was legal, women who had back-alley abortions that went wrong were routinely denied medical care until they confessed that they'd had an abortion and ratted out the doctor or boyfriend. And no matter how good and Godly and life-worshipping you think you've raised her, anti-choicers: that could be your daughter, scared, alone and dying of a perforated uterus while being yelled at by a police officer in her last moments.
Pro-life my ass.
28
You stupid bitch.
Aw, you're not even going to pretend to respect women when you're telling us what we can and cannot do with our bodies?
29
"Pro-life" folks care about a fetus up until the time it is born, at which point they promptly stop giving a shit.
If they were really "pro-life", they'd be against anything and everything that threatens human life. And yet, most pro-lifers are pro-war, pro-gun, pro-death penalty, and generally pro-everything that makes it easier for human life to be destroyed. So are they really pro-life? Hell no. I have yet to meet a person who is holistically and completely "pro-life". So far all I've met are hypocrites.
If they were really "pro-life", they'd be against anything and everything that threatens human life. And yet, most pro-lifers are pro-war, pro-gun, pro-death penalty, and generally pro-everything that makes it easier for human life to be destroyed. So are they really pro-life? Hell no. I have yet to meet a person who is holistically and completely "pro-life". So far all I've met are hypocrites.
30
I've yet to have an anti-choicer actually answer the "how much time should she get" question honestly. Although there's enough misogyny in these Mars Hill trolls we might just see a full display. Exciting!
31
24
Ah-
COUNTLESS "studies" by abortion proponents-
all reaching the same conclusion.
Irrefutable!
And the ever lame but ever popular
"don't have one" non-response.
I haver a counter offer,
abortion provider parent-
if you don't want to see abortion outlawed
don't work to outlaw it.
Ah-
COUNTLESS "studies" by abortion proponents-
all reaching the same conclusion.
Irrefutable!
And the ever lame but ever popular
"don't have one" non-response.
I haver a counter offer,
abortion provider parent-
if you don't want to see abortion outlawed
don't work to outlaw it.
33
call'em like we see'em
You're absolutely right, you shit-smeared asshole who can only achieve climax by furiously masturbating to thoughts of naughty sluts getting punished for having forbidden sex.
34
@28
No one is telling you what you can and cannot do with your bodies.
There's never yet been the body of a woman who had an abortion chopped up and dumped in the trash outside a clinic.
We would appreciate it, however, if you refrained from chemically burning and dismembering the bodies of innocent children.
No one is telling you what you can and cannot do with your bodies.
There's never yet been the body of a woman who had an abortion chopped up and dumped in the trash outside a clinic.
We would appreciate it, however, if you refrained from chemically burning and dismembering the bodies of innocent children.
36
I tend to value the living, breathing women who will be slaughtered as a result of your desire to outlaw abortion as opposed to the little bundle of tissues.
I know, we don't really matter.
I know, we don't really matter.
37
How come nobody is talking about the huge fallacy in this post?
Claim (a) Banning abortion makes it more dangerous and lethal. Which is true.
Claim (b) Women die from unsafe abortions in countries where it is illega. Which is true.
Claim (C) (which makes me wonder if Dan even attended a single class in college) "People who seek to ban abortions are trying to kill American Women.
(And then he bolds "The end" as if a different font will make his post look less stupid)
Adding claims A and B together does not make C true. My buddy teaches this shit in highschool dude, it's basic logic and it's not that goddamn hard.
Claim (a) Banning abortion makes it more dangerous and lethal. Which is true.
Claim (b) Women die from unsafe abortions in countries where it is illega. Which is true.
Claim (C) (which makes me wonder if Dan even attended a single class in college) "People who seek to ban abortions are trying to kill American Women.
(And then he bolds "The end" as if a different font will make his post look less stupid)
Adding claims A and B together does not make C true. My buddy teaches this shit in highschool dude, it's basic logic and it's not that goddamn hard.
38
If they just lined up the people who support the death penalty and had them not post about abortion or choice or pro-life ever again, it would be way quiet on the Internets, and a lot less hypocritical
39
16, facts and citations, please. "Convenience?" In 22 years of terminating pregnancies, I have yet to come across one woman who took her decision lightly. On the other hand, I have had lots of women with serious medical problems whose contraception failed them, abused women who couldn't get to their doctors for BC pills, women carrying fetuses with anomalies that could not be treated.
41
31, your post makes no sense.
You care about babies? Take care of WOMEN, and you take care of babies. Make sure women have safe homes, enough to eat, protection from assault, access to health care and contraception, and the abortion rate goes down, the neonatal mortality rate goes down, and everybody wins. You want to save babies? Save women and the world gets safer for babies.
That's just being practical. But you aren't interested in that, are you?
You care about babies? Take care of WOMEN, and you take care of babies. Make sure women have safe homes, enough to eat, protection from assault, access to health care and contraception, and the abortion rate goes down, the neonatal mortality rate goes down, and everybody wins. You want to save babies? Save women and the world gets safer for babies.
That's just being practical. But you aren't interested in that, are you?
43
for people who claim to be against 'partial birth abortions' I recommend reading this: http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazin…
44
My grandmother was a state policewoman in the 1940s-60s (abortion and birth control were illegal then). What she saw—child abuse, domestic violence, backstreet abortions—turned her into a huge supporter of Planned Parenthood. When she died at age 90, that's where she wanted her money to go.
45
Well, 42, have you any evidence to counter my 22 years of actual experience? We'd all like to hear it....
46
Abstinence education reduces Abortion.
States that accepted Abstinence Only Federal funds saw the rate of abortions per 100,000 girls under 15 fall from 20 in 2001 to 15 in 2005. The rate for girls 15-19 fell from 55 to 44.
States that refused Abstinence Only Federal funds had much higher rates of abortion and insignificant drops. The rate of abortions per 100,000 girls under 15 was 21 in 2001 and 20 in 2005. The rate for girls 15-19 was 69 in 2001 and 66 in 2005.
States that accepted Abstinence Only Federal funds saw the rate of abortions per 100,000 girls under 15 fall from 20 in 2001 to 15 in 2005. The rate for girls 15-19 fell from 55 to 44.
States that refused Abstinence Only Federal funds had much higher rates of abortion and insignificant drops. The rate of abortions per 100,000 girls under 15 was 21 in 2001 and 20 in 2005. The rate for girls 15-19 was 69 in 2001 and 66 in 2005.
47
My 85 year old mother is a fine upstanding Catholic lady who is also pro-choice. She is morally opposed to abortion, but she also knows that women sometimes have to make the best choice from a selection of bad choices, and sometimes that's abortion.
Personally, I knew two girls in high school back in the 80's in our Bibley little town who "lost their babies" by enducing miscarriages (God only knows what that really involved) and another girl who had two legal abortions at her parent's insistence, because they hated her boyrfriend (to their credit, they had a point - he was a dreadful person). Luckily, they were wealthy and well-connected. If they hadn't been, and had still been that determined, who knows what would have happened to that girl.
All outlawing abortion would do is tidy up the statistics, and sweep everything under the rug. Unfortunately, that's more than enough for some of the "pro-life" crowd.
Personally, I knew two girls in high school back in the 80's in our Bibley little town who "lost their babies" by enducing miscarriages (God only knows what that really involved) and another girl who had two legal abortions at her parent's insistence, because they hated her boyrfriend (to their credit, they had a point - he was a dreadful person). Luckily, they were wealthy and well-connected. If they hadn't been, and had still been that determined, who knows what would have happened to that girl.
All outlawing abortion would do is tidy up the statistics, and sweep everything under the rug. Unfortunately, that's more than enough for some of the "pro-life" crowd.
49
Women give at least 3 reasons for choosing abortion: 3/4 say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or other responsibilities; almost 3/4 say they cannot afford a child; and 1/2 say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner.
50
I once met a 2 year old who was addicted to coffee. And instead of giving her juice in a coffee cup they thought it was cute that she drank theirs. Some people aren't fit to be parents...I commend those who know that from the start and realize their choices can harm an actual child. It has nothing to do with convenience, but a realization of not having the means to support a child, or even have a healthy pregnancy to opt for adoption. In most abortion cases that I know of from friends, it was not a choice taken lightly and it was always in the best interest of the child.
51
Induced abortions usually result from unintended pregnancies, which often occur despite the use of contraception (CDC).
54% of women having abortions used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant. Among those women, 76% of pill users and 49% of condom users reported using the methods inconsistently, while 13% of pill users and 14% of condom users reported correct use (AGI).
54% of women having abortions used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant. Among those women, 76% of pill users and 49% of condom users reported using the methods inconsistently, while 13% of pill users and 14% of condom users reported correct use (AGI).
52
50
Yes.
Some people aren't fit to be parents.
How about if we kill them and leave their poor kids out of it?
Yes.
Some people aren't fit to be parents.
How about if we kill them and leave their poor kids out of it?
53
• Fifty-four percent of women who have abortions had used a contraceptive method (usually the condom or the pill) during the month they became pregnant. Among those women, 76% of pill users and 49% of condom users report having used their method inconsistently, while 13% of pill users and 14% of condom users report correct use.[9]
• Forty-six percent of women who have abortions had not used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant. Of these women, 33% had perceived themselves to be at low risk for pregnancy, 32% had had concerns about contraceptive methods, 26% had had unexpected sex and 1% had been forced to have sex.[9]
• About half of unintended pregnancies occur among the 11% of women who are at risk for unintended pregnancy but are not using contraceptives. Most of these women have practiced contraception in the past. (Abortion as Birth Control)
• Forty-six percent of women who have abortions had not used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant. Of these women, 33% had perceived themselves to be at low risk for pregnancy, 32% had had concerns about contraceptive methods, 26% had had unexpected sex and 1% had been forced to have sex.[9]
• About half of unintended pregnancies occur among the 11% of women who are at risk for unintended pregnancy but are not using contraceptives. Most of these women have practiced contraception in the past. (Abortion as Birth Control)
54
you can "oh baby baby all you want" but that doesn't mean a fetus has personhood.
the incredible arrogance of the pro-life crowd is assuming that they don't need to SHOW how a zygote/embryo/fetus has the same personhood/bodily integrity/rights as an autonomous, sentient woman. we currently live in a society where women still have reproductive choice. THE BURDEN OF PROOF falls on the pro-life side.
and sorry folks, bodily integrity is defined as having an autonomous body and a consciousness to recognize that -something young infants as well as the mentally disabled have too. the only exception to the rule is if you previously had sentience and left instructions about turning off a feeding tube in a last will and testament/or similar.
potential life is not the same thing as an already life. abortion isn't murder unless you believe all conceptions have a soul, which is fair, but that's your spiritual take and not applicable to everyone else.
a major facet of bodily integrity that was defined by courts before roe v wade was that as a person you cannot be forced into a medical procedure you don't want nor forced to live with one you don't want. see mcgall v shrimp. and don't give me "an abortion is a procedure the zygote/embryo/fetus doesn't want" because a "zef" doesn't want anything; it isn't capable of wanting, isn't yet capable of wanting anything. a woman is capable of wanting/not wanting and forcing her to live for 9 months with a medical condition would be outrageously unique to current law. nobody else can be legally prevented from a routine medical procedure. only pregnant women are ever subjected to this bullshit.
also, personhood is all or nothing. you can't say, "i'm pro-life unless the woman was raped or pregnancy would kill her." if the zef is a person then a woman can't do anything, to her benefit or not, regardless of circumstances, to end its biotic functions. pro-life argument slips right there.
a zef is not a legal person. i've read a lot of case law and theory and have yet to come across a legal definition of personhood that could hold water when applied to a zef. i don't want to hear, "well the nazis didn't think the jews were people." no, the nazis thought jews were a sub-race and were in a nationalistic struggle to "purify" germany. duh. not remotely the same thing as abortion.
finally to end on the note of current events, the biggest financial contributors to the religious fanatic crazy lobbyists in washington are health insurance companies. why? because it's highly financially beneficial to health insurance companies to be able to legally deny certain rights and coverage benefits to another 10% of american couples and their children. and because women's healthcare is super-expensive so putting pressure on women not to have sex -saving the health insurance companies on copays for birth control and abortion surgeries and follow-up/complications of the same- is financially beneficial too. the same bullshit was applied to stem cell research by the bush administration. stem cell research doesn't require a dead fetus. it requires the umbilical cord, at a minimum. aborted fetal waste matter has been used in the research but isn't necessary to development. health insurance companies were all for stirring up the pro-lifers on this cause because, of course, stem cell procedures are very, very expensive and they don't want to have to pay for it.
i hope all you anti-choice-anti-gay assholes feel good knowing that your spiritual values and piggish propagation of your personal values combined with inability to objectively consider the greater world has been taken advantage of for the primary purpose of keeping a few other assholes rich.
but oops...that's falling apart slowly but surely too when a senate panel signed the most significant so far healthcare reform bill today. suckers.
More...
the incredible arrogance of the pro-life crowd is assuming that they don't need to SHOW how a zygote/embryo/fetus has the same personhood/bodily integrity/rights as an autonomous, sentient woman. we currently live in a society where women still have reproductive choice. THE BURDEN OF PROOF falls on the pro-life side.
and sorry folks, bodily integrity is defined as having an autonomous body and a consciousness to recognize that -something young infants as well as the mentally disabled have too. the only exception to the rule is if you previously had sentience and left instructions about turning off a feeding tube in a last will and testament/or similar.
potential life is not the same thing as an already life. abortion isn't murder unless you believe all conceptions have a soul, which is fair, but that's your spiritual take and not applicable to everyone else.
a major facet of bodily integrity that was defined by courts before roe v wade was that as a person you cannot be forced into a medical procedure you don't want nor forced to live with one you don't want. see mcgall v shrimp. and don't give me "an abortion is a procedure the zygote/embryo/fetus doesn't want" because a "zef" doesn't want anything; it isn't capable of wanting, isn't yet capable of wanting anything. a woman is capable of wanting/not wanting and forcing her to live for 9 months with a medical condition would be outrageously unique to current law. nobody else can be legally prevented from a routine medical procedure. only pregnant women are ever subjected to this bullshit.
also, personhood is all or nothing. you can't say, "i'm pro-life unless the woman was raped or pregnancy would kill her." if the zef is a person then a woman can't do anything, to her benefit or not, regardless of circumstances, to end its biotic functions. pro-life argument slips right there.
a zef is not a legal person. i've read a lot of case law and theory and have yet to come across a legal definition of personhood that could hold water when applied to a zef. i don't want to hear, "well the nazis didn't think the jews were people." no, the nazis thought jews were a sub-race and were in a nationalistic struggle to "purify" germany. duh. not remotely the same thing as abortion.
finally to end on the note of current events, the biggest financial contributors to the religious fanatic crazy lobbyists in washington are health insurance companies. why? because it's highly financially beneficial to health insurance companies to be able to legally deny certain rights and coverage benefits to another 10% of american couples and their children. and because women's healthcare is super-expensive so putting pressure on women not to have sex -saving the health insurance companies on copays for birth control and abortion surgeries and follow-up/complications of the same- is financially beneficial too. the same bullshit was applied to stem cell research by the bush administration. stem cell research doesn't require a dead fetus. it requires the umbilical cord, at a minimum. aborted fetal waste matter has been used in the research but isn't necessary to development. health insurance companies were all for stirring up the pro-lifers on this cause because, of course, stem cell procedures are very, very expensive and they don't want to have to pay for it.
i hope all you anti-choice-anti-gay assholes feel good knowing that your spiritual values and piggish propagation of your personal values combined with inability to objectively consider the greater world has been taken advantage of for the primary purpose of keeping a few other assholes rich.
but oops...that's falling apart slowly but surely too when a senate panel signed the most significant so far healthcare reform bill today. suckers.
55
Dan, you hysterical little bitch-
abortion, legal or otherwise, is nothing as a threat to the lives of women compared to AIDS given to them by their lying downlow cheating partners.
Did you know that Homosexual men account for 59% of all new AIDS cases? And that 97% of women who get AIDS get it from an infected male?
abortion, legal or otherwise, is nothing as a threat to the lives of women compared to AIDS given to them by their lying downlow cheating partners.
Did you know that Homosexual men account for 59% of all new AIDS cases? And that 97% of women who get AIDS get it from an infected male?
56
54
"but oops...that's falling apart slowly but surely too when a senate panel signed the most significant so far healthcare reform bill today. suckers."
dear, your hope for today's healthcare bill is the very definition of SUCKERHOOD.
"but oops...that's falling apart slowly but surely too when a senate panel signed the most significant so far healthcare reform bill today. suckers."
dear, your hope for today's healthcare bill is the very definition of SUCKERHOOD.
57
37: You're "thinking" too hard. It's perfectly logical, albeit hyperbolic.
If illegal abortion means more women die, and you push for illegal abortion (knowing that that means more women will die), then that means you would rather that more women die than that abortion should be legal.
If illegal abortion means more women die, and you push for illegal abortion (knowing that that means more women will die), then that means you would rather that more women die than that abortion should be legal.
58
46, this is relevant how?
For all those wondering, 46's lovely little contribution is courtesy of VoteYESforLife.com.
For all those wondering, 46's lovely little contribution is courtesy of VoteYESforLife.com.
59
#55, why are homosexual men responsible for giving AIDS to women?
Admittedly this is the fantasy land in your head we're talking about here, but have it at least make some sense if you want to troll successfully, k?
Admittedly this is the fantasy land in your head we're talking about here, but have it at least make some sense if you want to troll successfully, k?
60
@52
So why don't we spent more energy fighting to get more people in social services to protect the already born from their unfit parents than fighting to stop the unfit from having a child in the first place. I do agree that making contraceptives will decrease abortions, but lets face it....if someone is unfit to make healthy choices for a child, they aren't making healthy choices for themselves. Having the option of abortion gives someone one more chance to save a life from entering the world of social services.
So why don't we spent more energy fighting to get more people in social services to protect the already born from their unfit parents than fighting to stop the unfit from having a child in the first place. I do agree that making contraceptives will decrease abortions, but lets face it....if someone is unfit to make healthy choices for a child, they aren't making healthy choices for themselves. Having the option of abortion gives someone one more chance to save a life from entering the world of social services.
64
As someone lucky enough to be born, I feel a certain responsibility to the unborn. I think they should have the chance to be born, too. But, since I am male, and can't bear a child - I lack the frame of reference for knowing what it is like. Therefore, I have no choice but to acknowledge the right of a woman to choose for herself whether or not to have a child. Anything else would be hypocritical.
66
@55 It's great to hear that you're a big supporter of reducing prejudice based on sexual orientation! After all, men go on the 'downlow' because they fear the social consequences of admitting their sexual preference for other men. Reduce the stigma, and gay men come out of the closet faster, thus reducing the chances of them infecting their beards with a deadly disease. Of course, the big way to prevent women (not to mention men) from being infected with AIDS is to promote condom use, which incidentally also reduces the number of unwanted pregnancies, and abortions. So really, safe sex solves both problems. Thanks for the safety tip, 55!
67
Long, long ago, in another America (Around 1920 or so, I think) my great-grandmother died from a botched self-administered (!) abortion. I have shared this little piece of family history with very few people, not out of any shame (it was almost a century ago, too removed from any relatives still living too be even remotely "Scandalous") but because the few times I "accidently" mentioned it to someone who turned out to be a pro-lifer they went into a hissy snit-fit.
What bothers them so fucking much? Is simply mentioning that such things actually happened that inconvient to their worldview?
What bothers them so fucking much? Is simply mentioning that such things actually happened that inconvient to their worldview?
68
I wish MORE poor people in this country would get abortions. Seriously, we have enough baby mamas.....
69
Men go on the 'downlow' because they are lying bastards.
Of course, the biggest way to prevent women (not to mention men) from being infected with AIDS (and all other STDs) is to promote abstinence until marriage and fidelity within marriage, which incidentally also reduces the number of unwanted pregnancies, and abortions.
Of course, the biggest way to prevent women (not to mention men) from being infected with AIDS (and all other STDs) is to promote abstinence until marriage and fidelity within marriage, which incidentally also reduces the number of unwanted pregnancies, and abortions.
70
"So why don't we spent more energy fighting to get more people in social services to protect the already born from their unfit parents than fighting to stop the unfit from having a child in the first place."
Why don't we spend more energy ENCOURAGING abortion in the poor?
Why don't we spend more energy ENCOURAGING abortion in the poor?
71
67, I think 42 would tell you that's anecdotal evidence. And they don't want to hear about reality, just about their black/white moral absolutism.
If you got them to admit your grandmother's story, they'd tell you that that could NEVER happen now. Uh-huh.
If you got them to admit your grandmother's story, they'd tell you that that could NEVER happen now. Uh-huh.
72
To all young adult African American heterosexual Slog readers of reproductive age, I want to remind you all is not as it appears to be and while some so called progressives might outwardly state that the promotion and complete unregulated legalisation of abortion is done in the name of women "reproductive freedom" that freedom is but only for a very few and especially to the detriment of minority women and of the overall growth of the African American community. The best example of this is one of the organizations which mr Dan Savage supports:
Margaret Sanger (founder of American Birth Control League (which eventually became Planned Parenthood)) said about her 1939 "Negro Project";
"We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out the idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."
And also, Clarence Gamble, president of the American Eugenics Research Association, said, "There is a great danger that we will fail because the Negroes think it a plan for extermination. Hence lets appear to let the colored run it as we appear to let [the] south do the conference in Atlanta." Under this policy, Planned Parenthood of America hired a full-time "Negro Consultant" in 1944.
Margaret Sanger (founder of American Birth Control League (which eventually became Planned Parenthood)) said about her 1939 "Negro Project";
"We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out the idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."
And also, Clarence Gamble, president of the American Eugenics Research Association, said, "There is a great danger that we will fail because the Negroes think it a plan for extermination. Hence lets appear to let the colored run it as we appear to let [the] south do the conference in Atlanta." Under this policy, Planned Parenthood of America hired a full-time "Negro Consultant" in 1944.
73
"What we need is to better understand our fertility - if there are just 24 fertile hours in a month, we need to work out a cheap, effective way for women to know when they can fall pregnant"
This is the most telling part of the article. It would seem that if they can make an instant pregnancy kit, they can also make an instant fertility kit...or maybe something that turns a vulva blue during ovulation. The marketeers can brainstorm...
This is the most telling part of the article. It would seem that if they can make an instant pregnancy kit, they can also make an instant fertility kit...or maybe something that turns a vulva blue during ovulation. The marketeers can brainstorm...
74
@57, Your conclusion is correct, but that's not what Dan said and you know it. Don't defend that idiocy just because he's a pop culture icon or because you feel that strongly about abortion.
76
@69: Of course we agree that there's a certain cowardice and selfishness to remaining closeted if you are gay after a certain age, which is I'm sure what you're referring to. Naturally, removing the stigma from homosexuality reduces the temptation to be a lying selfish bastard who uses women to hide their real sexual orientation, and encourages gay men to form genuine relationships with people they are actually attracted to. I assume your second statement is a joke. After all, study after study has demonstrated that abstinence only education does not significantly reduce premarital sex; it only increases the chance that such sex will be unsafe, thus increasing the risk of disease and unwanted pregnancies. You should be careful about how you phrase things on the internet, since sarcasm isn't always clear, and I'm sure you don't want to come off as an ignorant prude more interested in controlling other people's sexuality than reducing the spread of disease and misery.
77
Abstinence until marriage is a pipe dream. In the REAL world. To have a healthy happy, productive marriage ... it takes years and years and years of peoples 20s for the majority of us to establish ourselves on this planet. To be become functioning members of society with the ability to care of OURSELVES let alone another innocent human being.
Well in the interim ... while I try to figure how to take care of myself with this lofty degree (assuming the "right thing" was in fact the right thing to do with my ambition), in this society, without losing my soul, the occasional bout of premarital sex, helps me actually love humanity and give me some hope for it's future. It helps me restore confidence that I'm a competent human being. Helps me not feel alone and feel that this whole thing means something.
Unlike the rest of my male scientific counterparts who have given up dating all together because they've been out of the loop for so long. They are now the miserable, jaded, self-righteous men I have ever met, who scour the earth for the next lab project, in solitude.
In the meantime, I'm applying for jobs ALL OVER THE COUNTRY. Each one has the chance to last within the 2-5 year range ... and it's going to get worse as time goes on ... the new economy is going to make financial success dependent on ones mobility.
Remember in the "global economy" finances are transported around the world in the blink of an eye to maximize profit, but not workers.
Where is there room for children? It gets delayed if it is going to happen at all. Are we all supposed to wear god damn chastity belts until we are 33? Look contraception is necessary, but it's not fool proof. And because of this, why should we bring more unnecessary suffering into this world.
More...
Well in the interim ... while I try to figure how to take care of myself with this lofty degree (assuming the "right thing" was in fact the right thing to do with my ambition), in this society, without losing my soul, the occasional bout of premarital sex, helps me actually love humanity and give me some hope for it's future. It helps me restore confidence that I'm a competent human being. Helps me not feel alone and feel that this whole thing means something.
Unlike the rest of my male scientific counterparts who have given up dating all together because they've been out of the loop for so long. They are now the miserable, jaded, self-righteous men I have ever met, who scour the earth for the next lab project, in solitude.
In the meantime, I'm applying for jobs ALL OVER THE COUNTRY. Each one has the chance to last within the 2-5 year range ... and it's going to get worse as time goes on ... the new economy is going to make financial success dependent on ones mobility.
Remember in the "global economy" finances are transported around the world in the blink of an eye to maximize profit, but not workers.
Where is there room for children? It gets delayed if it is going to happen at all. Are we all supposed to wear god damn chastity belts until we are 33? Look contraception is necessary, but it's not fool proof. And because of this, why should we bring more unnecessary suffering into this world.
79
Allegedly, You have a point @10 that if abortion were truly a crime it might be prudent to criminalize it or severely regulate it (i.e. restrict abortion cases to fetal anomalies incompatible with life in the broadest sense of the expression), but it is not established, or even necessarily popularly accepted that a zygote (or even a fetus, necessarily) is establishable as an innocent human life, i.e. has established personhood.
Since only non-elective abortions are performed in the time frame when personhood is expected, you are wrong @13: elected abortion does not kill innocent human life. To the contrary, it terminates a pregnancy before it becomes a human life.
It's also a common fallacy to presume a fetus or a zygote equates to a baby or a child. The difference in time, growth and developmental viability is magnitudinous. The common reason expressed by many in the conservative abortion-access obstructionist crowd is that a fertilized zygote has a genetic makeup that is significantly different from the mother, but this doesn't take into account that so does cancer or other significant mutations that occur continuously within a human body (most of which are harmlessly contained and discarded) or the fact that a the same fertilized zygote has a less than 20% chance of naturally developing into a healthy baby.
Since only non-elective abortions are performed in the time frame when personhood is expected, you are wrong @13: elected abortion does not kill innocent human life. To the contrary, it terminates a pregnancy before it becomes a human life.
It's also a common fallacy to presume a fetus or a zygote equates to a baby or a child. The difference in time, growth and developmental viability is magnitudinous. The common reason expressed by many in the conservative abortion-access obstructionist crowd is that a fertilized zygote has a genetic makeup that is significantly different from the mother, but this doesn't take into account that so does cancer or other significant mutations that occur continuously within a human body (most of which are harmlessly contained and discarded) or the fact that a the same fertilized zygote has a less than 20% chance of naturally developing into a healthy baby.
80
Half of all teens successfully practice abstinence.
They have a 100% chance to avoid pregnancy and STDs.
You run in a sleazy corner of the Real World.
They have a 100% chance to avoid pregnancy and STDs.
You run in a sleazy corner of the Real World.
81
@80 ... you remember that lovely Onion article about the teenage boy who was still abstinent and not having the teen sex that statistically more teens are taking part in, no matter how hard he tried?
Priceless
Priceless
82
79
innocent human life ≠ personhood.
You always throw up the strawman of 'personhood'.
Life is a biological concept.
Biologically conception creates a human life.
It is alive.
It is homo sapiens.
It is neither the mother or the father, it is a new member of the species.
If you dispute that please explain what species the living organism created by conception belongs to. All living organisms belong to a species, what is our mystery organism before it becomes human?
Abortion KILLS a homo sapiens.
You may ponder 'personhood' and fairies and angels on a pinhead if you wish but please don't distract a discussion of Life (and Death) with philosophical mental masturbation.
innocent human life ≠ personhood.
You always throw up the strawman of 'personhood'.
Life is a biological concept.
Biologically conception creates a human life.
It is alive.
It is homo sapiens.
It is neither the mother or the father, it is a new member of the species.
If you dispute that please explain what species the living organism created by conception belongs to. All living organisms belong to a species, what is our mystery organism before it becomes human?
Abortion KILLS a homo sapiens.
You may ponder 'personhood' and fairies and angels on a pinhead if you wish but please don't distract a discussion of Life (and Death) with philosophical mental masturbation.
83
Dan, this is probably the third time I've come to your blog. The second was a few days ago. I wanted to read what you had to say about Obama's speech to the HRC. I scrolled down and read your post about the Mormon couple that conceived 6 children and I could not believe that neither you nor your commenters could in any way acknowledge the difficult position a couple is in when they are asked to selectively reduce. (And yes, I find it utterly annoying when Christians invoke the "God's plan" b.s. at the least sign of trouble. But to have no compassion at all for the position they were in? Come on.)
I came back here today and now I find this post about abortion. Do you seriously believe that "American opponents of reproductive freedom....are trying to kill American women"? Or do you think it's cute to connect the dots on that way? The vast majority of people I know would self-identify as pro-life. Not one of them wants American women to die. Not one of them wants women barefoot and enslaved in the kitchen (as I hear so many pro-choicers accuse). They simply believe that life begins at conception and that a fetus has the right to life. It's a complicated issue, for crying out loud. Most of the pro-lifers I know would acknowledge that. I find your characterization of them (and the issue) extremely disappointing and small.
For the record, I'm a straight, married, suburban mother of four. I'm very left but surrounded by righties. I used to be pro-life but now I'm pro-choice. I got there by considering the arguments of the other side. I know plenty of Bible thumpers and a lot about them drives me bat-shit crazy. But I try to be calm and reasoned with any of them if touchy issues come up. Maybe, just maybe, they'll hear my point of view and that, along with the respect they have for me and the respect I afford them, will give them pause. I've had exchanges like this with them about marriage equality ("Oh, you're concerned about gay marriage becoming legal in our state? Really? I'm actually a huge supporter of marriage equality...blah blah blah"), religion, etc. and in many cases made some headway. I don't see how open disdain or contempt gets anyone anywhere.
It's clear to me now that both sides of the abortion debate have zero interest in understanding their opponents' views. Problem is, you don't change any minds that way. Might be safe for keeping Roe v. Wade on the books, but what about marriage equality? Minds have to be changed....and you aren't going to change any with open contempt for your adversaries.
Sorry for the lengthy post. But this has been bothering me since I read your blog yesterday about the Mormon couple. I've seen your articles in publications here and there over the years and enjoyed them. I just can't believe this is really you. Came as quite a surprise.
More...
I came back here today and now I find this post about abortion. Do you seriously believe that "American opponents of reproductive freedom....are trying to kill American women"? Or do you think it's cute to connect the dots on that way? The vast majority of people I know would self-identify as pro-life. Not one of them wants American women to die. Not one of them wants women barefoot and enslaved in the kitchen (as I hear so many pro-choicers accuse). They simply believe that life begins at conception and that a fetus has the right to life. It's a complicated issue, for crying out loud. Most of the pro-lifers I know would acknowledge that. I find your characterization of them (and the issue) extremely disappointing and small.
For the record, I'm a straight, married, suburban mother of four. I'm very left but surrounded by righties. I used to be pro-life but now I'm pro-choice. I got there by considering the arguments of the other side. I know plenty of Bible thumpers and a lot about them drives me bat-shit crazy. But I try to be calm and reasoned with any of them if touchy issues come up. Maybe, just maybe, they'll hear my point of view and that, along with the respect they have for me and the respect I afford them, will give them pause. I've had exchanges like this with them about marriage equality ("Oh, you're concerned about gay marriage becoming legal in our state? Really? I'm actually a huge supporter of marriage equality...blah blah blah"), religion, etc. and in many cases made some headway. I don't see how open disdain or contempt gets anyone anywhere.
It's clear to me now that both sides of the abortion debate have zero interest in understanding their opponents' views. Problem is, you don't change any minds that way. Might be safe for keeping Roe v. Wade on the books, but what about marriage equality? Minds have to be changed....and you aren't going to change any with open contempt for your adversaries.
Sorry for the lengthy post. But this has been bothering me since I read your blog yesterday about the Mormon couple. I've seen your articles in publications here and there over the years and enjoyed them. I just can't believe this is really you. Came as quite a surprise.
84
@80 -- they successfully practice abstinence--until they don't. That's the problem... there's no longitudinal data that supports that teens wait more than a few months longer to have their first intercourse when they pledge abstinence than when they don't. But by golly they sure don't know how to protect themselves when they do finally act like most normal horny teenagers do. A few teens can make it and marry right out of highschool so that they can finally have sex and divorce by the time they're 20.
85
@72 -- yes, Margaret Sanger did say that... because she wanted to make sure that people weren't misinterpreting their mission in a time when black women were sterilized against their will.
For example, my grandfather worked in USAid and would go to third world and developing nations and dig wells, build irrigation facilities, and generally help people develop their farmlands into stable, sustainable fields through careful water management. He had to deal with a lot of superstitious local clerics who would try to tell people that The Americans Had Come To Poison Us All, and so if pressed, you could probably have heard my grandfather say something to the effect of "We do not want word to go out that we want to poison the wells, and the minister is the man who can straighten out the idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." In other words, we should make sure that the ministers know what our agenda is so that they can stomp out any misinformation of exactly the sort you yourself are spreading at the first sign of it.
Sanger knew that being able to control one's fertility and limit family size was the first critical step in stabilizing one's family and giving your family an economic future. Shame on you for spreading lies about her mission. You know what lies make the Baby Jesus do, after all.
For example, my grandfather worked in USAid and would go to third world and developing nations and dig wells, build irrigation facilities, and generally help people develop their farmlands into stable, sustainable fields through careful water management. He had to deal with a lot of superstitious local clerics who would try to tell people that The Americans Had Come To Poison Us All, and so if pressed, you could probably have heard my grandfather say something to the effect of "We do not want word to go out that we want to poison the wells, and the minister is the man who can straighten out the idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." In other words, we should make sure that the ministers know what our agenda is so that they can stomp out any misinformation of exactly the sort you yourself are spreading at the first sign of it.
Sanger knew that being able to control one's fertility and limit family size was the first critical step in stabilizing one's family and giving your family an economic future. Shame on you for spreading lies about her mission. You know what lies make the Baby Jesus do, after all.
86
@72
LC, you're clearly using that quote to imply that there is some sort of conspiracy to exterminate black people using abortion, and while I'm not entirely clear on how that would supposedly work, I think more pertinent here is the fact that that quote is clearly, in context, about how the organization does not want their work to be mistaken for such a conspiracy.
Giving people the tools to control their own sexual lives is not, except in the most bizarrely convoluted extremist logic, the same as or even related to exterminating their race. You will note that pogroms do not generally begin with the distribution of condoms.
Get a fucking grip.
@82
Personhood is in fact the issue. If you want to make it about life, then we need to extend protection to all life, of all kinds, all of which is qualitatively equal. Moss, fish, dogs, chimps, and humans are all equally alive. That does not make them equally sentient or equally entitled to legal protection. Why don't you just come out and admit that it's not about life, either, for you, but rather about souls? Your concept of a soul is the only distinction you can possibly be trying to make between a human embryo, which doesn't even have differentiated neural tissue, and any other sort of simple animal life like a siphonophore or flatworm.
LC, you're clearly using that quote to imply that there is some sort of conspiracy to exterminate black people using abortion, and while I'm not entirely clear on how that would supposedly work, I think more pertinent here is the fact that that quote is clearly, in context, about how the organization does not want their work to be mistaken for such a conspiracy.
Giving people the tools to control their own sexual lives is not, except in the most bizarrely convoluted extremist logic, the same as or even related to exterminating their race. You will note that pogroms do not generally begin with the distribution of condoms.
Get a fucking grip.
@82
Personhood is in fact the issue. If you want to make it about life, then we need to extend protection to all life, of all kinds, all of which is qualitatively equal. Moss, fish, dogs, chimps, and humans are all equally alive. That does not make them equally sentient or equally entitled to legal protection. Why don't you just come out and admit that it's not about life, either, for you, but rather about souls? Your concept of a soul is the only distinction you can possibly be trying to make between a human embryo, which doesn't even have differentiated neural tissue, and any other sort of simple animal life like a siphonophore or flatworm.
88
84
450,000 abortions a year by women who were using contraception. Another 550,000 women get pregnant using contraception but keep the baby. And it is a lot easier to catch a STD than get pregnant so there are millions of people a year whose 'safe sex' let them down.
450,000 abortions a year by women who were using contraception. Another 550,000 women get pregnant using contraception but keep the baby. And it is a lot easier to catch a STD than get pregnant so there are millions of people a year whose 'safe sex' let them down.
89
Loveschild @21 I'm surprised you're not aware that intact dilation and extraction aka partial birth abortion (a derisive colloquialism) is only used in in cases when the mother's life is threatened or in cases of a fetal anomaly incompatible with life. Since IDEs are extremely late-term procedures, they are already regulated under Roe v. Wade to be outside the time frame in which elective abortions are legal.
I'm also pretty sure that Dan wants abortions to be, as Clinton put it, safe, legal and rare. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) The liberal position on abortion is similar to the conservative one in that we want fewer of them to occur. It's our tactics to affect this change that are different. Rather than regulating abortion further, we'd rather reduce the number of unintended pregnancies by providing better and more readily available conception, and encourage low-income expecting mothers to consider following through with a pregnancy by providing childcare benefits sufficient enough to make parenting feasible at the lower incomes, even when the biological father is a poor candidate as a parent.
I don't think those of us who are concerned with overpopulation (an issue which has some legitimacy but is outside the realm of control of teh government really would turn to abortion as a means to this end. To the contrary, my own hope for a solution, ectogenesis, which I've brought up elsewhere, will likely cause a population boom in its first years of usage. Of course, I suspect Genesis-minded literalists will fight its implementation tooth and claw for the first while.
You got me to look up vociferous.
I'm also pretty sure that Dan wants abortions to be, as Clinton put it, safe, legal and rare. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) The liberal position on abortion is similar to the conservative one in that we want fewer of them to occur. It's our tactics to affect this change that are different. Rather than regulating abortion further, we'd rather reduce the number of unintended pregnancies by providing better and more readily available conception, and encourage low-income expecting mothers to consider following through with a pregnancy by providing childcare benefits sufficient enough to make parenting feasible at the lower incomes, even when the biological father is a poor candidate as a parent.
I don't think those of us who are concerned with overpopulation (an issue which has some legitimacy but is outside the realm of control of teh government really would turn to abortion as a means to this end. To the contrary, my own hope for a solution, ectogenesis, which I've brought up elsewhere, will likely cause a population boom in its first years of usage. Of course, I suspect Genesis-minded literalists will fight its implementation tooth and claw for the first while.
You got me to look up vociferous.
90
Abortion is about controlling white women. 7/10th of abortion activists are men, 9/10ths are white. They don't actually care about saving all babies, they're really about saving healthy, white babies. Go ahead and look at the line up outside Planned Parenthood on the days they have abortions. The men shriek slut, whore, dyke (yeah, i don't get that one either) at the white women going inside when the news cameras aren't around....but you won't hear a peep out of them when a non-white woman walks up. They lie and tell girls they'll support them if they keep the baby but they really want them to put it up for adoption. That pool of healthy white infants available for adoption is pretty shallow. When the baby comes surprise, surprise the calls for help aren't returned. Go look at their website. They don't show you the children who are available for adoption by the state (non-white, handicapped, emotional problems, special needs), they don't show you the reality of what children who're unplanned, unwanted pregnancies actually are....what they show is healthy, happy blonde-haired and blue-eyed white children...usually boys. That's what this is all about: Controlling white women and preserving the white race. They don't give fuck all about babies or women. It's about making white women subservient breeders.
91
Allegedly, @79 your tune never changes. You said the same thing before. Twice, even. And you sound like you believe it with such conviction. But my reply, (and here, respectively) remain as valid as they did then. I wasn't convinced by your attempt to wax poetic then, either, but neither were you convinced by my voice of reason.
The short version: Personhood, referring to the point when a neonate or prenate is legally individual from its mother, is the term used by those of us who actually discuss the legality and morality of abortion access, since it will probably be used in any future law. Even those on your side use it. The term life is sloppy because it means something different to layfolk than it does in biological sciences. Thus we avoid it.
Interestingly, I wouldn't challenge that a zygote is human, rather I would challenge whether or not it is necessarily an organism. (Though, again, biologically, one could debate a single skin cell is an organism.) If you want, we can use that word instead of person. My arguments won't change either way. Nor will yours, I suspect.
Still, Abortion KILLS a homo sapiens only after that point it is legally defined as an individual homo sapiens.
More...
The short version: Personhood, referring to the point when a neonate or prenate is legally individual from its mother, is the term used by those of us who actually discuss the legality and morality of abortion access, since it will probably be used in any future law. Even those on your side use it. The term life is sloppy because it means something different to layfolk than it does in biological sciences. Thus we avoid it.
Interestingly, I wouldn't challenge that a zygote is human, rather I would challenge whether or not it is necessarily an organism. (Though, again, biologically, one could debate a single skin cell is an organism.) If you want, we can use that word instead of person. My arguments won't change either way. Nor will yours, I suspect.
Still, Abortion KILLS a homo sapiens only after that point it is legally defined as an individual homo sapiens.
92
Women's lives are far more important than the lives of embryos and fetuses. And I say this as a pregnant, partnered woman who is keeping her child by choice. I would want my doctor to save me over my fetus in every possible circumstance.
I've found that when I dig deep into why people don't want abortion, it tends to be about misogyny, controlling women, and punishing them.
I've found that when I dig deep into why people don't want abortion, it tends to be about misogyny, controlling women, and punishing them.
93
Oh, and one more thing: The high abortion rates in states with liberal abortion laws comes from the fact women from highly regulated areas cross the border to get their abortions. The women who live and are educated in liberal states with easy access to contraceptives have much lower abortion rates....but their abortion facilities get more traffic from all those conservative neighbors.Like women from Wisconsin traveling to Chicago...or women from the Dominican Republic going to Puerto Rico....or Irish women traveling to England. Or up to Roe vs. Wade when rich women got on a cruise ship or plane and went to Sweden.
p.s. If you hate abortion you must also hate God because GOD is the cause of most spontaneous abortions (miscarriages). They thought the miscarriage rate was 25-33% before 6 weeks, but now with the new early response pregnancy tests they believe it's more like 50%....and that's not even the embryos that never implant at all. Only one in four embryos implant in the womb and become a pregnancy. Suck on that "Every Embryo Is A Human Being" crowd. 75% of all women experience a miscarriage at sometime in their lives. GOD KILLS LOTS AND LOTS OF BABIES!!! More than any OB/GYN in the history of world. More than all OB/GYNs in the entire history of the world ever
p.s. If you hate abortion you must also hate God because GOD is the cause of most spontaneous abortions (miscarriages). They thought the miscarriage rate was 25-33% before 6 weeks, but now with the new early response pregnancy tests they believe it's more like 50%....and that's not even the embryos that never implant at all. Only one in four embryos implant in the womb and become a pregnancy. Suck on that "Every Embryo Is A Human Being" crowd. 75% of all women experience a miscarriage at sometime in their lives. GOD KILLS LOTS AND LOTS OF BABIES!!! More than any OB/GYN in the history of world. More than all OB/GYNs in the entire history of the world ever
94
cf 37, 57, 74, and 67, of course, there is also this piece of information:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/arti…
70,000 women dying every year trying to get an abortion? Lovely. Until you realize that a desperate pregnant woman will do anything, take any risk, to end her pregnancy, you will never get why abortion providers do what we do: because if we don't make it safe, the women WILL try for it anyway. Women have always had abortions; they always will have them. I've said it here before, and I'll say it again: my dad took care of women dying from unsafe abortions back in the 50s. He's the one who talked me into performing abortions now. Every thinking person should make it safe for them or be culpable in their deaths, and in the orphaning of the children they already have. If you have sisters, daughters, mothers, aunts, YOU have a stake in this.
And if you are against abortion, work to prevent unplanned pregnancies.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/arti…
70,000 women dying every year trying to get an abortion? Lovely. Until you realize that a desperate pregnant woman will do anything, take any risk, to end her pregnancy, you will never get why abortion providers do what we do: because if we don't make it safe, the women WILL try for it anyway. Women have always had abortions; they always will have them. I've said it here before, and I'll say it again: my dad took care of women dying from unsafe abortions back in the 50s. He's the one who talked me into performing abortions now. Every thinking person should make it safe for them or be culpable in their deaths, and in the orphaning of the children they already have. If you have sisters, daughters, mothers, aunts, YOU have a stake in this.
And if you are against abortion, work to prevent unplanned pregnancies.
95
@82 You're wrong. Conception does not create a human life. The oocyte is a human life even before it is fertilized. Spermatocytes are human life (and every one is precious). Conception creates a DIPLOID human life. Haploid life is still life, and sperm are living organisms. For many species, the haploid form is the dominant form of that organism. For humans, the diploid form is dominant, but both forms are human life. And to quote you: "All living organisms belong to a species, what is our mystery organism before it becomes human?" applies to sperm and oocytes just as much as it does to single-celled zygotes.
The point is that Personhood is a critical concept. Nobody grants that quality for sperm, or oocytes, even though they are human life. Nobody who thinks about the issue would grant that quality to single-celled zygotes, either.
So when does human life begin?
Oh, about 6 million years ago. (Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk).
More seriously, when do we develop into human persons deserving of rights? That answer is going to be different for every individual. The general consensus has always been "not before 3-6 months of pregnancy." You together with your partner have the right to decide an earlier date for the zygotes you produce, and I don't get to tell you otherwise. Likewise, you don't get to tell me and my partner what to do with our zygotes before that 6 month time.
The point is that Personhood is a critical concept. Nobody grants that quality for sperm, or oocytes, even though they are human life. Nobody who thinks about the issue would grant that quality to single-celled zygotes, either.
So when does human life begin?
Oh, about 6 million years ago. (Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk).
More seriously, when do we develop into human persons deserving of rights? That answer is going to be different for every individual. The general consensus has always been "not before 3-6 months of pregnancy." You together with your partner have the right to decide an earlier date for the zygotes you produce, and I don't get to tell you otherwise. Likewise, you don't get to tell me and my partner what to do with our zygotes before that 6 month time.
96
Anonymous @83, welcome to SLOG! I think it's rather generalist to assume that no-one has an interest in understanding the opposing side. Indeed, I've gone to great lengths to find the rational reasoning behind activism to criminalize abortion access. So far I've found even those who lead the abortion-access obstructionist movement seem to fall back on oversimplification of the real-world issue.
I'm still not sure why personhood is so nonnegotiably defined by obstructionists as at conception over all other options (i.e. implantation or statistical viability or first blood). I don't understand why they have such a monotonal strategy for reducing abortions, namely obstructing access to them. Why are there not bipartisan efforts to make parenting a viable option to single or low-income mothers? Or to make contraception better and more available to everyone who is sexually active, married, adult or otherwise? Why does this value of life not extend to the post born? To children without medical insurance? To soldiers? To prisoners on death row? As more and more of these questions go unexplained, I've begun to suspect the issue is really something else than saving unborn babies.
The most obvious issue to blame is the developing rise in feminism, the equalization of rights for women, and the degenderization of society. From this perspective, the rights of the unborn do seem to weigh more heavily to the obstructionists than the women on whom the unborn depend. When these women are discussed, the rhetoric falls back on women deserving their lot and not taking responsibility, as if childbirth was intended to be (as per Genesis) a punishment for giving in to sexual urges. While I think Dan's statement is hyperbolic, it's been pretty clear that obstructionists would rather pregnant mothers die than legal abortions occur, and that if they continued with their plan to criminalize abortions with foreknowledge of these statistics, that they were doing so knowing women would die as a result of their actions. (They would probably justifying it by saying such women deserved it.)
The other option is idealism of the unborn. To borrow a quote from past SLOG discussions (apologies for missing credit to the original poster) obstructionists believe the needs of hypothetical children outweigh the needs of actual children here on Earth...After all, hypothetical children are so much better in so many ways. They are angelic Hummelware fantasies, unchanging, fragile, pure, to be sheltered in a dusty curio cabinet where they can be mooned over as consistently adorable possessions that mirror a world view of similar unchanging simplicity.
More...
I'm still not sure why personhood is so nonnegotiably defined by obstructionists as at conception over all other options (i.e. implantation or statistical viability or first blood). I don't understand why they have such a monotonal strategy for reducing abortions, namely obstructing access to them. Why are there not bipartisan efforts to make parenting a viable option to single or low-income mothers? Or to make contraception better and more available to everyone who is sexually active, married, adult or otherwise? Why does this value of life not extend to the post born? To children without medical insurance? To soldiers? To prisoners on death row? As more and more of these questions go unexplained, I've begun to suspect the issue is really something else than saving unborn babies.
The most obvious issue to blame is the developing rise in feminism, the equalization of rights for women, and the degenderization of society. From this perspective, the rights of the unborn do seem to weigh more heavily to the obstructionists than the women on whom the unborn depend. When these women are discussed, the rhetoric falls back on women deserving their lot and not taking responsibility, as if childbirth was intended to be (as per Genesis) a punishment for giving in to sexual urges. While I think Dan's statement is hyperbolic, it's been pretty clear that obstructionists would rather pregnant mothers die than legal abortions occur, and that if they continued with their plan to criminalize abortions with foreknowledge of these statistics, that they were doing so knowing women would die as a result of their actions. (They would probably justifying it by saying such women deserved it.)
The other option is idealism of the unborn. To borrow a quote from past SLOG discussions (apologies for missing credit to the original poster) obstructionists believe the needs of hypothetical children outweigh the needs of actual children here on Earth...After all, hypothetical children are so much better in so many ways. They are angelic Hummelware fantasies, unchanging, fragile, pure, to be sheltered in a dusty curio cabinet where they can be mooned over as consistently adorable possessions that mirror a world view of similar unchanging simplicity.
97
Oh, I remember the first time Loveschild got pregnant like it was yesterday. I was going to go to a Halston trunk show at I. Magnin, but she was having absolute hysterics, so I told her to come on over.
When she told me what was going on, you could have knocked me over with a feather: I remember wondering how such a peculiar looking person got someone to have relations with her, but all cats are gray at night I suppose. It turns out that she'd been hanging out at the Trailways station, and meeting up with men. She said she was practicing the rhythm method (which was odd, since she hates Catholics) and insisted that I take her for an abortion right then.
So we went, and I missed the trunk show (just as well - Halston's star was really fading by then - everything looked like the uniforms he designed for the Branniff stewardesses) and of course LC "forgot her wallet", which meant I had to pay the bill.
Well, I got her on the planned parenthood free birth control thing, but she just kept messing up. After the sixth abortion, they offered free sterilization, but she said she wanted to have some babies eventually, and refused.
But then she disappeared - just dropped off the face of the earth. It turns out she became part of the lesbian separatist movement, and was living with Alix Dobkin's roadie in a cabin in the Berkshires.
I thought she lived happily ever after, but she showed up here on Slog a few months ago, talking about some children she supposedly has and being disagreeable about the gays. Oh, and she's supposedly black and Christian, which is odd because in reality she is white and Jewish.
I tried reaching out to her, and asked to lunch at the Sunset Club, but she made such a scene that the management asked that I not bring her there anymore.
I'm just at my wit's end about Loveschild. If only she'd let me fix her up with Lord Basil. They both love mildew and muumuus. They'd be perfect together.
More...
When she told me what was going on, you could have knocked me over with a feather: I remember wondering how such a peculiar looking person got someone to have relations with her, but all cats are gray at night I suppose. It turns out that she'd been hanging out at the Trailways station, and meeting up with men. She said she was practicing the rhythm method (which was odd, since she hates Catholics) and insisted that I take her for an abortion right then.
So we went, and I missed the trunk show (just as well - Halston's star was really fading by then - everything looked like the uniforms he designed for the Branniff stewardesses) and of course LC "forgot her wallet", which meant I had to pay the bill.
Well, I got her on the planned parenthood free birth control thing, but she just kept messing up. After the sixth abortion, they offered free sterilization, but she said she wanted to have some babies eventually, and refused.
But then she disappeared - just dropped off the face of the earth. It turns out she became part of the lesbian separatist movement, and was living with Alix Dobkin's roadie in a cabin in the Berkshires.
I thought she lived happily ever after, but she showed up here on Slog a few months ago, talking about some children she supposedly has and being disagreeable about the gays. Oh, and she's supposedly black and Christian, which is odd because in reality she is white and Jewish.
I tried reaching out to her, and asked to lunch at the Sunset Club, but she made such a scene that the management asked that I not bring her there anymore.
I'm just at my wit's end about Loveschild. If only she'd let me fix her up with Lord Basil. They both love mildew and muumuus. They'd be perfect together.
98
Crap. Link mismanagement. When I was referring @91 to Allegedly's past links, I was referring to @72 and @89, (same SLOG thread) and forgot to link to one of them. Not that anyone really needs to care.
Sorry, all, for the error.
Sorry, all, for the error.
99
@10,
Alcohol kills plenty of people. But prohibition didn't work. It probably killed more people through bathtub gin poisonings and underworld killings than it saved from death related to alcohol. (I suspect, but I admit I can't prove it).
If we believe studies showing that legal restrictions do not reduce the number of abortions, then banning abortion will not save lives. You would lose more women (and fetuses!) through illegal abortion and self-induced miscarriage.
That's why I believe we need to work to end abortion from the demand end, not the supply end. Promoting contraception saves not only avoids deaths but also increases quality of life.
Alcohol kills plenty of people. But prohibition didn't work. It probably killed more people through bathtub gin poisonings and underworld killings than it saved from death related to alcohol. (I suspect, but I admit I can't prove it).
If we believe studies showing that legal restrictions do not reduce the number of abortions, then banning abortion will not save lives. You would lose more women (and fetuses!) through illegal abortion and self-induced miscarriage.
That's why I believe we need to work to end abortion from the demand end, not the supply end. Promoting contraception saves not only avoids deaths but also increases quality of life.
101
91
Laws are manmade.
Laws change.
Laws are fickle.
Slavery was once legal.
Abortion was once illegal.
Morality is also fickle and fluid.
Whose morality?
You are aware that many people find abortion immoral, aren't you?
I totally get why you avoid the term 'Life'.
Do you consider yourself layfolk?
Biologically 'Life' is a simple concept.
Not manmade or fickle.
An enlightened society would use scientific biological fact as a starting point in determining what is Legal.
Unenlightened societies wallow in ignorance and superstition.
Our society is not unenlightened.
Oppressive evil societies pervert, distort and ignore scientific fact enroute to abusing and mistreating.
The Nazis distorted "science" to justify denying non-Aryans basic human rights. Such as life.
Slave holders and segregationist did the same to justify mistreatment and exploitation of Negroes.
Did they know better?
Were they willfully ignorant?
Politically powerful rule makers perverting "science" to justify their exploitation and abuse.
Abortionist claim 'Life' is a sloppy confusing concept best avoided.
They gaze piously heavenward and solemnly proclaim that "we Don't and Can't know When Life begins...".
Biologists know it is neither sloppy or confusing.
Merely an Inconvenient Truth.
The youngest and most helpless members of our species don't vote,
or march in protest,
or hire lobbyist,
or donate to candidates and PACs.
They don't even audibly cry out when they are chemically burned to death or ripped apart.
They are easy prey to those in society that find their existence inconvenient.
It is a very unequal struggle.
The Jews in the ovens of Auschwitz and the slaves in the dungeons of Elmina had it easy by comparison.
If ones own mother and members of the profession sworn to preserve life and Do No Harm conspire to kill you, often before anyone else even knows you exist, what hope do you have?
Drought and Famine ravage far away dusty hopeless lands.
Children starve, bellies bloat, death slowly but inexorably eats away.
We see images on TV.
Are we moved?
Do we respond?
Why?
The death of these children does not affect us.
It inflicts no cost on our economy and does not inconvenience of daily lives in the least.
Do we turn the channel or look away?
Do we help?
Why should we care?
What is the Moral Choice?
A tiny young child grows in it's mother's womb.
She conspires to kill it.
It's life or death is of no material consequence to us.
Do we care?
Do we help the innocent helpless child?
What IS the Moral Choice?
Abortion is legal.
So was slavery.
The Nazis passed laws legalizing the Holocaust.
Nice and Legal and Tidy.
So- "Abortion KILLS a homo sapiens.
Only after that point it is legally defined as an individual homo sapiens."
Nice and Legal and Tidy.
More...
Laws are manmade.
Laws change.
Laws are fickle.
Slavery was once legal.
Abortion was once illegal.
Morality is also fickle and fluid.
Whose morality?
You are aware that many people find abortion immoral, aren't you?
I totally get why you avoid the term 'Life'.
Do you consider yourself layfolk?
Biologically 'Life' is a simple concept.
Not manmade or fickle.
An enlightened society would use scientific biological fact as a starting point in determining what is Legal.
Unenlightened societies wallow in ignorance and superstition.
Our society is not unenlightened.
Oppressive evil societies pervert, distort and ignore scientific fact enroute to abusing and mistreating.
The Nazis distorted "science" to justify denying non-Aryans basic human rights. Such as life.
Slave holders and segregationist did the same to justify mistreatment and exploitation of Negroes.
Did they know better?
Were they willfully ignorant?
Politically powerful rule makers perverting "science" to justify their exploitation and abuse.
Abortionist claim 'Life' is a sloppy confusing concept best avoided.
They gaze piously heavenward and solemnly proclaim that "we Don't and Can't know When Life begins...".
Biologists know it is neither sloppy or confusing.
Merely an Inconvenient Truth.
The youngest and most helpless members of our species don't vote,
or march in protest,
or hire lobbyist,
or donate to candidates and PACs.
They don't even audibly cry out when they are chemically burned to death or ripped apart.
They are easy prey to those in society that find their existence inconvenient.
It is a very unequal struggle.
The Jews in the ovens of Auschwitz and the slaves in the dungeons of Elmina had it easy by comparison.
If ones own mother and members of the profession sworn to preserve life and Do No Harm conspire to kill you, often before anyone else even knows you exist, what hope do you have?
Drought and Famine ravage far away dusty hopeless lands.
Children starve, bellies bloat, death slowly but inexorably eats away.
We see images on TV.
Are we moved?
Do we respond?
Why?
The death of these children does not affect us.
It inflicts no cost on our economy and does not inconvenience of daily lives in the least.
Do we turn the channel or look away?
Do we help?
Why should we care?
What is the Moral Choice?
A tiny young child grows in it's mother's womb.
She conspires to kill it.
It's life or death is of no material consequence to us.
Do we care?
Do we help the innocent helpless child?
What IS the Moral Choice?
Abortion is legal.
So was slavery.
The Nazis passed laws legalizing the Holocaust.
Nice and Legal and Tidy.
So- "Abortion KILLS a homo sapiens.
Only after that point it is legally defined as an individual homo sapiens."
Nice and Legal and Tidy.
102
Uriel, I appreciate your response. Yes, I was generalizing when I said the two sides have no interest in understanding each other. I got carried away in the same way I think both sides do when they mischaracterize the views of their opposition. I think you and I are talking about two extremes of those sides though, one being the "Obstructionists want to kill American women" and the other being "Pro-choicers love killing innocent babies." Both are absurd.
I think there is a large segment of the anti-abortion camp that just hasn't thought through every aspect of the issue. That's a fault of theirs, to be sure, but it doesn't warrant accusations that they want American women to die or even want them punished for having sex. The women I know are just like me: suburban moms, most Catholic, who grew up hearing that life begins at conception, abortion is wrong, etc. etc. They don't think pregnant women deserve to be punished. Most of the women in this crowd had premarital sex and are on the pill! They are willing to part ways with their church on some issues. It's also not true that they "don't care about the baby after it's born" as has been stated here. Decent numbers of the women I know vote for candidates and policies that would benefit women trying to raise a family. But if you grow up Catholic and stay that way (which I guess I have, though I'm barely hanging on at this point), abortion is the biggie. I believe if many of these women thought long and hard about the implications of criminalizing abortion they might change their minds, as I have. Why do they pick conception as the beginning of "life?" By default. Because it's too hard to establish any other point. Your comments about personhood/zygotes/etc are things I read that eventually changed my mind. That's my point, really. The wild accusations and disdain don't help anybody. But a respectful(ish) exchange that gives a tiny bit of credit for the other side's possibly good intentions and yet puts forth sound arguments--that can accomplish something.
Are there obstructionist freak shows out there who really are as they are painted in these comments? Yes. But I don't personally know any, and I know a lot of people who are anti-abortion. The women I know who oppose abortion are smart, caring mothers and career women. They are just suffering from underexposure to the solid arguments for choice. And if those women's only interaction with the opposing side is to hear the views expressed as they are on this blog (with some notable exceptions), I believe it will only strengthen their anti-abortion resolve. Then where are we?
Thanks for your comments, though. I filed away some points to make should I ever find myself in a future discussion with anti-abortion friends.
More...
I think there is a large segment of the anti-abortion camp that just hasn't thought through every aspect of the issue. That's a fault of theirs, to be sure, but it doesn't warrant accusations that they want American women to die or even want them punished for having sex. The women I know are just like me: suburban moms, most Catholic, who grew up hearing that life begins at conception, abortion is wrong, etc. etc. They don't think pregnant women deserve to be punished. Most of the women in this crowd had premarital sex and are on the pill! They are willing to part ways with their church on some issues. It's also not true that they "don't care about the baby after it's born" as has been stated here. Decent numbers of the women I know vote for candidates and policies that would benefit women trying to raise a family. But if you grow up Catholic and stay that way (which I guess I have, though I'm barely hanging on at this point), abortion is the biggie. I believe if many of these women thought long and hard about the implications of criminalizing abortion they might change their minds, as I have. Why do they pick conception as the beginning of "life?" By default. Because it's too hard to establish any other point. Your comments about personhood/zygotes/etc are things I read that eventually changed my mind. That's my point, really. The wild accusations and disdain don't help anybody. But a respectful(ish) exchange that gives a tiny bit of credit for the other side's possibly good intentions and yet puts forth sound arguments--that can accomplish something.
Are there obstructionist freak shows out there who really are as they are painted in these comments? Yes. But I don't personally know any, and I know a lot of people who are anti-abortion. The women I know who oppose abortion are smart, caring mothers and career women. They are just suffering from underexposure to the solid arguments for choice. And if those women's only interaction with the opposing side is to hear the views expressed as they are on this blog (with some notable exceptions), I believe it will only strengthen their anti-abortion resolve. Then where are we?
Thanks for your comments, though. I filed away some points to make should I ever find myself in a future discussion with anti-abortion friends.
103
Uriel @ 98, thanks. I was trying to follow your links and was mightily confused. I appreciate your correction, particularly since I always look forward to your comments.
101, you're not very good at debate. It's foolish to play the Nazi card in this case: the Nazis were strongly anti-abortion. It's the eugenics thing---killing off the undesirable Jews while forcing the "Aryan" women to reproduce.
Likewise, the "slavery used to be legal" argument works against you. If forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy and give birth against her will isn't enslavement, I don't what is.
101, you're not very good at debate. It's foolish to play the Nazi card in this case: the Nazis were strongly anti-abortion. It's the eugenics thing---killing off the undesirable Jews while forcing the "Aryan" women to reproduce.
Likewise, the "slavery used to be legal" argument works against you. If forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy and give birth against her will isn't enslavement, I don't what is.
104
103
right
FORCING a woman to carry her pregnancy is SLAVERY.
FORCING someone to pay their mortgage is SLAVERY.
FORCING someone to pay for the meal they just ate at a restaurant is SLAVERY.
FORCING someone to pay their car note is SLAVERY.
FORCING someone to provide for their kids is SLAVERY.
Heaven forbid we FORCE anyone to carry out the obligations they have entered into freely and willingly....
I'll concede one point-
some peoples' kids are better off dead.
right
FORCING a woman to carry her pregnancy is SLAVERY.
FORCING someone to pay their mortgage is SLAVERY.
FORCING someone to pay for the meal they just ate at a restaurant is SLAVERY.
FORCING someone to pay their car note is SLAVERY.
FORCING someone to provide for their kids is SLAVERY.
Heaven forbid we FORCE anyone to carry out the obligations they have entered into freely and willingly....
I'll concede one point-
some peoples' kids are better off dead.
106
89 I've read the link you provided concerning "ectogenesis" and with all due respect, i think it's irresponsible, to be more blunt, simply criminal on par with premeditated homicide, or better put, a crime against humanity to even be considering something like that. Do you really want to mess with humanity on that level Uriel-238?
107
I'm pro-life, and I don't believe in the abolition of abortion, for those reasons that you cite. I believe financial aid should instead be given to pregnant women. I'm also a die hard feminist and it sickens me how excluding the feminist movement is of those of us who believe in non-violent choice.
You talk about women who die in abortion; fair enough. What about the fetuses who survived abortions, like Gianna Jessen? Isn't her suffering also worth noting?
You talk about women who die in abortion; fair enough. What about the fetuses who survived abortions, like Gianna Jessen? Isn't her suffering also worth noting?
108
Well, I'm a person who wouldn't be here if my mother had NOT had an abortion. The abortion [performed in the '50s, long before Roe v. Wade] was done in a Catholic Hospital with a priest in attendance, because my mother was a very strict Catholic. But as both she and the 'baby' would have died if she hadn't had the abortion, the church and law sanctioned it. I was born after the aborted pregnancy.
I love it when pro-lifers ask me 'What if your mother had an abortion?' and I tell them she did - and it saved my life.
But, while being very Pro-Choice, I know I could never have an abortion myself. I had a pregancy scare right after I was in a terrible car accident. I learned I'd been using the pill incorrectly, and the initial urine test came back positive. All my doctors insisted I have an abortion - if I kept the pregancy to term, I'm probably be paralyzed from the waist down [I had broken my back], and the fetus had been exposed to mutagenetic drugs and x-rays. If I was lucky it would only have a hare-lip or spina bifida, but the most likely course is that I'd miscarry and be paralyzed anyway. Thank God a second test came back negative.
I couldn't do it. But it made me realize just how difficult a decision it really was. And I became more Pro-Choice than ever.
I love it when pro-lifers ask me 'What if your mother had an abortion?' and I tell them she did - and it saved my life.
But, while being very Pro-Choice, I know I could never have an abortion myself. I had a pregancy scare right after I was in a terrible car accident. I learned I'd been using the pill incorrectly, and the initial urine test came back positive. All my doctors insisted I have an abortion - if I kept the pregancy to term, I'm probably be paralyzed from the waist down [I had broken my back], and the fetus had been exposed to mutagenetic drugs and x-rays. If I was lucky it would only have a hare-lip or spina bifida, but the most likely course is that I'd miscarry and be paralyzed anyway. Thank God a second test came back negative.
I couldn't do it. But it made me realize just how difficult a decision it really was. And I became more Pro-Choice than ever.
109
101, 104,
For those of of you saying that women should "Take Responsibility" for the consequences of having sex... abortion IS taking responsibility. When my dog gets truly sick, I am responsible for his life, suffering, and death, so I do the responsible thing and have the vet put him down with as little pain and suffering as possible.
As for a fetus... it is made of living human tissue, I'll grant you that... left inside a woman's body, allowed access to feed on her bloodstream for the full nine months, it does have a percentage chance (NOT a guarantee) that it will develop from a parasite into an infant. But that is not what makes us human beings special. The mind, the will, the ability to to think, all of those things that we value in humans over animals are not present yet.
Oh, and if you bring up the question of why we should not "abort" the mentally handicapped: they are NOT inside someone's body. Anyone can take care of them.
YOU consent to drive a car. YOU assume all risks when you step out on to the road. If a drunk driver hits you (your fault for choosing to drive and being in his way, rather than walking as God intended) shall we make it that law of the land to take a few pints of your blood? A kidney? 50% of your liver? HE needs them to live, and YOU consented to that risk when you got behind the wheel.
Shall we play it that way?
For those of of you saying that women should "Take Responsibility" for the consequences of having sex... abortion IS taking responsibility. When my dog gets truly sick, I am responsible for his life, suffering, and death, so I do the responsible thing and have the vet put him down with as little pain and suffering as possible.
As for a fetus... it is made of living human tissue, I'll grant you that... left inside a woman's body, allowed access to feed on her bloodstream for the full nine months, it does have a percentage chance (NOT a guarantee) that it will develop from a parasite into an infant. But that is not what makes us human beings special. The mind, the will, the ability to to think, all of those things that we value in humans over animals are not present yet.
Oh, and if you bring up the question of why we should not "abort" the mentally handicapped: they are NOT inside someone's body. Anyone can take care of them.
YOU consent to drive a car. YOU assume all risks when you step out on to the road. If a drunk driver hits you (your fault for choosing to drive and being in his way, rather than walking as God intended) shall we make it that law of the land to take a few pints of your blood? A kidney? 50% of your liver? HE needs them to live, and YOU consented to that risk when you got behind the wheel.
Shall we play it that way?
110
With all due respect in return, Loveschild @106, why do you think ectogenesis is irresponsible or simply criminal on par with premeditated homicide or a crime against humanity?
By the way, I think it rather hyperbolic of you to say that even considering something like ectogenesis is a crime against humanity. To be sure we consider war and sanctions which have a far clearer death toll (and no life toll), and those are far clearer crimes against humanity than ectogenesis, or for that matter (assuming it's the technology that scares you), cloning and genetic engineering of humankind.
To answer your question, yes, I do want to mess with humanity on that level. One of the great problems of the abortion controversy is that, as Jon Stewart well put it*, of sovereignty. A woman's body is her own, and shouldn't be regulated by the state. Ectogenesis, especially if we could create a safe, cheap transition from natural pregnancy to artificial womb, could save every viable pregnancy and eliminate every abortion while simultaneously preserving the sovereignty of every woman over her own self.
So please be specific: what is particularly criminal or irresponsible about ectogenesis? To the contrary, I think it is an elegant solution.
* Jon Stewart's discussion with Mike Huckabee on abortion. Here's part 1 and part 3.
By the way, I think it rather hyperbolic of you to say that even considering something like ectogenesis is a crime against humanity. To be sure we consider war and sanctions which have a far clearer death toll (and no life toll), and those are far clearer crimes against humanity than ectogenesis, or for that matter (assuming it's the technology that scares you), cloning and genetic engineering of humankind.
To answer your question, yes, I do want to mess with humanity on that level. One of the great problems of the abortion controversy is that, as Jon Stewart well put it*, of sovereignty. A woman's body is her own, and shouldn't be regulated by the state. Ectogenesis, especially if we could create a safe, cheap transition from natural pregnancy to artificial womb, could save every viable pregnancy and eliminate every abortion while simultaneously preserving the sovereignty of every woman over her own self.
So please be specific: what is particularly criminal or irresponsible about ectogenesis? To the contrary, I think it is an elegant solution.
* Jon Stewart's discussion with Mike Huckabee on abortion. Here's part 1 and part 3.
111
109
admirable.
Taking Responsibility!
"step aside, Doctor.
I made this baby;
I'll kill it myself!"
admirable.
Taking Responsibility!
"step aside, Doctor.
I made this baby;
I'll kill it myself!"
112
111
Yep. The doctor does the procedure, just like, oh, what was it... the vet does the procedure when you take the responsibility of putting a pet down.
You don't respect life. You fetishize it.
Yep. The doctor does the procedure, just like, oh, what was it... the vet does the procedure when you take the responsibility of putting a pet down.
You don't respect life. You fetishize it.
113
101, who is apparently also 104, and probably 111 but won't register...
I'll make you a deal: you help me prevent unwanted pregnancies and I promise I won't terminate a single one that you prevent.
Because, as the Guttmacher report makes plain, if you really want to stop abortion, THAT is how it's done.
I'll make you a deal: you help me prevent unwanted pregnancies and I promise I won't terminate a single one that you prevent.
Because, as the Guttmacher report makes plain, if you really want to stop abortion, THAT is how it's done.
114
Allegedly @101 I take you are also aware that many people find abortion to be acceptable, yes? Argumentum ad populum will get none of us anywhere.
Biologically 'Life' is a simple concept, but it doesn't mean what you think it means, even through you try really hard to emphasize your point in couplets. I take you didn't follow my links. You didn't study did you? Without your premise, which you consider axiomatic, but the rest of us don't. The rest of your argument is founded on sand.
You make a relevant point; where moral philosophy fails us, law can be arbitrary. Some day we might make the same argument regarding artificial intelligence, or man made sentient creatures, or intelligent aliens, since human law only preserves full rights to human beings. But in the case of the unborn, we've thought about it more thoroughly than you think.
The elective abortions you so vehemently oppose do not feel pain when they are extracted or terminated. They don't yet have the nervous system to process their own destruction, let alone the cerebellum by which to process their brief lot in life. You'd do better to argue the rights for your laptop computer, or a refrigerator.
And in the meantime, who mourns for the mother you so eagerly villanize? What about her pain, her loss, her emotional lot?
Frankly, you don't give a damn.
Biologically 'Life' is a simple concept, but it doesn't mean what you think it means, even through you try really hard to emphasize your point in couplets. I take you didn't follow my links. You didn't study did you? Without your premise, which you consider axiomatic, but the rest of us don't. The rest of your argument is founded on sand.
You make a relevant point; where moral philosophy fails us, law can be arbitrary. Some day we might make the same argument regarding artificial intelligence, or man made sentient creatures, or intelligent aliens, since human law only preserves full rights to human beings. But in the case of the unborn, we've thought about it more thoroughly than you think.
The elective abortions you so vehemently oppose do not feel pain when they are extracted or terminated. They don't yet have the nervous system to process their own destruction, let alone the cerebellum by which to process their brief lot in life. You'd do better to argue the rights for your laptop computer, or a refrigerator.
And in the meantime, who mourns for the mother you so eagerly villanize? What about her pain, her loss, her emotional lot?
Frankly, you don't give a damn.
115
MarythefifthAgain @102 my awareness of the obstructionist freak shows is from the videos here which is a documentary about the situation in Wichita during Operation Rescue's Summer of Mercy (which in retrospect reads like Newspeak).
This documentary (albeit from the pro-choice perspective) is from before the assassination of Dr. George Tiller which preceded my awareness Bill O'Reilly's thirty-odd segments on Tiller, The Baby Killer (he said it verbatim, multiple times, every segment) that didn't show any indication or recognition of the extreme conditions of all cases that came to Dr. Tiller (our regulations of late term procedures are rather strict). I went onto the pro-life sites and saw a complete absence of the condemnation Scott Roeder as an extremist who went too far -- indeed mostly he was heralded as a hero -- nor any consideration that Tiller served a function, at very least, by saving the lives of mothers who were endangered by their own pregnancy. It was at this point that I believed the obstructionist movement is intrinsically misogynistic. I still am pretty sure it's peopled mostly with misogynists
Randal Terry's nonchalance about Tiller's murder (complete with hot-wings and beer) didn't help to slow the slide of my opinion.
I still think of it, as I mention above, a matter of sovereignty. I, personally, consider personhood to begin as it ends, based on the presence of higher brain functions (cadavers lacking these, including mine, should I be so fated, are open to harvest for organ transplants), which happens around twenty-two weeks. We say twenty to give a window of safety.
Also of interesting note is this article which, while merely anecdotal, reflects the Guttmacher statistic that about a third of all abortions in the US are performed on women of right-wing (typically anti-abortion) religious backgrounds.
More...
This documentary (albeit from the pro-choice perspective) is from before the assassination of Dr. George Tiller which preceded my awareness Bill O'Reilly's thirty-odd segments on Tiller, The Baby Killer (he said it verbatim, multiple times, every segment) that didn't show any indication or recognition of the extreme conditions of all cases that came to Dr. Tiller (our regulations of late term procedures are rather strict). I went onto the pro-life sites and saw a complete absence of the condemnation Scott Roeder as an extremist who went too far -- indeed mostly he was heralded as a hero -- nor any consideration that Tiller served a function, at very least, by saving the lives of mothers who were endangered by their own pregnancy. It was at this point that I believed the obstructionist movement is intrinsically misogynistic. I still am pretty sure it's peopled mostly with misogynists
Randal Terry's nonchalance about Tiller's murder (complete with hot-wings and beer) didn't help to slow the slide of my opinion.
I still think of it, as I mention above, a matter of sovereignty. I, personally, consider personhood to begin as it ends, based on the presence of higher brain functions (cadavers lacking these, including mine, should I be so fated, are open to harvest for organ transplants), which happens around twenty-two weeks. We say twenty to give a window of safety.
Also of interesting note is this article which, while merely anecdotal, reflects the Guttmacher statistic that about a third of all abortions in the US are performed on women of right-wing (typically anti-abortion) religious backgrounds.
116
Hey, people who are anti-abortion: Listen to what Dan says:
IMPROVED ACCESS TO CONTRACEPTION DECREASES ABORTION RATES.
If you can't get behind that, you don't care about kids, babies, fetuses, embryos, zygotes, or poor little eggs and sperm-- you just want to punish women for having sex without wanting to have a baby.
IMPROVED ACCESS TO CONTRACEPTION DECREASES ABORTION RATES.
If you can't get behind that, you don't care about kids, babies, fetuses, embryos, zygotes, or poor little eggs and sperm-- you just want to punish women for having sex without wanting to have a baby.
117
Also interestingly, Inga Muscio stated that, after she wrote aobut inducing her own abortion through massage, visualization, and herbal tonics that many (presuambly right wing ) Christians wrote to her approvingingly. Ms. Muscio wrote that anti abortion activists seem to consider that "there is a crucial distinction between the way one aborts a fetus and the actual end result. It seems that ...taking herbs to keep ones period regular is a lot different than going to an abortion clinic. " Loveschild, her book is called Cunt (yes, you read that correctly:) reading it would do you a power of good.
118
@113
How many of the babies you killed over 22 years were elective abortions?
If there is nothing wrong with abortion why bother preventing unwanted pregnancy?
Why strive to make abortion 'rare'?
How many of the babies you killed over 22 years were elective abortions?
If there is nothing wrong with abortion why bother preventing unwanted pregnancy?
Why strive to make abortion 'rare'?
119
We want to make early-term abortion rare, Allegedly @118 the same reason we want to make heart surgery rare: The procedures we have are harsh on the patient. We'd also like to reduce incidents of unintended pregnancy since the symptoms of pregnancy itself are harsh on a woman's body; yet another reason I've expressed before I see it as a violation of a woman's rights to require her to carry a pregnancy to a nine-month term.
I'd advocate improving abortion procedures to make them easier on the patient. I'd also advocate better and readily available contraceptives to everyone who wants to not get pregnant (or get someone else pregnant).
If only you asked that question out of genuine interest to learn and understand, rather than as part of your usual routine of seeking to provoke logical missteps.
Late term abortion is already very rare and very necessary when it happens.
I'd advocate improving abortion procedures to make them easier on the patient. I'd also advocate better and readily available contraceptives to everyone who wants to not get pregnant (or get someone else pregnant).
If only you asked that question out of genuine interest to learn and understand, rather than as part of your usual routine of seeking to provoke logical missteps.
Late term abortion is already very rare and very necessary when it happens.
124
119
I'd advocate improving abortion procedures to make them easier on the patient.
easier....
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_jrOvvFDVS4s/SP…
I'd advocate improving abortion procedures to make them easier on the patient.
easier....
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_jrOvvFDVS4s/SP…
125
114
"The elective abortions you so vehemently oppose do not feel pain when they are extracted or terminated. They don't yet have the nervous system to process their own destruction, let alone the cerebellum by which to process their brief lot in life. You'd do better to argue the rights for your laptop computer, or a refrigerator."
THIS WON"T HURT.....
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/__Sj-cVJmmxQ/SC…
"The elective abortions you so vehemently oppose do not feel pain when they are extracted or terminated. They don't yet have the nervous system to process their own destruction, let alone the cerebellum by which to process their brief lot in life. You'd do better to argue the rights for your laptop computer, or a refrigerator."
THIS WON"T HURT.....
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/__Sj-cVJmmxQ/SC…
126
Y'know, Allegedly @120 to 123, when dead fetus pictures were passed around my tenth-grade class in high school (yes, they actually did that, and in some places still do), my ability to be sensitized to gorn like that began to wane. At this point, thanks to your crew being eager to whip them out as quickly as Craigslist guys are with snapshots of their cocks, they register in my head as merely low-brow propaganda.
Some thoughts:
~ Firstly, are you aware of how your fellow obstructionist allies use pictures like this? They blow them up on the sides of trucks and parade them around town, in school districts. They shove them under the noses of vulnerable teens at your alleged Crisis Pregnancy Centers. Your willingness to attack kids on the subject does show that indeed nothing is beneath the obstructionist sector, and your interest in post-born kids is nonexistent. I sometimes suspect abortion provides your cronies with a reason to behave badly (i.e. bomb buildings and murder people) and is worth nothing else to you.
~ Secondly, you're aware that all of these are old photos, right? Once one has seen the same bit of gore for the third time, it starts becoming just an annoyance. Once I've seen them over five times here on SLOG, it begins to smell as if you only have a handful of biohazard loot to pass around. Yes?
~ Thirdly, shock content such as this doesn't say crap about an issue. Sure, it's great emotional punctuation, but some things are disgusting while quite benign (i.e. compost) while other things are all clean and nicely packaged while dangerous (i.e. junk food). All the dumpster gore in the world doesn't justify taking rights and quality of healthcare away from over half the population.
~ Lastly, and foremostly, elective abortions don't generally look like that. It's the late-term ones that provide the best photo-ops for your purposes of grossing people out, since they look most like neonates, and this means most of your gore pictures are non-elective abortions, i.e. ones performed due to fetal anomalies incompatible with life. Those images are of babies doomed despite abortion, possibly ones that would kill their mothers.
So, in the future, when you're going to post such inconsiderate trash, please mark them NSFW, and while you're at it, make sure to cite the circumstances surrounding the specific procedure of which it was the result. Otherwise it's just a lie.
More...
Some thoughts:
~ Firstly, are you aware of how your fellow obstructionist allies use pictures like this? They blow them up on the sides of trucks and parade them around town, in school districts. They shove them under the noses of vulnerable teens at your alleged Crisis Pregnancy Centers. Your willingness to attack kids on the subject does show that indeed nothing is beneath the obstructionist sector, and your interest in post-born kids is nonexistent. I sometimes suspect abortion provides your cronies with a reason to behave badly (i.e. bomb buildings and murder people) and is worth nothing else to you.
~ Secondly, you're aware that all of these are old photos, right? Once one has seen the same bit of gore for the third time, it starts becoming just an annoyance. Once I've seen them over five times here on SLOG, it begins to smell as if you only have a handful of biohazard loot to pass around. Yes?
~ Thirdly, shock content such as this doesn't say crap about an issue. Sure, it's great emotional punctuation, but some things are disgusting while quite benign (i.e. compost) while other things are all clean and nicely packaged while dangerous (i.e. junk food). All the dumpster gore in the world doesn't justify taking rights and quality of healthcare away from over half the population.
~ Lastly, and foremostly, elective abortions don't generally look like that. It's the late-term ones that provide the best photo-ops for your purposes of grossing people out, since they look most like neonates, and this means most of your gore pictures are non-elective abortions, i.e. ones performed due to fetal anomalies incompatible with life. Those images are of babies doomed despite abortion, possibly ones that would kill their mothers.
So, in the future, when you're going to post such inconsiderate trash, please mark them NSFW, and while you're at it, make sure to cite the circumstances surrounding the specific procedure of which it was the result. Otherwise it's just a lie.
127
110 There is this tendency in the immature to try and mess with nature and many a times that has proven to be fatal. Women are provided by nature with a reproductive system that's intelligently designed to produce and nature human life in the womb till the new human has develop fully and can live outside of it, Uriel-238.
It seems to me that what this whole criminal hypothesis that you seem to naively be in favor of is being introduced by people with ulterior motives like eugenics (like the Nazi try to do (do you favor that?)), human cloning, the creation of human-animal hybrids or attempts at producing offspring between homosexuals. All of which are clearly against nature because if nature had intended for such things to become a reality they would happen without having to be concocted on a lab. There is no telling what kind of detrimental consequences such creations would bring about but it is safe to say that these things would render humanity as we know it non-existent in the long run.
I honestly believe that no human being with a clear conscience and a clear moral compass would be in favor of or attempt to these types of affronts to nature. I sincerely hope you are one of those Uriel-238. I know you are an atheist but i'll still be praying for you to God, now more than before, to guide you and channel your apparent intelligence for the good of humanity and not its destruction.
It seems to me that what this whole criminal hypothesis that you seem to naively be in favor of is being introduced by people with ulterior motives like eugenics (like the Nazi try to do (do you favor that?)), human cloning, the creation of human-animal hybrids or attempts at producing offspring between homosexuals. All of which are clearly against nature because if nature had intended for such things to become a reality they would happen without having to be concocted on a lab. There is no telling what kind of detrimental consequences such creations would bring about but it is safe to say that these things would render humanity as we know it non-existent in the long run.
I honestly believe that no human being with a clear conscience and a clear moral compass would be in favor of or attempt to these types of affronts to nature. I sincerely hope you are one of those Uriel-238. I know you are an atheist but i'll still be praying for you to God, now more than before, to guide you and channel your apparent intelligence for the good of humanity and not its destruction.
128
Wow, 120-125, here I am a 22-year veteran abortionist and guess what? I've NEVER seen anything like your pictures in my operating room.
What does that tell you? That that's NOT what abortion looks like. Most of what I do looks kind of like a pink spongy thing, about the size of a hen's egg. Sorry to disappoint you.
Of course that's just my first-person, twenty-two year, right up there in your face anecdotal experience.
Now I have seen some late-term stillbirths, intrauterine deaths occurring spontaneously, that looked like some of your pictures, but you'd never try and pass those off as abortions would you? Sure you wouldn't. That would be dishonest.
What does that tell you? That that's NOT what abortion looks like. Most of what I do looks kind of like a pink spongy thing, about the size of a hen's egg. Sorry to disappoint you.
Of course that's just my first-person, twenty-two year, right up there in your face anecdotal experience.
Now I have seen some late-term stillbirths, intrauterine deaths occurring spontaneously, that looked like some of your pictures, but you'd never try and pass those off as abortions would you? Sure you wouldn't. That would be dishonest.
129
Wow, 120-125, here I am a 22-year veteran abortionist and guess what? I've NEVER seen anything like your pictures in my operating room.
What does that tell you? That that's NOT what abortion looks like. Most of what I do looks kind of like a pink spongy thing, about the size of a hen's egg. Sorry to disappoint you.
Of course that's just my first-person, twenty-two year, right up there in your face anecdotal experience.
Now I have seen some late-term stillbirths, intrauterine deaths occurring spontaneously, that looked like some of your pictures, but you'd never try and pass those off as abortions would you? Sure you wouldn't. That would be dishonest.
What does that tell you? That that's NOT what abortion looks like. Most of what I do looks kind of like a pink spongy thing, about the size of a hen's egg. Sorry to disappoint you.
Of course that's just my first-person, twenty-two year, right up there in your face anecdotal experience.
Now I have seen some late-term stillbirths, intrauterine deaths occurring spontaneously, that looked like some of your pictures, but you'd never try and pass those off as abortions would you? Sure you wouldn't. That would be dishonest.
130
@125
"A tendency to mess with nature...."
You mean like doing C-sections? Or using antibiotics? Or putting broken arms in casts?
Or building houses? Growing food on farms?
Look, Loveschild, if you think that interfering with Nature is always immature and evil, then please stop using your computer, stop taking medicine, and stop trying to live past age 30.
Without medicine interfering with Nature, God aborts 75% of fertilized embryos, and kills the majority of children. God wants you suffer through life that is "nasty, brutish, and short."
There is nothing intelligently designed about a reproductive system that puts women through more pain than any other animal suffers during childbirth, and that was the major source of adult female death until the 20th century.
"A tendency to mess with nature...."
You mean like doing C-sections? Or using antibiotics? Or putting broken arms in casts?
Or building houses? Growing food on farms?
Look, Loveschild, if you think that interfering with Nature is always immature and evil, then please stop using your computer, stop taking medicine, and stop trying to live past age 30.
Without medicine interfering with Nature, God aborts 75% of fertilized embryos, and kills the majority of children. God wants you suffer through life that is "nasty, brutish, and short."
There is nothing intelligently designed about a reproductive system that puts women through more pain than any other animal suffers during childbirth, and that was the major source of adult female death until the 20th century.
131
Hmmm...
If God did not want abortions to happen, they would not be possible.
Until then, women should have a right to determine what does or does not happen to or with their bodies.
If God did not want abortions to happen, they would not be possible.
Until then, women should have a right to determine what does or does not happen to or with their bodies.
132
Hmmm...
If God did not want abortions to happen, they would not be possible.
Until then, women should have a right to determine what does or does not happen to or with their bodies.
If God did not want abortions to happen, they would not be possible.
Until then, women should have a right to determine what does or does not happen to or with their bodies.
133
Hmmm...
If God did not want abortions to happen, they would not be possible.
Until then, women should have a right to determine what does or does not happen to or with their bodies.
If God did not want abortions to happen, they would not be possible.
Until then, women should have a right to determine what does or does not happen to or with their bodies.
134
While I appreciate you getting back to me, Loveschild @127 you never really answered my question why is ectogenesis irresponsible or a crime against humanity, though I cannot imagine the answer to be what you inferred, that the nature of the universe is too great a thing to be tampered with by mortal hands. Indeed it's a very Victorian way of looking at things, if not outright medieval. I think, if there is a God, She put the universe before us so that we might analyze and understand it, that it is intended as a puzzle to be solved.
Again, you disparaged ectogenesis, referring to it as a criminal hypothesis. To the contrary, there is no law against pursuing such sciences. Yes, new technologies get abused, but this is no new thing. Even antibiotics are used recklessly by our meat industries, but to a greater extent by magnitudes, antibiotics save lives. The same will be the case with cloning, or our present experiments with grafting animal genes (including human ones).
Obviously you threw in eugenics to disparage the rest of your list. (It wasn't singularly a German idea, either; the US had its own eugenics programs and also believed in racial purity at the time, but we also believed in phrenology.) I, therefore, won't bother to ask your question. You've read enough from me to know what I feel about things.
But while the ways cloning and genetic engineering can be frightening -- indeed dozens of stories have been told speculating their dangers -- I'm still not sure what there is to fear of ectogenesis, or homosexual reproduction. Since I don't believe in the angry wrathful god that you do, since I don't believe that women are a perfect womb (just one that doesn't have to be manufactured), you'll have to come up with a better answer than a melodramatic It'll doom us all!
As for science destroying humankind as we know it, this has been said about dynamite, the radio, the bicycle, the telephone, the refrigerator, the automobile, the telescope, the printing press, the typewriter, the television, the digital computer, the word processor, and, for goodness sake, the Nintendo Game Boy. It isn't naïveté or immaturity that lends me to believe the technologies above will not spell our extinction, but the consistency of history: We are still here.
More...
Again, you disparaged ectogenesis, referring to it as a criminal hypothesis. To the contrary, there is no law against pursuing such sciences. Yes, new technologies get abused, but this is no new thing. Even antibiotics are used recklessly by our meat industries, but to a greater extent by magnitudes, antibiotics save lives. The same will be the case with cloning, or our present experiments with grafting animal genes (including human ones).
Obviously you threw in eugenics to disparage the rest of your list. (It wasn't singularly a German idea, either; the US had its own eugenics programs and also believed in racial purity at the time, but we also believed in phrenology.) I, therefore, won't bother to ask your question. You've read enough from me to know what I feel about things.
But while the ways cloning and genetic engineering can be frightening -- indeed dozens of stories have been told speculating their dangers -- I'm still not sure what there is to fear of ectogenesis, or homosexual reproduction. Since I don't believe in the angry wrathful god that you do, since I don't believe that women are a perfect womb (just one that doesn't have to be manufactured), you'll have to come up with a better answer than a melodramatic It'll doom us all!
As for science destroying humankind as we know it, this has been said about dynamite, the radio, the bicycle, the telephone, the refrigerator, the automobile, the telescope, the printing press, the typewriter, the television, the digital computer, the word processor, and, for goodness sake, the Nintendo Game Boy. It isn't naïveté or immaturity that lends me to believe the technologies above will not spell our extinction, but the consistency of history: We are still here.
135
Crap. Rewind...
...I, therefore, won't bother to answer your question...
But then again I tehed earlier in this thread. Meh.
...I, therefore, won't bother to answer your question...
But then again I tehed earlier in this thread. Meh.
136
I think women should have the right to decide. I don't have any children of my own, just step kids (and they all thave mental issues). I decided not to because I am BiPolar and I would never put a child through this hell. If my husband and I were to get pregnant I just could not keep it.
137
Regardless of whether or not you think abortion is ok, abortion should be a widely accepted, legal practice.
Why?
Because ii reduces infanticide.
Because it reduces deaths from illegal abortions.
Because it reduces the number of single mothers.
Because it saves tax dollars (less single moms needing well fare = less money spent on well fare)
Because it reduces poverty.
And if you don't believe me, open up a fucking history book.
Why?
Because ii reduces infanticide.
Because it reduces deaths from illegal abortions.
Because it reduces the number of single mothers.
Because it saves tax dollars (less single moms needing well fare = less money spent on well fare)
Because it reduces poverty.
And if you don't believe me, open up a fucking history book.
138
The starving children in Africa are far away and we can't hear their cries over here and who watches TV anyway so if we don't see their suffering it doesn't matter.
Young developing humans don't really look cute or cuddly yet and they don't cry so if you kill them it's really not that bad.
A lack of empathy and imagination are very handy in some fields.
Young developing humans don't really look cute or cuddly yet and they don't cry so if you kill them it's really not that bad.
A lack of empathy and imagination are very handy in some fields.
139
thank you, dan.
opponents of abortion want WOMEN who have sex to be punished, specifically. but otherwise spot-fucking-on, thank you thank you thank you.
opponents of abortion want WOMEN who have sex to be punished, specifically. but otherwise spot-fucking-on, thank you thank you thank you.
140
@138 sure,seeing embryos are not fun for you
you would much rather watch them being born and then strangled or dumped in the toilet or in the garbage bin;
being born cocain-addicted and die after a short painful life,or to see a woman bleed to death after a botched back alley abortion, etc.
You are one sick animal.
you would much rather watch them being born and then strangled or dumped in the toilet or in the garbage bin;
being born cocain-addicted and die after a short painful life,or to see a woman bleed to death after a botched back alley abortion, etc.
You are one sick animal.
141
Funny that this information only contained the number of women who die from botched illegal abortions (70,000). It failed to include, however the TENs of BILLIONs of people who die every time an abortion is performed (i.e. the babies)
Although it is horrifying to think that any of these women died in the first place (ALL life is sacred, mother AND child). They would NOT have been a fatality due to a botched abortion if they had not tried to have an abortion in the first place.
Having said this, I realize that many women in countries where abortion is illegal are also much more exposed to rape, incest, and other heinous crimes wherein unwanted pregnancy is a result. My heart goes out to these women. No matter what the outcome, death of an unwanted baby, death of a woman through abortion, having to live with the progeny of an evil man, etc, it is NEVER pleasant. In these circumstances, abortion is not going to fix everything. The only thing that will fix the situation is professional counseling, and loving support. Imagine having to not only deal with the memory of a sexual assault, but then having to live with the guilt of having killed a defenseless baby. It's not a quick fix.
Legalized abortion results in cold-hearted women, trying to find satisfaction in fleeting pleasure and justifying the death of their children to keep them from having to ever grow up and accept responsibility for their actions.
As for the argument that some women would die in childbirth... this is a grossly over-used and unprovable argument. The only way to know if a woman would actually die during childbirth is to have a trial of labor. I was told that I would have to have a hysterectomy if I had more than 3 cesarean sections... I have had 4 and my uterus is not only intact, but my OB told me it actually looks surprisingly healthy... that said, I am not having any more children, and the man I am in a monogamous relationship with (i.e. husband) has had a vasectomy. Medicine has come way too far to substantiate the bulls--t that a woman should abort her baby because she "might" die during labor.
More...
Although it is horrifying to think that any of these women died in the first place (ALL life is sacred, mother AND child). They would NOT have been a fatality due to a botched abortion if they had not tried to have an abortion in the first place.
Having said this, I realize that many women in countries where abortion is illegal are also much more exposed to rape, incest, and other heinous crimes wherein unwanted pregnancy is a result. My heart goes out to these women. No matter what the outcome, death of an unwanted baby, death of a woman through abortion, having to live with the progeny of an evil man, etc, it is NEVER pleasant. In these circumstances, abortion is not going to fix everything. The only thing that will fix the situation is professional counseling, and loving support. Imagine having to not only deal with the memory of a sexual assault, but then having to live with the guilt of having killed a defenseless baby. It's not a quick fix.
Legalized abortion results in cold-hearted women, trying to find satisfaction in fleeting pleasure and justifying the death of their children to keep them from having to ever grow up and accept responsibility for their actions.
As for the argument that some women would die in childbirth... this is a grossly over-used and unprovable argument. The only way to know if a woman would actually die during childbirth is to have a trial of labor. I was told that I would have to have a hysterectomy if I had more than 3 cesarean sections... I have had 4 and my uterus is not only intact, but my OB told me it actually looks surprisingly healthy... that said, I am not having any more children, and the man I am in a monogamous relationship with (i.e. husband) has had a vasectomy. Medicine has come way too far to substantiate the bulls--t that a woman should abort her baby because she "might" die during labor.
142
Funny that this information only contained the number of women who die from botched illegal abortions (70,000). It failed to include, however the TENs of BILLIONs of people who die every time an abortion is performed (i.e. the babies)
Although it is horrifying to think that any of these women died in the first place (ALL life is sacred, mother AND child). They would NOT have been a fatality due to a botched abortion if they had not tried to have an abortion in the first place.
Having said this, I realize that many women in countries where abortion is illegal are also much more exposed to rape, incest, and other heinous crimes wherein unwanted pregnancy is a result. My heart goes out to these women. No matter what the outcome, death of an unwanted baby, death of a woman through abortion, having to live with the progeny of an evil man, etc, it is NEVER pleasant. In these circumstances, abortion is not going to fix everything. The only thing that will fix the situation is professional counseling, and loving support. Imagine having to not only deal with the memory of a sexual assault, but then having to live with the guilt of having killed a defenseless baby. It's not a quick fix.
Legalized abortion results in cold-hearted women, trying to find satisfaction in fleeting pleasure and justifying the death of their children to keep them from having to ever grow up and accept responsibility for their actions.
Although it is horrifying to think that any of these women died in the first place (ALL life is sacred, mother AND child). They would NOT have been a fatality due to a botched abortion if they had not tried to have an abortion in the first place.
Having said this, I realize that many women in countries where abortion is illegal are also much more exposed to rape, incest, and other heinous crimes wherein unwanted pregnancy is a result. My heart goes out to these women. No matter what the outcome, death of an unwanted baby, death of a woman through abortion, having to live with the progeny of an evil man, etc, it is NEVER pleasant. In these circumstances, abortion is not going to fix everything. The only thing that will fix the situation is professional counseling, and loving support. Imagine having to not only deal with the memory of a sexual assault, but then having to live with the guilt of having killed a defenseless baby. It's not a quick fix.
Legalized abortion results in cold-hearted women, trying to find satisfaction in fleeting pleasure and justifying the death of their children to keep them from having to ever grow up and accept responsibility for their actions.
143
BTW... the idea that proponents of an infants right to life don't care what happens to it after it is born is rather obviously false when one looks into the number of pro-life crisis pregnancy centers who offer adoption counseling and other post childbirth relief. If we didn't care, then these centers wouldn't exist.
I personally have volunteered time, finances and other resources to help women with unwanted pregnancies. This information seems lost on those who would like to black-ball anyone who disagrees with their pro-death (abortionist) viewpoint. I am currently seeking adoption (specifically of children who are older and less likely to be adopted) of these children who weren't desired but somehow made it into the world unscathed. Not sure yet how many I am going to be able to help.
I personally have volunteered time, finances and other resources to help women with unwanted pregnancies. This information seems lost on those who would like to black-ball anyone who disagrees with their pro-death (abortionist) viewpoint. I am currently seeking adoption (specifically of children who are older and less likely to be adopted) of these children who weren't desired but somehow made it into the world unscathed. Not sure yet how many I am going to be able to help.
144
Love how the fundamentalist mind cannot distinguish between 'legal' and 'mandatory'. No-one is forcing you to gay-marry. No-one is forcing you to have an abortion. No-one is even forcing you to give up your intellectually-challenged hateful religious beliefs.
And racial eugenics? Yes, quick, warn pregnant young women of color that if they voluntarily seek out an abortion provider and choose to have an abortion, they will not give birth to a happy, healthy baby! I'm sure they will thank you for bringing this heinous conspiracy to their attention.
Abortion has prevented TENS of BILLIONS of babies being born? Meaning our entire planetary ecosystem has not yet collapsed under the weight of overpopulation? Now that is something to thank God for!
And racial eugenics? Yes, quick, warn pregnant young women of color that if they voluntarily seek out an abortion provider and choose to have an abortion, they will not give birth to a happy, healthy baby! I'm sure they will thank you for bringing this heinous conspiracy to their attention.
Abortion has prevented TENS of BILLIONS of babies being born? Meaning our entire planetary ecosystem has not yet collapsed under the weight of overpopulation? Now that is something to thank God for!
145
@143
your posts made me laugh :)
As you were told many times on this thread, anti-choice nazis and people like you lose all interest to what happens to those babies after they are born.
"Caring" for those babies by offering a adoption counseling is not real caring.Newborn babies (esp. white and healthy) are always in demand. Even without your so called "care" there are enough people and agencies that will adopt/find adoptive parents for those babies.
your posts made me laugh :)
As you were told many times on this thread, anti-choice nazis and people like you lose all interest to what happens to those babies after they are born.
"Caring" for those babies by offering a adoption counseling is not real caring.Newborn babies (esp. white and healthy) are always in demand. Even without your so called "care" there are enough people and agencies that will adopt/find adoptive parents for those babies.
146
Hey, bethimus @141, welcome to SLOG and its ongoing abortion debate.
Before you get too involved, you might want to read up on what's already been said, so that we don't have to retrace ground already covered. You also may want to study the actual statistics, rather than making up numbers, indeed ten billion abortions (let alone tens of billions) would be (roughly) three for every woman and girl alive on earth, sterile or otherwise. In the future, if you want to quote statistics, feel free to provide links. This will help.
You also may want to read what's been said already, so we don't have to retrace ground already established. For example, one of the issues that is still not yet established is the point of personhood, i.e. when a prenate is considered legally (or morally) separate from the mother. Despite the beliefs of most who oppose abortion access, it is not axiomatic that this moment is conception as opposed to the many other logical alternatives. Even scripture is conspicuously vague about it.
It, of course, would follow that an abortion does not kill until after the point a fetus reaches personhood. Yes?
Before you get too involved, you might want to read up on what's already been said, so that we don't have to retrace ground already covered. You also may want to study the actual statistics, rather than making up numbers, indeed ten billion abortions (let alone tens of billions) would be (roughly) three for every woman and girl alive on earth, sterile or otherwise. In the future, if you want to quote statistics, feel free to provide links. This will help.
You also may want to read what's been said already, so we don't have to retrace ground already established. For example, one of the issues that is still not yet established is the point of personhood, i.e. when a prenate is considered legally (or morally) separate from the mother. Despite the beliefs of most who oppose abortion access, it is not axiomatic that this moment is conception as opposed to the many other logical alternatives. Even scripture is conspicuously vague about it.
It, of course, would follow that an abortion does not kill until after the point a fetus reaches personhood. Yes?
147
Also, bethimus, @143 I am not aware of what kinds of postnatal relief and adoption advocacy provisions Crisis Pregnancy Centers offer. Can you provide a link that details these benefits, and the qualifications for them? I'd also be interested in the full spectrum of counseling CPCs provide (e.g. regular psychotherapy, benefits advocacy, social work, etc.). It would be a relief, indeed, to know that even at CPCs such services were secured for America's young desperate pregnant women at their most emotionally vulnerable hour.
As I'm sure you know, low income mothers (the homeless, those on welfare and those who rely on contingent work) and teens who have tenuous family lives are the demographics that are most likely to have abortions, and to visit a CPC. Indeed, this is especially the case, since they have the least access to contraceptives and health services (including abortion), exasperated in recent years since obstructionist pharmacists have taken it upon themselves to deny (and often fail to return) birth control prescriptions.
I take, when you personally volunteered time, finances and other resources it was to an CPC, yes? You may have the stats yourself: How much postnatal relief does an CPC typically provide to a mother with a newborn, and what are the qualifications to be granted such a benefit? Again, links would be awesome.
As I'm sure you know, low income mothers (the homeless, those on welfare and those who rely on contingent work) and teens who have tenuous family lives are the demographics that are most likely to have abortions, and to visit a CPC. Indeed, this is especially the case, since they have the least access to contraceptives and health services (including abortion), exasperated in recent years since obstructionist pharmacists have taken it upon themselves to deny (and often fail to return) birth control prescriptions.
I take, when you personally volunteered time, finances and other resources it was to an CPC, yes? You may have the stats yourself: How much postnatal relief does an CPC typically provide to a mother with a newborn, and what are the qualifications to be granted such a benefit? Again, links would be awesome.
148
@16 if you are so righteously pro-life, then get your anti-abortion groups to join my progressive groups and end our military conflicts where your tax dollars are paying for VIOLENT death daily via wars overseas. Lobby for the abolishment of the death penalty. Have your protestors block recruiting stations as often as they block abortion clinics. Make full color placards showing not embryos but the ugly death we deal by our military, or the broken bodies of our girls and boys coming back in coffins... Give blood! Stand in front of tanks, like the Unknown Rebel! Build schools for kids in Pakistan or in Pittsburg!! Circle the wagons around Muslims, Jews, and minorities threatened by bigotry and hate!
No? Riiight.
The reality remains as it has for over 200 years: In this nation, liberty is more important than life. Patrick Henry had it down. It's baked right into the founder's documents. Stand up for your country!
It's got nothing to do with when hearts start beating or women's rights or racism or zygotes. It's more important than the quran/bible/torah/kamasutra/LRonHubbard's plan. It's about humanity and our commitment to improve ourselves. It's about besting tyrrany. About freely thinking and praying. Choice = Freedom.
Therefore, despite how I might disagree with some specific abortions, I will always vote for freedom of choice. It is the safest default. Prochoice. It's the only patriotic choice. We must all vigilantly defend the right to choose what we each believe to be right.
Your claim of being 'pro-life' rings hollow. Your allegiance belies how you've settled for being ill-informed.
At best, you may agree with the above robust view of pro-liferism, and want to stop the wars, but instead of fighting the hard fights,... you pick on pregnant women. Shameless. Might as well pick on kids burning ants if you’re going to miss the point of being pro-life so readily.
Good Parenting and Sound Spirituality can change morality, not law. We have to guarantee the right to choose while simultaneously ministering to those in need. That's the good work to be done. Choice, freedom, a right to think how we think: It's how we vote, for goodness sake!
And yes, I'll even claim it's for the unborn's sake too: (I would rather die and ) I'd rather a viable 38-week fetus even die, than see a defenseless baby born into an America that's lost, or sold off to the highest bidder, the very soul of democracy.
More...
No? Riiight.
The reality remains as it has for over 200 years: In this nation, liberty is more important than life. Patrick Henry had it down. It's baked right into the founder's documents. Stand up for your country!
It's got nothing to do with when hearts start beating or women's rights or racism or zygotes. It's more important than the quran/bible/torah/kamasutra/LRonHubbard's plan. It's about humanity and our commitment to improve ourselves. It's about besting tyrrany. About freely thinking and praying. Choice = Freedom.
Therefore, despite how I might disagree with some specific abortions, I will always vote for freedom of choice. It is the safest default. Prochoice. It's the only patriotic choice. We must all vigilantly defend the right to choose what we each believe to be right.
Your claim of being 'pro-life' rings hollow. Your allegiance belies how you've settled for being ill-informed.
At best, you may agree with the above robust view of pro-liferism, and want to stop the wars, but instead of fighting the hard fights,... you pick on pregnant women. Shameless. Might as well pick on kids burning ants if you’re going to miss the point of being pro-life so readily.
Good Parenting and Sound Spirituality can change morality, not law. We have to guarantee the right to choose while simultaneously ministering to those in need. That's the good work to be done. Choice, freedom, a right to think how we think: It's how we vote, for goodness sake!
And yes, I'll even claim it's for the unborn's sake too: (I would rather die and ) I'd rather a viable 38-week fetus even die, than see a defenseless baby born into an America that's lost, or sold off to the highest bidder, the very soul of democracy.
149
A fun tip about CPC's:
"people with a clear theo-political agenda are operating ultrasound equipment and providing intimate information to women and teenaged girls about sexuality, prenatal development and medical issues outside the scope of public regulation or expert supervision."
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2009/…
CPC's are interested only in convincing pregnant women to carry to term, them kick them out the door. They don't provide one lick of help to real babies, for they have commited the sin of being born. No help for you, kid, we have goo-blobs to save!
And, call me crazy... but wouldn't Planned Parenthood receive more funding for all the medical costs, tests, appointments, check-ups, and equipment associated with a full term pregnancy rather than an early term abortion? The entire idea that there is a financial incentive, that PP persuades women to have abortions, that they do it for money instead of to help women... that entire argument has always been a steaming crock of shit.
"people with a clear theo-political agenda are operating ultrasound equipment and providing intimate information to women and teenaged girls about sexuality, prenatal development and medical issues outside the scope of public regulation or expert supervision."
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2009/…
CPC's are interested only in convincing pregnant women to carry to term, them kick them out the door. They don't provide one lick of help to real babies, for they have commited the sin of being born. No help for you, kid, we have goo-blobs to save!
And, call me crazy... but wouldn't Planned Parenthood receive more funding for all the medical costs, tests, appointments, check-ups, and equipment associated with a full term pregnancy rather than an early term abortion? The entire idea that there is a financial incentive, that PP persuades women to have abortions, that they do it for money instead of to help women... that entire argument has always been a steaming crock of shit.
150
Oh bethimus @141, you cannot be serious:
"As for the argument that some women would die in childbirth... this is a grossly over-used and unprovable argument."
Oh? Worldwide over half a million women die every year from complications of pregnancy (my source is United Nations stats from 2000). As I've said above 70,000 of those deaths are from illegal abortions.
You care about babies? Go to Afghanistan, where prenatal care is so poor that ONE IN NINE pregnant women dies in the post-natal period (source: UNICEF 2007). That doesn't shock you? How about this: if an Afghan woman dies in childbirth, the chance that her baby will survive to its first birthday is less than one in four. Do we have your attention now? Can you see why a mother of small children looking at that mortality rate might consider ending her next pregnancy? What will happen to her children if she dies? Oh I know: you're going to help them "with adoption counseling."
You think you can tell women around the world that what they need is "professional counseling and loving support?" Please grow up. What they need is safety, a stable society, the right to refuse arranged marriage, adequate nutrition, and access to contraception and skilled care. Sometimes they need abortions--and who are you to tell them otherwise?
You want to help babies? Help the moms. And if they want abortions they're going to get them. You can say your "heart goes out to them" but if you're making abortion unsafe, you're hurting them and the babies you claim to love so much.
"As for the argument that some women would die in childbirth... this is a grossly over-used and unprovable argument."
Oh? Worldwide over half a million women die every year from complications of pregnancy (my source is United Nations stats from 2000). As I've said above 70,000 of those deaths are from illegal abortions.
You care about babies? Go to Afghanistan, where prenatal care is so poor that ONE IN NINE pregnant women dies in the post-natal period (source: UNICEF 2007). That doesn't shock you? How about this: if an Afghan woman dies in childbirth, the chance that her baby will survive to its first birthday is less than one in four. Do we have your attention now? Can you see why a mother of small children looking at that mortality rate might consider ending her next pregnancy? What will happen to her children if she dies? Oh I know: you're going to help them "with adoption counseling."
You think you can tell women around the world that what they need is "professional counseling and loving support?" Please grow up. What they need is safety, a stable society, the right to refuse arranged marriage, adequate nutrition, and access to contraception and skilled care. Sometimes they need abortions--and who are you to tell them otherwise?
You want to help babies? Help the moms. And if they want abortions they're going to get them. You can say your "heart goes out to them" but if you're making abortion unsafe, you're hurting them and the babies you claim to love so much.
151
Bravo, Uriel @147. The CPCs are founts of misinformation and coercion. My favorite CPC story comes from my sister, who used to run the Planned Parenthood office in a midwest town. They'd heard some scary stories from clients who'd been to a local CPC, so when she was pregnant (with her much-planned first) she posed as a client to see one from the inside. Her tale is simultaneously hilarious and horrifying, but the best part is this: she was told she was at eight weeks gestation (this was correct), and when she expressed doubt about her plan of action, the "counselor" smiled and said, "Then let's bring out the kids!" and produced a row of jars of apparently real fetuses at various stages of development. She was shown a particular one (which she estimates as being about 16 weeks from her own anatomy studies) and told her baby was just about that size and stage. When she expressed doubt over the age of the fetus in question, she was assured that, oh no, that's the size babies are at eight weeks.
An innocent mistake? Hmmm.....the typical eight-week fetus weighs about one gram and is less than an inch long, while at 16 weeks 100 grams and 5 inches are average.
We have often puzzled over where those specimens came from....
An innocent mistake? Hmmm.....the typical eight-week fetus weighs about one gram and is less than an inch long, while at 16 weeks 100 grams and 5 inches are average.
We have often puzzled over where those specimens came from....
152
@11 You know what happens when women have unsafe illegal abortions? Both the woman and the fetus die. So how does that serve your goal of saving "babies"?
153
151
There is a huge difference between he typical eight-week fetus at one gram and less than an inch long and a 16 week old's 100 grams and 5 inches are average.
You sure want to catch the as early as possible-
they put up much less of a fight that way...
There is a huge difference between he typical eight-week fetus at one gram and less than an inch long and a 16 week old's 100 grams and 5 inches are average.
You sure want to catch the as early as possible-
they put up much less of a fight that way...
154
146
is it possible to kill a tree?
a dog?
a baby seal?
do any of these posses 'personhood'?
don't be a moron.
is it possible to kill a tree?
a dog?
a baby seal?
do any of these posses 'personhood'?
don't be a moron.
156
As a person who was 'unplanned' I have always been comforted and reassured by the knowledge that, because my then-teenage mother lived in a time and place where abortion was legal and safe and available, I was also a wanted and a chosen child. If I had been born in a time and place where abortion was illegal I would have wondered whether I was really wanted. My mother was and is pro-choice. So am I. If and when I have a child he or she will always know that I wanted and chose him or her from the very beginning.
157
I believe Loveschild is a Christian straight African-American woman like she says... She reminds me of a crazy-ass libertarian lady of that description my dad hangs out with every so often. Not a person worth paying attention to. Kinda wish she hadn't registered so I could whisk her under the rug with the other riffraff.
158
Argentina has the most abortions in the world. Abortion is illegal there.
Also: @11 reproductive freedom doesn't mean we're allowed to have pregnancies, it means we are allowed to have control of our pregnancies.
Also: @11 reproductive freedom doesn't mean we're allowed to have pregnancies, it means we are allowed to have control of our pregnancies.
159
@147
http://ramahinternational.org/index.html
http://www.thereishope.org/content/tih_i…
These are links to two specific organizations I have donated to. The second (you will notice) does include reasonable information about abortion as an option, rather than scare tactics to try and manipulate a woman into keeping her baby alive.
http://local.botw.org/Georgia/Tifton/Pre…
This is one that I donated times to as a teenager. Items donated were diapers, formula, baby clothes, etc. They were different sizes which would speak to those who think that the women would be forcibly ejected once the child is born. If this was true, logic would follow that they would only need to stock newborn diapers and clothing.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_IAW.ht…
This link is a table of abortions performed worldwide. The years included are 1995 and 2003. Could not find a link with statistics for a more recent year.
http://voiceofrevolution.askdrbrown.org/…
Here is another table showing the number of abortions that are performed for convenience vs those for the health of the mother, or post rape/incest. Unfortunately, some will not accept this information as true simply because it is from a pro-life website. Tried to find a less biased source, but didn't have time to get more in-depth.
I will stand corrected on my made up "tens of billions" (I was referring to a more general number over several years). Regardless I would still hold that 70,000 is significantly less than the 41 million babies who are now dead. Again, I am not saying that the mother's death was not unfortunate.
As per the idea that 10 billion is implausible. Look up Irene Vilar:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/05…
All you'd need is a few more of these women and those who have only killed one of their babies would seem like mother Theresa.
Oh, and I'm sorry I didn't read everything that was posted before me, but some of the comments were so repulsive that I started skimming. If only people could use logic when they debate, rather than simply reverting to the juvenile practice of ridiculing a debater. It's so much more intelligent to offer actual information than simply say "you're wrong because you're stupid." It's like reading printed dialog of 6 year olds arguing.
More...
http://ramahinternational.org/index.html
http://www.thereishope.org/content/tih_i…
These are links to two specific organizations I have donated to. The second (you will notice) does include reasonable information about abortion as an option, rather than scare tactics to try and manipulate a woman into keeping her baby alive.
http://local.botw.org/Georgia/Tifton/Pre…
This is one that I donated times to as a teenager. Items donated were diapers, formula, baby clothes, etc. They were different sizes which would speak to those who think that the women would be forcibly ejected once the child is born. If this was true, logic would follow that they would only need to stock newborn diapers and clothing.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_IAW.ht…
This link is a table of abortions performed worldwide. The years included are 1995 and 2003. Could not find a link with statistics for a more recent year.
http://voiceofrevolution.askdrbrown.org/…
Here is another table showing the number of abortions that are performed for convenience vs those for the health of the mother, or post rape/incest. Unfortunately, some will not accept this information as true simply because it is from a pro-life website. Tried to find a less biased source, but didn't have time to get more in-depth.
I will stand corrected on my made up "tens of billions" (I was referring to a more general number over several years). Regardless I would still hold that 70,000 is significantly less than the 41 million babies who are now dead. Again, I am not saying that the mother's death was not unfortunate.
As per the idea that 10 billion is implausible. Look up Irene Vilar:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/05…
All you'd need is a few more of these women and those who have only killed one of their babies would seem like mother Theresa.
Oh, and I'm sorry I didn't read everything that was posted before me, but some of the comments were so repulsive that I started skimming. If only people could use logic when they debate, rather than simply reverting to the juvenile practice of ridiculing a debater. It's so much more intelligent to offer actual information than simply say "you're wrong because you're stupid." It's like reading printed dialog of 6 year olds arguing.
161
@150
>>You care about babies? Go to Afghanistan, where prenatal care is so poor that ONE IN NINE pregnant women dies in the post-natal period (source: UNICEF 2007). <<
So, because I am human and at this point in my life I am unable to help every single woman on the planet, my validity is questioned? Really? Not to beat a dead horse, but Mother Theresa couldn't help every orphan in the world, yet she won the Nobel. I am not a silent activist who talks the talk but won't walk the walk. If you're such an advocate for women's health, why don't you go to Afghanistan and make sure that these women are getting the proper care?
>>You think you can tell women around the world that what they need is "professional counseling and loving support?" <<
I'm not trying to tell women around the world anything. I'm only trying to help women in my own backyard, because that is all I can do as a human being. Oh, and by the way, I wasn't saying that someone needs to go tell these victims anything, but rather that those in a position to offer counsel and support should be available to do so. Rather than seeing my desire to help my fellow sister, you would assume that I, like you, are more inclined to batter another human with cold cynicism and offer a quick fix to a complex situation.
>>You care about babies? Go to Afghanistan, where prenatal care is so poor that ONE IN NINE pregnant women dies in the post-natal period (source: UNICEF 2007). <<
So, because I am human and at this point in my life I am unable to help every single woman on the planet, my validity is questioned? Really? Not to beat a dead horse, but Mother Theresa couldn't help every orphan in the world, yet she won the Nobel. I am not a silent activist who talks the talk but won't walk the walk. If you're such an advocate for women's health, why don't you go to Afghanistan and make sure that these women are getting the proper care?
>>You think you can tell women around the world that what they need is "professional counseling and loving support?" <<
I'm not trying to tell women around the world anything. I'm only trying to help women in my own backyard, because that is all I can do as a human being. Oh, and by the way, I wasn't saying that someone needs to go tell these victims anything, but rather that those in a position to offer counsel and support should be available to do so. Rather than seeing my desire to help my fellow sister, you would assume that I, like you, are more inclined to batter another human with cold cynicism and offer a quick fix to a complex situation.
162
@145
>>"Caring" for those babies by offering adoption counseling is not real caring.Newborn babies (esp. white and healthy) are always in demand. Even without your so called "care" there are enough people and agencies that will adopt/find adoptive parents for those babies.<<
First, I am offended that you would assume that I would only be willing to offer help to a white or healthy baby. The agencies I am looking into are specifically interested in placing mixed race, sibling group, and other "difficult to place" children. I'm not even looking into international adoption right now because there are so many children who need care here in my own country. It would be rather hypocritical of me to ignore those right outside my door in favor of one from an exotic location.
Oh, and... Just because you don't believe me, doesn't invalidate what I've said. Just because you decided to change the parameters of a debate to suit your own agenda doesn't make you right. How can you say that trying to get an unwanted child placed in a loving home is not real caring? Are you saying that proponents of a baby's right to live have to assume responsibility for every single child who is not aborted to prove that they really care?
>>Even without your so called "care" there are enough people and agencies that will adopt/find adoptive parents for those babies.<<
This just confuses me. Are you saying that there are so many people out there trying to help these babies that abortion shouldn't even be a consideration? What is sounded like to me is that you were saying that all the babies that are born will be adopted.
>>"Caring" for those babies by offering adoption counseling is not real caring.Newborn babies (esp. white and healthy) are always in demand. Even without your so called "care" there are enough people and agencies that will adopt/find adoptive parents for those babies.<<
First, I am offended that you would assume that I would only be willing to offer help to a white or healthy baby. The agencies I am looking into are specifically interested in placing mixed race, sibling group, and other "difficult to place" children. I'm not even looking into international adoption right now because there are so many children who need care here in my own country. It would be rather hypocritical of me to ignore those right outside my door in favor of one from an exotic location.
Oh, and... Just because you don't believe me, doesn't invalidate what I've said. Just because you decided to change the parameters of a debate to suit your own agenda doesn't make you right. How can you say that trying to get an unwanted child placed in a loving home is not real caring? Are you saying that proponents of a baby's right to live have to assume responsibility for every single child who is not aborted to prove that they really care?
>>Even without your so called "care" there are enough people and agencies that will adopt/find adoptive parents for those babies.<<
This just confuses me. Are you saying that there are so many people out there trying to help these babies that abortion shouldn't even be a consideration? What is sounded like to me is that you were saying that all the babies that are born will be adopted.
163
Oh for pity's sake, little-b beth @161 !!! This is a conversation about WORLD HEALTH!!
If you are not going to read the initial post by Dan Savage (which basically says that banning abortion doesn't prevent abortion but access to birth control does prevent abortion, and that women die from illegal abortion) then what are you doing in the discussion?
I suggested you examine worldwide statistics on maternal death because you said that it can't be proved that women die in childbirth. They do. Every day. Even in the USA. I compared those stats to world deaths from illegal abortions to show that more women die from pregnancy than from abortion.
Look, what you're doing, jumping into a conversation without even taking the time to understand what it's ABOUT is simply rude (not to mention foolish, what with the bunch of piranhas on THIS site).
If you are not going to read the initial post by Dan Savage (which basically says that banning abortion doesn't prevent abortion but access to birth control does prevent abortion, and that women die from illegal abortion) then what are you doing in the discussion?
I suggested you examine worldwide statistics on maternal death because you said that it can't be proved that women die in childbirth. They do. Every day. Even in the USA. I compared those stats to world deaths from illegal abortions to show that more women die from pregnancy than from abortion.
Look, what you're doing, jumping into a conversation without even taking the time to understand what it's ABOUT is simply rude (not to mention foolish, what with the bunch of piranhas on THIS site).
165
Ditto. Thanks, Attitude devant @163. Looks like he or she isn't a serious opponent, and doesn't even try to become one.
@161, just forget it, you are not making any sense. Listen to what you are being advised. Let's rewind. Read the initial post, digest it, try to comment on it. Dont introduce any red herrings or deliberately play dumb, please.
@161, just forget it, you are not making any sense. Listen to what you are being advised. Let's rewind. Read the initial post, digest it, try to comment on it. Dont introduce any red herrings or deliberately play dumb, please.
166
Thanks for getting back to me with links, Bethimus @147. It does help, by knowing from whence you come, to locate common ground.
Some thoughts:
Neither the Ramah International bookstore nor the Hope Women's Centers website suggest they offer any of the services about which I asked, saying only (in the latter case) We CARE. We want to HELP. All of our services are FREE. the sentiments of which are typical of any corporate or activist customer service center, and are commonly insincere. The Pregnancy Care Website (which may not have anything to do with the center to which you donate) offers One-On-One Mentoring, a number of internal education programs and Referral Programs which doesn't sound comparable to the kinds of professional, degreed counseling an expecting mother requires.
Low income women enduring an unintended pregnancy often require long term psychotherapy, benefits advocacy to secure food, shelter, parenting guidance and medicine for themselves and their child, and enough benefits for a sustained period of time no less than five years that will not only cover the cost of rearing the child but will offset some of the mother's cost of living.
Why such a toll? As a society, we cannot assume that any features of a loving, supporting family, or a paternal figure (a boyfriend or husband) will be available. Young expecting mothers are still often estranged from their parental homes, if that home was safe to them in the first place. Fathers of the pregnancy are often abusive, immature or otherwise unprepared to accept the responsibility of fatherhood, if he can be located and paternally established at all; the cases in which the father wishes to do his part are lucky ones.
If the Mom is single and (as is typical) no community manifests around her, that means the child will be a latchkey kid, and is likely going to grow up socially impaired. Children establish much of their sense of self by having their expressions reflected by parents, family and other community members. You can expect the child himself or herself will endure more difficulties than usual adapting to social interaction, finding work, establishing personal independence and functioning as an adult. Chances are increased, the child will repeat the process and get pregnant (get someone else pregnant) before she or he is ready for parenthood.
All this is exacerbated when the pregnant woman is a victim of rape or incest, in which case she has been no less than attacked and infected with a hostile parasite, one that will (should she choose to carry) assign her with nine months of misery (only in rare cases is pregnancy fun), and leave an permanent, living legacy. (From an evolutionary standpoint, it also encourages the continuation more aggressive, less cooperative genetic traits.)
More to follow...
More...
Some thoughts:
Neither the Ramah International bookstore nor the Hope Women's Centers website suggest they offer any of the services about which I asked, saying only (in the latter case) We CARE. We want to HELP. All of our services are FREE. the sentiments of which are typical of any corporate or activist customer service center, and are commonly insincere. The Pregnancy Care Website (which may not have anything to do with the center to which you donate) offers One-On-One Mentoring, a number of internal education programs and Referral Programs which doesn't sound comparable to the kinds of professional, degreed counseling an expecting mother requires.
Low income women enduring an unintended pregnancy often require long term psychotherapy, benefits advocacy to secure food, shelter, parenting guidance and medicine for themselves and their child, and enough benefits for a sustained period of time no less than five years that will not only cover the cost of rearing the child but will offset some of the mother's cost of living.
Why such a toll? As a society, we cannot assume that any features of a loving, supporting family, or a paternal figure (a boyfriend or husband) will be available. Young expecting mothers are still often estranged from their parental homes, if that home was safe to them in the first place. Fathers of the pregnancy are often abusive, immature or otherwise unprepared to accept the responsibility of fatherhood, if he can be located and paternally established at all; the cases in which the father wishes to do his part are lucky ones.
If the Mom is single and (as is typical) no community manifests around her, that means the child will be a latchkey kid, and is likely going to grow up socially impaired. Children establish much of their sense of self by having their expressions reflected by parents, family and other community members. You can expect the child himself or herself will endure more difficulties than usual adapting to social interaction, finding work, establishing personal independence and functioning as an adult. Chances are increased, the child will repeat the process and get pregnant (get someone else pregnant) before she or he is ready for parenthood.
All this is exacerbated when the pregnant woman is a victim of rape or incest, in which case she has been no less than attacked and infected with a hostile parasite, one that will (should she choose to carry) assign her with nine months of misery (only in rare cases is pregnancy fun), and leave an permanent, living legacy. (From an evolutionary standpoint, it also encourages the continuation more aggressive, less cooperative genetic traits.)
More to follow...
168
Bethimus @147, referring to the motivation of abortions as performed for convenience [of the mother] seems rather harsh and reflects a lack of empathy for women enduring an unintended pregnancy. It also minimizes the life and health impacts on a woman of carrying a pregnancy to full term, and the immense time and commitment required to raise a child. I'm surprised that the obstructionist community, which does have a number of women who have endured pregnancy and raised children would be so cold to their fellow sisters.
It does make me wonder what, according to Dr. Michael Brown and his ministry, constitutes unwanted or inconvenience. Are non-life-threatening health issues (i.e. paralyzation) considered inconvenience? Are antepartum mental health issues considered inconvenience?, are threats to ones personal livelihood (i.e. work) considered, inconvenience even in the current economic situation, where the average length of unemployment is over a year (according to What Color Is Your Parachute) and when unemployment can easily result in homelessness? Is hardship inconvenience? How about preexisting mental disorders? Are they inconvenience? Drug addictions? Social stigma? If a teen is certain she'll be evicted and disowned by her family if she gets pregnant, and she chooses abortion, is that inconvenience?
Terminology is a common problem, and has become, by my observation a device of oversimplification of by the obstructionist community.
Further examples to follow...
It does make me wonder what, according to Dr. Michael Brown and his ministry, constitutes unwanted or inconvenience. Are non-life-threatening health issues (i.e. paralyzation) considered inconvenience? Are antepartum mental health issues considered inconvenience?, are threats to ones personal livelihood (i.e. work) considered, inconvenience even in the current economic situation, where the average length of unemployment is over a year (according to What Color Is Your Parachute) and when unemployment can easily result in homelessness? Is hardship inconvenience? How about preexisting mental disorders? Are they inconvenience? Drug addictions? Social stigma? If a teen is certain she'll be evicted and disowned by her family if she gets pregnant, and she chooses abortion, is that inconvenience?
Terminology is a common problem, and has become, by my observation a device of oversimplification of by the obstructionist community.
Further examples to follow...
169
Crap, Bethimus I was responding to you @159
As I was saying, oversimplification of terminology, something that the obstructionists seem to intend to do, is one of the divisive elements in the abortion controversy.
Another example, in fact a favorite of Allegedly's is confusion of terms like life, organism, etc. with personhood. Allegedly and I have dialogued about this issue ad nauseam in which I provided links to in-depth examinations of each word (here's a fix to the misdirected link, btw).
Case in point, Allegedly seems to believe waxing poetic and inappropriate or rough general comparisons can serve in place of a reason-based examination of the real world circumstances behind abortion cases. (This might, indeed, be quite convincing in much of the obstructionist sector). To respond to his most recent entry, a living dog has certain rights and protections that don't apply to them until they're born, so yes dogs has their own form of personhood. Trees are seldom so protected, but some old growth and reserved areas are. Usually a tree has to be a minimum height before transgressing on it is regarded as a violation, so again there's a point when a tree attains its rights and protections. Similar codes exist to protect seals as well, as a number of other flora and fauna. While human personhood is particular to humankind, the concept of a minimum degree of existence before protection is attained is not uniquely applied to human beings. (Not so moronic an answer after all.)
But considering an example from your own text, Bethimus, equating a zygote or fetus with a baby or child is just as fallacious. Indeed the natural chances of each transitioning to the next are far from absolute, and so presuming that one equates to the next in language such as 41 million babies who are now dead is regarded around here as sloppy hyperbole. Technically, they're 41 million babies who were never babies, assuredly some of whom would never have become babies.
Since I don't regard terminating a pregnancy as taking a life until 20 weeks (which I've explained above), I think very few deaths have occurred due to abortion, and none of those were elective cases.
Also, I doubt severely that Irene Vilar's condition will become epidemic. We have made fools of the state often enough legislating based on what someone speculated might happen, rather than what is happening.
Speaking of epidemics, though, I agree with you that the insults and hyperbole are pandemic conditions on internet debates. I've become desensitized, myself, but can understand how it can dispossess someone to actually read what has been said. In my own case, I tolerate the cross-talk since I seek to understand both sides of the issue, since I have difficulty believing so many folk who are adamantly, sometimes violently opposed to abortion access are that way without a valid reason, or a sense of reason. Still, the excuses typically given for abortion obstructionism often do not gel with the methods used.
I still don't see why a better tact would be to reduce unwanted pregnancies by making contraception easier, more reliable and available to everyone, including low-income families. Indeed, instead, the same activists who push to abolish abortion push to abolish birth control as well.
So far, from what I've seen, obstructionists can't be bothered to do anything but make a nuisance of themselves.
More...
As I was saying, oversimplification of terminology, something that the obstructionists seem to intend to do, is one of the divisive elements in the abortion controversy.
Another example, in fact a favorite of Allegedly's is confusion of terms like life, organism, etc. with personhood. Allegedly and I have dialogued about this issue ad nauseam in which I provided links to in-depth examinations of each word (here's a fix to the misdirected link, btw).
Case in point, Allegedly seems to believe waxing poetic and inappropriate or rough general comparisons can serve in place of a reason-based examination of the real world circumstances behind abortion cases. (This might, indeed, be quite convincing in much of the obstructionist sector). To respond to his most recent entry, a living dog has certain rights and protections that don't apply to them until they're born, so yes dogs has their own form of personhood. Trees are seldom so protected, but some old growth and reserved areas are. Usually a tree has to be a minimum height before transgressing on it is regarded as a violation, so again there's a point when a tree attains its rights and protections. Similar codes exist to protect seals as well, as a number of other flora and fauna. While human personhood is particular to humankind, the concept of a minimum degree of existence before protection is attained is not uniquely applied to human beings. (Not so moronic an answer after all.)
But considering an example from your own text, Bethimus, equating a zygote or fetus with a baby or child is just as fallacious. Indeed the natural chances of each transitioning to the next are far from absolute, and so presuming that one equates to the next in language such as 41 million babies who are now dead is regarded around here as sloppy hyperbole. Technically, they're 41 million babies who were never babies, assuredly some of whom would never have become babies.
Since I don't regard terminating a pregnancy as taking a life until 20 weeks (which I've explained above), I think very few deaths have occurred due to abortion, and none of those were elective cases.
Also, I doubt severely that Irene Vilar's condition will become epidemic. We have made fools of the state often enough legislating based on what someone speculated might happen, rather than what is happening.
Speaking of epidemics, though, I agree with you that the insults and hyperbole are pandemic conditions on internet debates. I've become desensitized, myself, but can understand how it can dispossess someone to actually read what has been said. In my own case, I tolerate the cross-talk since I seek to understand both sides of the issue, since I have difficulty believing so many folk who are adamantly, sometimes violently opposed to abortion access are that way without a valid reason, or a sense of reason. Still, the excuses typically given for abortion obstructionism often do not gel with the methods used.
I still don't see why a better tact would be to reduce unwanted pregnancies by making contraception easier, more reliable and available to everyone, including low-income families. Indeed, instead, the same activists who push to abolish abortion push to abolish birth control as well.
So far, from what I've seen, obstructionists can't be bothered to do anything but make a nuisance of themselves.
170
aside to @155
Sorry to disappoint, but I'm a real live ordained minister (and by a real live person of the cloth, no less; not a website). I've ministered to the flock, dutifully married folks, had the honor of giving last rites, the whole schmear. Since 1996 or so. However, it's not my day job.
Happy to skew the occasional notion that all 'Reverends' are anti-choice, though.
Sorry to disappoint, but I'm a real live ordained minister (and by a real live person of the cloth, no less; not a website). I've ministered to the flock, dutifully married folks, had the honor of giving last rites, the whole schmear. Since 1996 or so. However, it's not my day job.
Happy to skew the occasional notion that all 'Reverends' are anti-choice, though.
171
@169
"Since I don't regard terminating a pregnancy as taking a life until 20 weeks (which I've explained above), I think very few deaths have occurred due to abortion, and none of those were elective cases."
Please document all abortions past 20 weeks to verify your assertion that NONE of those were elective.
"Since I don't regard terminating a pregnancy as taking a life until 20 weeks (which I've explained above), I think very few deaths have occurred due to abortion, and none of those were elective cases."
Please document all abortions past 20 weeks to verify your assertion that NONE of those were elective.
172
170
Not to worry, no disappointment at all-
'Reverends' lie somewhere below used car salesmen in my personal ranking of trades and scam artists.
Nor is the 'man of the cloth as abortion apologist' a surprise- our society is full of Liberals who find justification for every hue and shade of immoral behavior in their Personal religion.
We were more bemused by the whole wacky tinfoil-hat teabaggeresque take on life you espoused.
Not to worry, no disappointment at all-
'Reverends' lie somewhere below used car salesmen in my personal ranking of trades and scam artists.
Nor is the 'man of the cloth as abortion apologist' a surprise- our society is full of Liberals who find justification for every hue and shade of immoral behavior in their Personal religion.
We were more bemused by the whole wacky tinfoil-hat teabaggeresque take on life you espoused.
173
168
No need to wonder-
here is a handy formula so you too can ascertain what constitutes Inconvenience.
Mom comes to you and says:
"Bub, I'm so sorry but I have to make a choice, either I Kill you or I have to..."
Then fill in the blank with the hypothetical Inconvenience and ask yourself:
"Would I feel good about Mom making this choice?"
Let's try it out!
Mom: "Bub, I'm so sorry but I have to make a choice. Summer is just around the corner and I hate to think how I'll look in a bikini with a glob of fetal tissue on board so I'm afraid you'll have to 'go'..."
You: "No problem, Mom!- Besides, I'd hate an unsightly belly bulge to jeopardize your chances of getting knocked up again by some loser..."
See how easy it is?
Let's try another-
Mom: "Bub, I'm so sorry but I have to make a choice. The Dreamy Guy who I just knew was Mr Right and I was sure having a baby with would cement Our True SoulMate Love turns out to have a wife and three kids...."
You: "No problem, Mom!- But hey- keep your chin up. You keep putting out for all the guys at work and I'm sure you'll find True Love & Happiness eventually..."
OK. I know you're thinking;
"wait- these are trivial excuses and in the whole history of the human race no one has EVER had an abortion for anything less severe that the guarantee of
Total Full-Body Paralysis or
Unemployment leading to Being Thrown Out on the Street or
Criminal Insanity or
Not Making the CheerLeading Squad (gasp!).
Let's try the formulae one last time with a more
Typical and Serious
Inconvience as a Real Excuse for Abortion-
Mom: "Bub, I'm so sorry but I have to make a choice. I had a vision last night and if I carry you to term the Universe will be Destroyed."
You: "Wow, Mom- don't waste a second! Here, let me call the clinic and a taxi..."
More...
No need to wonder-
here is a handy formula so you too can ascertain what constitutes Inconvenience.
Mom comes to you and says:
"Bub, I'm so sorry but I have to make a choice, either I Kill you or I have to..."
Then fill in the blank with the hypothetical Inconvenience and ask yourself:
"Would I feel good about Mom making this choice?"
Let's try it out!
Mom: "Bub, I'm so sorry but I have to make a choice. Summer is just around the corner and I hate to think how I'll look in a bikini with a glob of fetal tissue on board so I'm afraid you'll have to 'go'..."
You: "No problem, Mom!- Besides, I'd hate an unsightly belly bulge to jeopardize your chances of getting knocked up again by some loser..."
See how easy it is?
Let's try another-
Mom: "Bub, I'm so sorry but I have to make a choice. The Dreamy Guy who I just knew was Mr Right and I was sure having a baby with would cement Our True SoulMate Love turns out to have a wife and three kids...."
You: "No problem, Mom!- But hey- keep your chin up. You keep putting out for all the guys at work and I'm sure you'll find True Love & Happiness eventually..."
OK. I know you're thinking;
"wait- these are trivial excuses and in the whole history of the human race no one has EVER had an abortion for anything less severe that the guarantee of
Total Full-Body Paralysis or
Unemployment leading to Being Thrown Out on the Street or
Criminal Insanity or
Not Making the CheerLeading Squad (gasp!).
Let's try the formulae one last time with a more
Typical and Serious
Inconvience as a Real Excuse for Abortion-
Mom: "Bub, I'm so sorry but I have to make a choice. I had a vision last night and if I carry you to term the Universe will be Destroyed."
You: "Wow, Mom- don't waste a second! Here, let me call the clinic and a taxi..."
174
171, 172, 173
You amuse me. You act as though the medical changes and dangers of pregnancy are trivial. Let's say you drive your car.
You are hit by a drunk driver.
Due to the accident, he will die without a new liver.
We shall take 50% of yours. Don't worry, it will grow back. It's just a little "inconvenient". Just like how you claim women get abortions because pregnancy is "inconvenient".
You amuse me. You act as though the medical changes and dangers of pregnancy are trivial. Let's say you drive your car.
You are hit by a drunk driver.
Due to the accident, he will die without a new liver.
We shall take 50% of yours. Don't worry, it will grow back. It's just a little "inconvenient". Just like how you claim women get abortions because pregnancy is "inconvenient".
175
174
nothing about pregnancy is trivial,
least of all the act of ending one.
which is why men and women should be responsible in their behavior and choices and not create unwanted pregnancies.
choices carry consequences.
when people choose to engage in unethical behavior to avoid consequences of earlier freely made choices they always compound the problem.
America sacrifices the lives of millions of it's most helpless to in an unsuccessful attempt to sweep the consequences of irresponsible sexual behavior under the carpet.
taking life on that scale creates a huge due bill, that eventually will be paid.
centuries of slavery eventually exacted it's toll in blood and treasure.
the German attempt to enslave Europe and all the moral atrocities that accompanied it exacted a high toll as well.
justice may be delayed but not denied.
nothing about pregnancy is trivial,
least of all the act of ending one.
which is why men and women should be responsible in their behavior and choices and not create unwanted pregnancies.
choices carry consequences.
when people choose to engage in unethical behavior to avoid consequences of earlier freely made choices they always compound the problem.
America sacrifices the lives of millions of it's most helpless to in an unsuccessful attempt to sweep the consequences of irresponsible sexual behavior under the carpet.
taking life on that scale creates a huge due bill, that eventually will be paid.
centuries of slavery eventually exacted it's toll in blood and treasure.
the German attempt to enslave Europe and all the moral atrocities that accompanied it exacted a high toll as well.
justice may be delayed but not denied.
176
@169
“Personhood”
Stripping or denying your intended victim of “personhood” is a precursor to LEGALIZE wholesale killings or extermination.
The racial policy of Nazi Germany asserting the superiority of the "Aryan race" (based on a specific racist doctrine which claimed scientific legitimacy) was based on the concept of Untermensch .
Untermensch (German for sub-man, sub-human; plural: Untermenschen) is a term from Nazi racial ideology used to describe "inferior people", especially the Jews. The German word Mensch literally means human.
The term "Untermensch" was utilized repeatedly in writings and speeches directed against the Jews,
The concept of people being "Untermensch" in particular served the Nazis as justification for their genocidal policies .
"Untermenschen" included the Gypsies, also subject to extermination. Includes non-whites from colonial African. Homosexuals and disabled people (based on physical and mental illnesses) were also considered to be part of this category.
“Personhood”
Stripping or denying your intended victim of “personhood” is a precursor to LEGALIZE wholesale killings or extermination.
The racial policy of Nazi Germany asserting the superiority of the "Aryan race" (based on a specific racist doctrine which claimed scientific legitimacy) was based on the concept of Untermensch .
Untermensch (German for sub-man, sub-human; plural: Untermenschen) is a term from Nazi racial ideology used to describe "inferior people", especially the Jews. The German word Mensch literally means human.
The term "Untermensch" was utilized repeatedly in writings and speeches directed against the Jews,
The concept of people being "Untermensch" in particular served the Nazis as justification for their genocidal policies .
"Untermenschen" included the Gypsies, also subject to extermination. Includes non-whites from colonial African. Homosexuals and disabled people (based on physical and mental illnesses) were also considered to be part of this category.
177
@169
“Personhood”
Stripping or denying your intended victim of “personhood” is a precursor to LEGALIZE slavery, wholesale killings or genocide.
Slave holders looked to science to justify their 'peculiar institution'.
Denying that Negroes were human was a favorite approach...
"What is so striking about the American experience in creating such an extreme conception of human differences was the role played by scientists and scholars in legitimizing the folk ideas. Scholarly writers began attempting to prove scientifically that "the Negro" was a different and lower kind of human being. The first published materials arguing from a scientific perspective that "negroes" were a separate species from white men appeared in the last decade of the eighteenth century. They argued that Negroes were either a product of degeneration from that first creation, or descendants of a separate creation altogether."
from- ORIGIN OF THE IDEA OF RACE
by Audrey Smedley
Anthropology Newsletter, November 1997
“Personhood”
Stripping or denying your intended victim of “personhood” is a precursor to LEGALIZE slavery, wholesale killings or genocide.
Slave holders looked to science to justify their 'peculiar institution'.
Denying that Negroes were human was a favorite approach...
"What is so striking about the American experience in creating such an extreme conception of human differences was the role played by scientists and scholars in legitimizing the folk ideas. Scholarly writers began attempting to prove scientifically that "the Negro" was a different and lower kind of human being. The first published materials arguing from a scientific perspective that "negroes" were a separate species from white men appeared in the last decade of the eighteenth century. They argued that Negroes were either a product of degeneration from that first creation, or descendants of a separate creation altogether."
from- ORIGIN OF THE IDEA OF RACE
by Audrey Smedley
Anthropology Newsletter, November 1997
178
Abortionist in their zeal to kill resemble Nazi race "experts" or defenders of slavery in their pseudo-science babble and nitpicking to justify their actions-
parsing genealogy and eye color and facial features to decide if one was Jewish
or declaring that even one drop of Negro blood contaminated it's owner in the eyes of the law or
or counting cells and weeks and ounces and neural pathways to declare "it is not a Person and it's DEATH need not concern us...".
parsing genealogy and eye color and facial features to decide if one was Jewish
or declaring that even one drop of Negro blood contaminated it's owner in the eyes of the law or
or counting cells and weeks and ounces and neural pathways to declare "it is not a Person and it's DEATH need not concern us...".
179
Allegedly @169, I don't need to provide documents that medical procedures were done in propriety. The burden of proof lies on the accuser. Your Operation Rescue friends tried to drum up charges on Tiller before you guys murdered him. The results were (for your purposes) rather disappointing.
Clutch any straws yet?
Regarding Allegedly @168, This defense rests, your honor.
Allegedly @174, your Freudian slip is showing. So you agree that abortion access obstruction is about punishing the irresponsibly promiscuous by inflicting them with child, not about the preservation of life. That makes sense giving the obstructionist interest in also denying contraceptives: You think non-procreative sex is icky and thus don't want anyone having any.
Way to go trying to legislate your own sexual repression.
Allegedly @176 There you go again, crossing the Godwin threshold. That never speaks well of your situation, and insults the victims of the Holocaust, simultaneously.
Clutch any straws yet?
Regarding Allegedly @168, This defense rests, your honor.
Allegedly @174, your Freudian slip is showing. So you agree that abortion access obstruction is about punishing the irresponsibly promiscuous by inflicting them with child, not about the preservation of life. That makes sense giving the obstructionist interest in also denying contraceptives: You think non-procreative sex is icky and thus don't want anyone having any.
Way to go trying to legislate your own sexual repression.
Allegedly @176 There you go again, crossing the Godwin threshold. That never speaks well of your situation, and insults the victims of the Holocaust, simultaneously.
180
179
We have never said a word about contraceptives- you are confusing your straw men with the Real World.
We have never said a word about contraceptives- you are confusing your straw men with the Real World.
181
179
We guess citing Godwin has to make do for you for an answer when you have no other answer-
using Nazi terminology and arguments to justify your position speaks well of it.
We guess citing Godwin has to make do for you for an answer when you have no other answer-
using Nazi terminology and arguments to justify your position speaks well of it.
182
179
No slip (although I don't know which post you are actually referring to- your numbering system seems different from the one I see)
Behavior that results in an unintended pregnancy is by definition irresponsible and careless.
And in this day and age, inexcusable.
It is not proponents of life who are "inflicting" anyone "with child"- if there is any punishment involved it is that natural punishment that inevitably follows irresponsible careless behavior.
It is typical however that those who have willfully engaged in behavior that made themselves pregnant would accuse opponents of killing with "inflicting them with child".
Denying responsibility right up to the bitter end...
No slip (although I don't know which post you are actually referring to- your numbering system seems different from the one I see)
Behavior that results in an unintended pregnancy is by definition irresponsible and careless.
And in this day and age, inexcusable.
It is not proponents of life who are "inflicting" anyone "with child"- if there is any punishment involved it is that natural punishment that inevitably follows irresponsible careless behavior.
It is typical however that those who have willfully engaged in behavior that made themselves pregnant would accuse opponents of killing with "inflicting them with child".
Denying responsibility right up to the bitter end...
183
169
Does your face twitch when you assert that No abortions performed after 20 weeks have EVER been elective?
Even your friend attitude deviant would tell you how ludicrous you sound...
Does your face twitch when you assert that No abortions performed after 20 weeks have EVER been elective?
Even your friend attitude deviant would tell you how ludicrous you sound...
184
Being of Jewish descent, I am insulted that you think I am equal to a fetus. I have this wonderful thing called "self awareness", a "mind", and "free will", concepts you obviously cannot wrap your head around.
A fetus has none of these things. We are not "de-humanizing them" to justify this. They already lack EVERYTHING that makes a human being special and deserving of rights. Abortion is no worse than putting down a sick dog.
YOU claim they have personhood? PROVE IT.
I have the POTENTIAL to become president, but I do not have the right to secret-service protection NOW.
Likewise, a lump of tissue that has the POTENTIAL to develop into an infant does not trump the rights of the woman.
As I have said before, getting the abortion IS a form of taking responsibility. You would drag us all back into the dark ages and slap us all in chastity belts, make women into nothing more than breeding chattel. Perhaps you wish to start practicing female genital mutilation, it would certainly discourage woman from "irresponsibly seeking pleasure".
I would rather see my sister, my wife, my daughter, and my granddaughter choose to responsibly terminate a pregnancy rather than suffer through it before they are ready.
A fetus has none of these things. We are not "de-humanizing them" to justify this. They already lack EVERYTHING that makes a human being special and deserving of rights. Abortion is no worse than putting down a sick dog.
YOU claim they have personhood? PROVE IT.
I have the POTENTIAL to become president, but I do not have the right to secret-service protection NOW.
Likewise, a lump of tissue that has the POTENTIAL to develop into an infant does not trump the rights of the woman.
As I have said before, getting the abortion IS a form of taking responsibility. You would drag us all back into the dark ages and slap us all in chastity belts, make women into nothing more than breeding chattel. Perhaps you wish to start practicing female genital mutilation, it would certainly discourage woman from "irresponsibly seeking pleasure".
I would rather see my sister, my wife, my daughter, and my granddaughter choose to responsibly terminate a pregnancy rather than suffer through it before they are ready.
185
You know, 171-173, and 175-178, and 180-183, if you believe so passionately in this issue, you should register, or at least stick to the same handle, the self-congratulatory wit in your choice of monikers notwithstanding. Alinka, Uriel, Rev.Smith and other registered commenters are held to higher standards than you are in this discourse, e.g., they can't claim they "have never said" as you do in 180. You cheapen your stance by refusing to engage in this discussion honestly.
As for this continuing search for the "inconvenient pregnancy" which you seem to confuse with the term "elective abortion," what IS that all about? It's like the "baby-killing Hun" of WWI, or the witches of Salem, Massachusetts. You're convinced she's there and that presence justifies your persecution of the larger group. Nothing personal against the larger group, you see, just the bad one. And you get to decide.
When I offered my experience (which is not small) to say that women agonize over this decision, you said that was anecdotal evidence. If I directed you to one of the many websites where women left tributes to Dr. Tiller after his murder (a more heart-breaking bunch of stories you will never see) you would claim that those were self-reports and thus not credible.
The interesting thing to me is that even the most virulent anti-choicer has some place where he draws the line, and says, OK, that one gets by me. Rape, incest, life of the mother, are common ones, but other people would add chromosomal abnormalities, health of the mother, spousal abuse, mental illness....
Here's where it gets sticky: once you concede that there are acceptable reasons for abortion, who gets to decide who gets one? You want a committee? Or a judge? The worst night I ever spent on call I took care of a mom with twins at 21 weeks who had developed a terrible uterine infection. Those were wanted babies. We had only hours to terminate her pregnancy or she would die. It was 2 a.m. when she got sick. Can you imagine having to appeal to a judge in the middle of the night to save this lady's life? Can you imagine having to tell her frantic husband that you were waiting for the judge to get back to you? One of Dr. Tiller's cases was a 15 year old girl impregnated by her stepfather. Would you put your teen in front of a committee to be cross-examined? And if a judge in Louisiana can refuse a marriage license to an interracial couple as reported on Slog THIS week, can you trust a judge to make the right decision for your sister, or your daughter, or your mom? Would they know all the particulars about the one you love?
If you work with these women and you care about them and you listen to them you'll know that THEY must decide. Who else has that right? I am not their judge and jury; neither are you. I've had patients carry babies with horrible birth defects, incompatible with life (and yes, we can tell them that) to term, knowing that their babies would die in their arms within days, but to them that was the RIGHT thing to do. I've had others faced with the same situation who felt that allowing the pregnancy to continue beyond 20 weeks was an immoral choice since it condemned their baby to pain and suffering. These were loving parents with miserable choices trying to do their best by their children. There was no one right answer to their situation. Just the answer that fit best with their beliefs --- not with yours or mine.
I think most of us really do try and do our best. Some of us, our best is not so good. We are frail, our birth control methods fail us (even vasectomy Bethimus!), we screw up. We are lucky to live in a country where most women have access to choice. In other parts of the world, screwing up can be fatal.
More...
As for this continuing search for the "inconvenient pregnancy" which you seem to confuse with the term "elective abortion," what IS that all about? It's like the "baby-killing Hun" of WWI, or the witches of Salem, Massachusetts. You're convinced she's there and that presence justifies your persecution of the larger group. Nothing personal against the larger group, you see, just the bad one. And you get to decide.
When I offered my experience (which is not small) to say that women agonize over this decision, you said that was anecdotal evidence. If I directed you to one of the many websites where women left tributes to Dr. Tiller after his murder (a more heart-breaking bunch of stories you will never see) you would claim that those were self-reports and thus not credible.
The interesting thing to me is that even the most virulent anti-choicer has some place where he draws the line, and says, OK, that one gets by me. Rape, incest, life of the mother, are common ones, but other people would add chromosomal abnormalities, health of the mother, spousal abuse, mental illness....
Here's where it gets sticky: once you concede that there are acceptable reasons for abortion, who gets to decide who gets one? You want a committee? Or a judge? The worst night I ever spent on call I took care of a mom with twins at 21 weeks who had developed a terrible uterine infection. Those were wanted babies. We had only hours to terminate her pregnancy or she would die. It was 2 a.m. when she got sick. Can you imagine having to appeal to a judge in the middle of the night to save this lady's life? Can you imagine having to tell her frantic husband that you were waiting for the judge to get back to you? One of Dr. Tiller's cases was a 15 year old girl impregnated by her stepfather. Would you put your teen in front of a committee to be cross-examined? And if a judge in Louisiana can refuse a marriage license to an interracial couple as reported on Slog THIS week, can you trust a judge to make the right decision for your sister, or your daughter, or your mom? Would they know all the particulars about the one you love?
If you work with these women and you care about them and you listen to them you'll know that THEY must decide. Who else has that right? I am not their judge and jury; neither are you. I've had patients carry babies with horrible birth defects, incompatible with life (and yes, we can tell them that) to term, knowing that their babies would die in their arms within days, but to them that was the RIGHT thing to do. I've had others faced with the same situation who felt that allowing the pregnancy to continue beyond 20 weeks was an immoral choice since it condemned their baby to pain and suffering. These were loving parents with miserable choices trying to do their best by their children. There was no one right answer to their situation. Just the answer that fit best with their beliefs --- not with yours or mine.
I think most of us really do try and do our best. Some of us, our best is not so good. We are frail, our birth control methods fail us (even vasectomy Bethimus!), we screw up. We are lucky to live in a country where most women have access to choice. In other parts of the world, screwing up can be fatal.
186
Oh and bethimus, I'm sorry I lost my (red-headed, Irish) temper with you. I looked at your links and realized you are some sweet, sincere, young, not-terribly-experienced Baptist from Georgia who didn't really understand she was in the Emerald City, if only virtually.
I grew up in the South too. It's a place to start.
I grew up in the South too. It's a place to start.
190
188,
So... you deny women the liberty to decide what is medically best for themselves? You deny life to the thousands that die in childbirth each year?
A woman is a person. You have not proven that a fetus is.
189,
Probably. But that does not mean were going to deny a right to all women because of 1 or 2 very rare poor decision maker. The vast majority of women are not going to go through all the morning sickness, the weight gain, the swelling, the nausea, the hormones, for 20 weeks just to change her mind at the drop of a hat.
I doubt you're willing to pull your head out of the hole in the ground you've dug for yourself long enough to look up the medical conditions that make late term abortion necessary in some cases. Harlequin ichthyosis is a favorite of mine.
Even when it will live no more than a few hours in agony, a late term abortion is an agonizing decision, and your claim that some women will take it lightly is an insult to every woman on the planet.
So... you deny women the liberty to decide what is medically best for themselves? You deny life to the thousands that die in childbirth each year?
A woman is a person. You have not proven that a fetus is.
189,
Probably. But that does not mean were going to deny a right to all women because of 1 or 2 very rare poor decision maker. The vast majority of women are not going to go through all the morning sickness, the weight gain, the swelling, the nausea, the hormones, for 20 weeks just to change her mind at the drop of a hat.
I doubt you're willing to pull your head out of the hole in the ground you've dug for yourself long enough to look up the medical conditions that make late term abortion necessary in some cases. Harlequin ichthyosis is a favorite of mine.
Even when it will live no more than a few hours in agony, a late term abortion is an agonizing decision, and your claim that some women will take it lightly is an insult to every woman on the planet.
191
Allegedly @182 you're right, It's not easy to trace to whom I was talking by context, and in my haste this morning (I was running out the door to help the local emergency response organizations drill on this, the anniversary of Loma Prieta, you see.) I mistook your reference numbers for actual index numbers. Not all of us are too perfect for this cruel Earth as you are, Allegedly.
I'll repeat, or expound upon my answers with corrected and linked indexes as to make avoid further confusion.
Allegedly @171, as I said before I don't need to provide documents that medical procedures were done in propriety. The burden of proof lies on the accuser. Your Operation Rescue friends tried to drum up charges on Tiller before you guys murdered him. The results were (for your purposes) rather disappointing.
Back to @182, Allegedly, I take your use of the word irresponsible (irresponsibly, take responsibility for, etc.) is code for having non-procreative sex of which you personally do not approve?
I take, therefore, you believe those that do not want children should simply not have sex. Yes?
I'll repeat, or expound upon my answers with corrected and linked indexes as to make avoid further confusion.
Allegedly @171, as I said before I don't need to provide documents that medical procedures were done in propriety. The burden of proof lies on the accuser. Your Operation Rescue friends tried to drum up charges on Tiller before you guys murdered him. The results were (for your purposes) rather disappointing.
Back to @182, Allegedly, I take your use of the word irresponsible (irresponsibly, take responsibility for, etc.) is code for having non-procreative sex of which you personally do not approve?
I take, therefore, you believe those that do not want children should simply not have sex. Yes?
192
Allegedly @183 Show me I'm wrong. Links, please. Feel free to cite me stats and cases. Make me eat crow.
When Dr. George Tiller was gunned down by your man Roeder, I looked, myself, through Tiller's cases (those that were publicized) to see if the prevalent belief amongst obstructionists, that Tiller deserved to be murdered had even a modicum of legitimacy. It didn't. As I mentioned before Operation Rescue did such a search and took him to court on what little they found might not be in order. It was. Tiller was acquitted.
Roe v. Wade protects abortion access on demand up to the point of viability (neonate survivability on life support) after which only non-elective abortions are legal. However, the interaction between federal law and state law is complicated. Most agencies and states consider late term abortion anything after either 16 or 20 weeks, after which the restrictions on reasons one can abort become quite prohibitive.
So, yeah, Allegedly, I'm probably wrong making the general statement that none have ever occurred, it being a big world with lots of people and all. More likely so outside the US or regarding non-current cases. But within the US today, I'd wager the one-thousand-or-so late term abortions we do carry out each year are due to a fetal anomaly incompatible with life.
So it's not so much ludicrous as a modest stretch. But, Allegedly, it would be good exercise for you to find a link to a case of an elective abortion after 20 weeks, or a statistic indicative that they happen.
Oh, the link to @171 in my previous post should have gone here. I'm still getting used to this.
PS: Getting back to my evangelism regarding ectogenesis, another effective way to roll back the period regarded late term is to develop life support devices that will sustain a younger fetus (and, of course, a safe transfer system). But, Allegedly, I get the feeling you and your ilk woudn't want to spare a single woman the pain of childbirth, if you could possibly help it.
More...
When Dr. George Tiller was gunned down by your man Roeder, I looked, myself, through Tiller's cases (those that were publicized) to see if the prevalent belief amongst obstructionists, that Tiller deserved to be murdered had even a modicum of legitimacy. It didn't. As I mentioned before Operation Rescue did such a search and took him to court on what little they found might not be in order. It was. Tiller was acquitted.
Roe v. Wade protects abortion access on demand up to the point of viability (neonate survivability on life support) after which only non-elective abortions are legal. However, the interaction between federal law and state law is complicated. Most agencies and states consider late term abortion anything after either 16 or 20 weeks, after which the restrictions on reasons one can abort become quite prohibitive.
So, yeah, Allegedly, I'm probably wrong making the general statement that none have ever occurred, it being a big world with lots of people and all. More likely so outside the US or regarding non-current cases. But within the US today, I'd wager the one-thousand-or-so late term abortions we do carry out each year are due to a fetal anomaly incompatible with life.
So it's not so much ludicrous as a modest stretch. But, Allegedly, it would be good exercise for you to find a link to a case of an elective abortion after 20 weeks, or a statistic indicative that they happen.
Oh, the link to @171 in my previous post should have gone here. I'm still getting used to this.
PS: Getting back to my evangelism regarding ectogenesis, another effective way to roll back the period regarded late term is to develop life support devices that will sustain a younger fetus (and, of course, a safe transfer system). But, Allegedly, I get the feeling you and your ilk woudn't want to spare a single woman the pain of childbirth, if you could possibly help it.
195
Ah, Allegedly, @180, it seems you've figured out the proper use of the term straw man. At least chose to use it correctly this time. Earlier you were having trouble with it.
As attitude devant noted, when you say in defense [I] have never said without an identity, you not only have to assure you personally have never crossed that line, but those people who wear the same hood as you haven't either.
In fact, since you're not openly representing the Queen, your pronoun We not only refers to you, but to the obstructionist community at large, in which there are plenty of contingents who oppose birth control access as well as abortion access, including The Roman Catholic Church, President George W. Bush, Pharmacists for Life International, Pro-Life Wisconsin, Women Influencing the Nation, Human Life International, One More Soul, The Pill Kills, et. al.
Until you exclude them from your We, they're included, despite the fact that some of them are the proverbial furry geeks of the obstructionist community.
A more useful thing to say would be I, personally, want everyone to have access to contraceptives, and think effective birth control is a great way to reduce abortion. But when I mentioned it long before you made it clear how you couldn't care less if you tried.
More...
As attitude devant noted, when you say in defense [I] have never said without an identity, you not only have to assure you personally have never crossed that line, but those people who wear the same hood as you haven't either.
In fact, since you're not openly representing the Queen, your pronoun We not only refers to you, but to the obstructionist community at large, in which there are plenty of contingents who oppose birth control access as well as abortion access, including The Roman Catholic Church, President George W. Bush, Pharmacists for Life International, Pro-Life Wisconsin, Women Influencing the Nation, Human Life International, One More Soul, The Pill Kills, et. al.
Until you exclude them from your We, they're included, despite the fact that some of them are the proverbial furry geeks of the obstructionist community.
A more useful thing to say would be I, personally, want everyone to have access to contraceptives, and think effective birth control is a great way to reduce abortion. But when I mentioned it long before you made it clear how you couldn't care less if you tried.
196
Allegedly @194, What is it with you and nervous ticks? There are new psychiatric medications and regimens of therapy that have worked wonders with anxiety disorders in recent years. Perhaps you should look into your options.
I'm still waiting on that example to the contrary, though. C.mon Allegedly, show me you know how to research on the web.
I'm still waiting on that example to the contrary, though. C.mon Allegedly, show me you know how to research on the web.
197
192
Relax.
Roeder wasn't our man.
Tiller's murder says no more about the pro-Life movement than Lennon's murder said about readers of 'The Catcher in the Rye'.
In a functioning democracy the laws can be changed within the system by convincing a majority of the people to your point of view.
People who believe abortion is wrong can and should and do work within the system to change the laws.
America kills a million babies a year because a sufficient number of Americans with enough political power want it to happen.
We have the greatest system of government the world has ever known.
But it doesn't guarantee us good or fair or wise or moral government.
It guarantees us the government we deserve.
We may, if we inform ourselves and participate and choose well, have fair, wise, moral, enlightened government.
Or we may choose selfish, shortsighted, immoral government.
Or through our inaction and apathy allow someone else to choose it for us.
But we always get what we deserve.
Good or bad.
We may choose to enslave our brothers.
For hundreds of years.
Eventually, however the bill comes due.
We may choose to kill a million babies a year.
The bill tab grows.
It will be paid at some point.
Pro-Life seeks to convince America that abortion of convenience is morally wrong and to change the laws to reflect that.
By working through the system.
The Left cheats-
Roe, for example.
Courts don't make law or policy, the elected legislature does that. Roe was a monstrous abuse of the courts power and very unwise (it would have been better for everyone to let the states pass their own laws and reach a national consensus)
And laws that single out and restrict Pro-Life ability to protest or demonstrate also break the rules.
But we are not petty.
And we are patient.
We still will work within the system.
As long as there is half a chance to change the nations laws by working through the system that is what we will do.
Don't fret, U-boy.
Roeder wasn't one of ours.
He broke the law and should be punished.
The Left should not cheat too much, however.
The Left is fond of using judges to circumvent the will of the people.
The people's will is often imperfect, but it is the will of the people.
Change it.
Don't go around it.
That is a dangerous game.
When judges become tyrants the people will exercise their right and responsibility to end the tyranny.
Remember, "..., Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED,..."
not from the philosophy of unelected judges.
Remember, "...That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,..."
We are patient- "experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed..."
But not inexhaustibly so: "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
It Is Their DUTY.
Patrick Henry and Jefferson got it.
That's what the 2nd Amendment is for.
It isn't about hunting.
Or burglars.
The NRA won't tell you that out loud.
But everyone on this side gets it.
The Left doesn't get it.
Dan and his whiny bitch fanboys squeal for judges to ignore the will of the people.
SCREW THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED!
It is a dangerous game.
Dan is a two-year old.
You ignore the tantrums of a two-year old.
But the adults on the Left should be cautious about using judges to IGNORE THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED.
It is a dangerous game.
Roeder wasn't one of ours.
We are playing by the rules.
If we decide not to anymore Slog won't have to speculate, U-boy.
You'll know.
More...
Relax.
Roeder wasn't our man.
Tiller's murder says no more about the pro-Life movement than Lennon's murder said about readers of 'The Catcher in the Rye'.
In a functioning democracy the laws can be changed within the system by convincing a majority of the people to your point of view.
People who believe abortion is wrong can and should and do work within the system to change the laws.
America kills a million babies a year because a sufficient number of Americans with enough political power want it to happen.
We have the greatest system of government the world has ever known.
But it doesn't guarantee us good or fair or wise or moral government.
It guarantees us the government we deserve.
We may, if we inform ourselves and participate and choose well, have fair, wise, moral, enlightened government.
Or we may choose selfish, shortsighted, immoral government.
Or through our inaction and apathy allow someone else to choose it for us.
But we always get what we deserve.
Good or bad.
We may choose to enslave our brothers.
For hundreds of years.
Eventually, however the bill comes due.
We may choose to kill a million babies a year.
The bill tab grows.
It will be paid at some point.
Pro-Life seeks to convince America that abortion of convenience is morally wrong and to change the laws to reflect that.
By working through the system.
The Left cheats-
Roe, for example.
Courts don't make law or policy, the elected legislature does that. Roe was a monstrous abuse of the courts power and very unwise (it would have been better for everyone to let the states pass their own laws and reach a national consensus)
And laws that single out and restrict Pro-Life ability to protest or demonstrate also break the rules.
But we are not petty.
And we are patient.
We still will work within the system.
As long as there is half a chance to change the nations laws by working through the system that is what we will do.
Don't fret, U-boy.
Roeder wasn't one of ours.
He broke the law and should be punished.
The Left should not cheat too much, however.
The Left is fond of using judges to circumvent the will of the people.
The people's will is often imperfect, but it is the will of the people.
Change it.
Don't go around it.
That is a dangerous game.
When judges become tyrants the people will exercise their right and responsibility to end the tyranny.
Remember, "..., Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED,..."
not from the philosophy of unelected judges.
Remember, "...That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,..."
We are patient- "experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed..."
But not inexhaustibly so: "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
It Is Their DUTY.
Patrick Henry and Jefferson got it.
That's what the 2nd Amendment is for.
It isn't about hunting.
Or burglars.
The NRA won't tell you that out loud.
But everyone on this side gets it.
The Left doesn't get it.
Dan and his whiny bitch fanboys squeal for judges to ignore the will of the people.
SCREW THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED!
It is a dangerous game.
Dan is a two-year old.
You ignore the tantrums of a two-year old.
But the adults on the Left should be cautious about using judges to IGNORE THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED.
It is a dangerous game.
Roeder wasn't one of ours.
We are playing by the rules.
If we decide not to anymore Slog won't have to speculate, U-boy.
You'll know.
198
196
You already admitted you were wrong.
Why would I rub it in?
You'll have to Bing it yourself if you want to wallow in the magnitude of your error.
You already admitted you were wrong.
Why would I rub it in?
You'll have to Bing it yourself if you want to wallow in the magnitude of your error.
199
197,
Good luck with that rock, Sisyphus.
Courts are there to prevent Tyranny of the Majority.
That means you cannot use a majority vote to get between a woman and her doctor.
An embryo is not yet a baby. You are a fool to think otherwise.
Good luck with that rock, Sisyphus.
Courts are there to prevent Tyranny of the Majority.
That means you cannot use a majority vote to get between a woman and her doctor.
An embryo is not yet a baby. You are a fool to think otherwise.
201
Actually, Allegedly @198, I didn't. Rather I qualified my answer. I still hold I'm right until proven otherwise.
But your presumption that I did may belie your problem, that you believe everything is absolute. Or it could be, as I've indicated recently, you just couldn't be bothered to lift a finger.
But your presumption that I did may belie your problem, that you believe everything is absolute. Or it could be, as I've indicated recently, you just couldn't be bothered to lift a finger.
202
Y'know, you denying Roeder is confusing, Allegedly @197, since he thinks he's your man. Operation Rescue, including their peerless leader Hot Wings and Beer Randall Terry thinks Roeder is your man. Oh sure, when such activism fronts have to go public, they condemn the actions and give insincere speeches such as yours about how violence is wrong, even when it's to their end.
But it wasn't Roeder's actions that I find most intriguing, but the ticker tape parades throughout the web. The hot-wings and beer celebrations you couldn't bother to wait until behind closed doors to begin. On the obstructionist chatboards, not a single Hey! Not cool! The absolute conviction with which I saw they all believed that Tiller really did nothing but cacklingly rip perfectly healthy babies from the wombs of unsuspecting mothers. They really couldn't imagine that even one of the abortions Tiller performed was justified, was done because the fetus was doomed, or the mother was doomed if the pregnancy was left on its own.
These are your people Allegedly. Your allies. The ones you call brothers and sisters and friends. The ones you include when you say we. So call them as they are. Call Roeder your man, your hero. He forfeited his life, after all, to close down an abortion facility. Aren't you proud of him for that? Roeder did good, yes?
How many of Dr. Tiller's procedures do you believe were elective, eh, Allegedly?
Could you help but let out a hoot when you heard Dr. Tiller was murdered at his church, Allegedly?
More...
But it wasn't Roeder's actions that I find most intriguing, but the ticker tape parades throughout the web. The hot-wings and beer celebrations you couldn't bother to wait until behind closed doors to begin. On the obstructionist chatboards, not a single Hey! Not cool! The absolute conviction with which I saw they all believed that Tiller really did nothing but cacklingly rip perfectly healthy babies from the wombs of unsuspecting mothers. They really couldn't imagine that even one of the abortions Tiller performed was justified, was done because the fetus was doomed, or the mother was doomed if the pregnancy was left on its own.
These are your people Allegedly. Your allies. The ones you call brothers and sisters and friends. The ones you include when you say we. So call them as they are. Call Roeder your man, your hero. He forfeited his life, after all, to close down an abortion facility. Aren't you proud of him for that? Roeder did good, yes?
How many of Dr. Tiller's procedures do you believe were elective, eh, Allegedly?
Could you help but let out a hoot when you heard Dr. Tiller was murdered at his church, Allegedly?
203
Allegedly, @176, 177, you really have an issue with the term personhood, or the idea that we sometimes have to decide when a thing is given rights and protections from when it's not, even going as far as comparing such an delineation to the atrocities of the Third Reich or Pre-abolitionist America, which I'm sure was meant to be a spectacular analogy, but only pegs you as a hysterical alarmist and offends those who actually know the diff….
But it's not about delineation. You're clear that a single spermatozoon shouldn't have rights, nor an unfertilized ovum, yes? Because one could just as easily make your just-as-bad-as-the-Nazis speech about failing to providing rights and protections to these, or toasters, or hangnails, or teratomas. What you disagree with is not the concept of personhood in and of itself, just the more logical places that it falls, rather than where you want it to fall.
So, Allegedly, does a zygote have more rights or fewer than the woman who hosts it?
What are the circumstances in which the owner of property should be allowed to evict trespassers, Allegedly?
In what circumstances should a landlord be allowed to evict squatters? Huh, Allegedly?
But it's not about delineation. You're clear that a single spermatozoon shouldn't have rights, nor an unfertilized ovum, yes? Because one could just as easily make your just-as-bad-as-the-Nazis speech about failing to providing rights and protections to these, or toasters, or hangnails, or teratomas. What you disagree with is not the concept of personhood in and of itself, just the more logical places that it falls, rather than where you want it to fall.
So, Allegedly, does a zygote have more rights or fewer than the woman who hosts it?
What are the circumstances in which the owner of property should be allowed to evict trespassers, Allegedly?
In what circumstances should a landlord be allowed to evict squatters? Huh, Allegedly?
204
The comparison of unborn children to squatters or trespassers is obscene and perverted.
The 'landlord' created the living being in her body, through voluntary knowing actions.
The baby was created and put there by the woman and her partner.
It is solely her/their actions that cause the baby to exist and to be where it is.
Now she screams "trespasser!" and "squatter!"?
Her protests are lies and fraud.
She knows why the baby is inside her.
She knows who "invited" it there.
She gave it a nine month lease when she put it there.
When people engage in behavior they know can create another human being they take upon themselves moral obligations.
The life within the woman's womb is a specially created and invited guest.
Her lack of manners and hospitality are beyond appalling.
Some contend that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for inhospitality.
If so we wonder at the fate of mothers who turn on their own children with burning saline and razor sharp surgical blades.
In the Court of Natural Justice to which we all must eventually answer the ill advised unjustified false cries of "trespasser!" and "squatter!" will be rejected out of hand with derision and contempt.
The tables will be turned on the treacherous false hearted accuser when counter accusations of "lease breaker" and "duplicitous swindler" are returned.
Will "murderer" also appear on the bill of accusations?
The 'landlord' created the living being in her body, through voluntary knowing actions.
The baby was created and put there by the woman and her partner.
It is solely her/their actions that cause the baby to exist and to be where it is.
Now she screams "trespasser!" and "squatter!"?
Her protests are lies and fraud.
She knows why the baby is inside her.
She knows who "invited" it there.
She gave it a nine month lease when she put it there.
When people engage in behavior they know can create another human being they take upon themselves moral obligations.
The life within the woman's womb is a specially created and invited guest.
Her lack of manners and hospitality are beyond appalling.
Some contend that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for inhospitality.
If so we wonder at the fate of mothers who turn on their own children with burning saline and razor sharp surgical blades.
In the Court of Natural Justice to which we all must eventually answer the ill advised unjustified false cries of "trespasser!" and "squatter!" will be rejected out of hand with derision and contempt.
The tables will be turned on the treacherous false hearted accuser when counter accusations of "lease breaker" and "duplicitous swindler" are returned.
Will "murderer" also appear on the bill of accusations?
205
To maintain itself a species must reproduce and train and raise it's young to the point that they are functional adults. This requires, especially in mammals as ourselves, a degree of sacrifice for and affection toward our young, from the earliest point of their development.
One might argue, and the barrage of child abuse in a multitude of various forms and manifestations that Dan spews forth here daily would confirm, that homo sapiens is failing that task.
One might perceive than humankind have lost natural affections, including toward their offspring, and recognize the alarming implications of that.
The view of pregnancy as punishing women by inflicting them with child and accusations that children are trespassers and squatters in the womb are cold blooded, unnatural and disconcerting to a biologist.
One might argue, and the barrage of child abuse in a multitude of various forms and manifestations that Dan spews forth here daily would confirm, that homo sapiens is failing that task.
One might perceive than humankind have lost natural affections, including toward their offspring, and recognize the alarming implications of that.
The view of pregnancy as punishing women by inflicting them with child and accusations that children are trespassers and squatters in the womb are cold blooded, unnatural and disconcerting to a biologist.
207
So both sides of the street can be offended by crass juxtapositions. Allegedly @204, I think I'm beginning to learn your language.
So the Court of Natural Justice to which we all must eventually answer does that refer to some terrestrial entity, Allegedly or are we talking the divine? The same, perhaps that nuked Sodom and Gomorrah for displeasing Him? Perhaps, Allegedly, there's a confession lying under the skin that you weep for the non-existant for reasons of faith?
You know how faith fits into legislation.
And you know what the bible has to say about abortion.
And that's why you don't go there.
But moving with our chosen metaphors (I just held them up for viewing; you're the one who designated how they fit). You don't take into account those landlords who cannot afford fencing, or have been purposefully obstructed from attaining it. You don't take into account those landlords whose locks have failed them, who were in a region where locks weren't usually necessary, or who were misinformed about the necessity of locks.
Is sex only for procreation, Allegedly?
Should people be expected to abstain from sex until they intend to procreate? Is that the way it should be, Allegedly?
Are all mothers who had abortions going to Hell, Allegedly?
More...
So the Court of Natural Justice to which we all must eventually answer does that refer to some terrestrial entity, Allegedly or are we talking the divine? The same, perhaps that nuked Sodom and Gomorrah for displeasing Him? Perhaps, Allegedly, there's a confession lying under the skin that you weep for the non-existant for reasons of faith?
You know how faith fits into legislation.
And you know what the bible has to say about abortion.
And that's why you don't go there.
But moving with our chosen metaphors (I just held them up for viewing; you're the one who designated how they fit). You don't take into account those landlords who cannot afford fencing, or have been purposefully obstructed from attaining it. You don't take into account those landlords whose locks have failed them, who were in a region where locks weren't usually necessary, or who were misinformed about the necessity of locks.
Is sex only for procreation, Allegedly?
Should people be expected to abstain from sex until they intend to procreate? Is that the way it should be, Allegedly?
Are all mothers who had abortions going to Hell, Allegedly?
208
Are you a degreed biologist, Allegedly @205? You freaked out to a degree quite unbecoming of a biologist when I likened a prenate to a parasite. In what branch do you specialize?
Do you think that abortions will depopulate the Earth, Allegedly?
Do you think that any woman who gets pregnant should, regardless of circumstances, submit herself graciously to the service of motherhood? Is that the way things are, Allegedly?
Do you think that abortions will depopulate the Earth, Allegedly?
Do you think that any woman who gets pregnant should, regardless of circumstances, submit herself graciously to the service of motherhood? Is that the way things are, Allegedly?
209
As @208 With link fixed:
Do you think that any woman who gets pregnant should regardless of circumstances, submit herself graciously to the service of motherhood? Is that the way things are, Allegedly @205?
Do you think that any woman who gets pregnant should regardless of circumstances, submit herself graciously to the service of motherhood? Is that the way things are, Allegedly @205?
210
200,
"is the embryo alive?
is the embryo human?"
Personhood is what makes us special. Not being made of human tissue, not being alive.
I know this is too big a concept for you to grasp, but really, try to think with more than your raw instincts.
A cat is alive. So was the fish I had for breakfast this morning. "Life" as a biological process is not ours to monopolize. And that is all a zygote has, Allegedly, a biological process. No mind, no emotion, no imagination. It's growth and beating heart no different than that of a chicken.
Second point: Human. Cancer is made of the same tissue as the rest of your body. Scrape off some of my skin. By YOUR deffinition, that little shred is my twin brother, and when I toss the band-aid in the trash I'm commiting murder.
Believe me, it could develop into my twin. We'd have to fiddle th DNA back into an egg cell, bake in a female volunteer for nine months, boom: my twin. How terrible if I had treated him the same way I'd treated every other drop of blood I'd ever shed.
A lump of goo with unique human DNA is still only that: a lump of goo. Not an infant, baby, child, or any of your other pet names.
Yes, if left on it's own, and allowed to feed on it's host bloodstream for a few months, it has a chance to develop into an infant.
But right now, it is not yet a person. Killing it is not, and never will be, equal to a real murder.
No consciousness, thought, or person has been snuffed out. Only the building blocks, blueprints, and scaffolding.
Shall I be tried for genocide every time I flush a wad of sperm down the toilet? They are each certainly "alive and human" by your definition.
"is the embryo alive?
is the embryo human?"
Personhood is what makes us special. Not being made of human tissue, not being alive.
I know this is too big a concept for you to grasp, but really, try to think with more than your raw instincts.
A cat is alive. So was the fish I had for breakfast this morning. "Life" as a biological process is not ours to monopolize. And that is all a zygote has, Allegedly, a biological process. No mind, no emotion, no imagination. It's growth and beating heart no different than that of a chicken.
Second point: Human. Cancer is made of the same tissue as the rest of your body. Scrape off some of my skin. By YOUR deffinition, that little shred is my twin brother, and when I toss the band-aid in the trash I'm commiting murder.
Believe me, it could develop into my twin. We'd have to fiddle th DNA back into an egg cell, bake in a female volunteer for nine months, boom: my twin. How terrible if I had treated him the same way I'd treated every other drop of blood I'd ever shed.
A lump of goo with unique human DNA is still only that: a lump of goo. Not an infant, baby, child, or any of your other pet names.
Yes, if left on it's own, and allowed to feed on it's host bloodstream for a few months, it has a chance to develop into an infant.
But right now, it is not yet a person. Killing it is not, and never will be, equal to a real murder.
No consciousness, thought, or person has been snuffed out. Only the building blocks, blueprints, and scaffolding.
Shall I be tried for genocide every time I flush a wad of sperm down the toilet? They are each certainly "alive and human" by your definition.
212
We don't have an interest or opinion about peoples' private intimate behavior.
However, when a new member of the species is created all Mankind has an interest in how it is treated.
'Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere', after all.
Do you care if children starve in Africa?
However, when a new member of the species is created all Mankind has an interest in how it is treated.
'Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere', after all.
Do you care if children starve in Africa?
213
210
Humanity is what makes us special.
More than just a collection of cells and tissue that operate based on hard wired instinct.
Cats sometimes eat their young.
They are not being evil when they do it.
Humans will give their lives to protect their young.
They are acting on something higher than instinct when they do.
Something ennobling.
Something that makes us special.
Humans sometimes kill their own young.
They are not acting on instinct when they do.
They are responding to inhumane impulses that debase.
They have lost what can make us special.
Humanity is what makes us special.
More than just a collection of cells and tissue that operate based on hard wired instinct.
Cats sometimes eat their young.
They are not being evil when they do it.
Humans will give their lives to protect their young.
They are acting on something higher than instinct when they do.
Something ennobling.
Something that makes us special.
Humans sometimes kill their own young.
They are not acting on instinct when they do.
They are responding to inhumane impulses that debase.
They have lost what can make us special.
215
Uriel, Woodbun and Attitude Devant - you rock! excellent posts,exceptionally well done research, presented in calm and polite manner.
@213 and the rest of you grayed out posters: remember, abortion will never become illegal again in US. Never.Just as Prohibition will never be repeated, because we learned from it's mistakes.
If you truly want to decrease the number of abortions, work to prevent unwanted pregnancies, support the measures to make birth control more available to undeprivileged. But certain amount of abortions will always be performed, as long as the world exist. Don't you agree they should be done in legal, safe conditions, and by a professional vs. back alley style?
@213 and the rest of you grayed out posters: remember, abortion will never become illegal again in US. Never.Just as Prohibition will never be repeated, because we learned from it's mistakes.
If you truly want to decrease the number of abortions, work to prevent unwanted pregnancies, support the measures to make birth control more available to undeprivileged. But certain amount of abortions will always be performed, as long as the world exist. Don't you agree they should be done in legal, safe conditions, and by a professional vs. back alley style?
216
Really, Allegedly @211, 212 you prance about like a child frustrated he seldom wins, but just got lucky. It's really unbecoming.
I take, by your behavior Allegedly, your intent here is merely to mock, not to educate, not to advance, just to be a nuisance. Yes?
So, tell me, what does natural justice have to do with any of this? Can you please explain, Allegedly, this Court of Natural Justice to which we all must eventually answer that you anticipate as inevitable?
Do you care if Teddy Ruxpins end up in landfill, Allegedly?
Do you really believe, Allegedly, by making the same crass juxtapositions over and over again you will somehow yield a different result?
They have medications for that, you know.
I take, by your behavior Allegedly, your intent here is merely to mock, not to educate, not to advance, just to be a nuisance. Yes?
So, tell me, what does natural justice have to do with any of this? Can you please explain, Allegedly, this Court of Natural Justice to which we all must eventually answer that you anticipate as inevitable?
Do you care if Teddy Ruxpins end up in landfill, Allegedly?
Do you really believe, Allegedly, by making the same crass juxtapositions over and over again you will somehow yield a different result?
They have medications for that, you know.
218
It is so weird to me that people think we should deny abortions to women who got pregnant "irresponsibly." If someone comes to you and says, "Look I don't use birth control consistently, so now I'm pregnant and I'm just not up to carrying this child, or mothering this child... I mean, heck!, I've been on a drinking binge this last month and I don't know who the father is...." Well, do you think it's a good idea to say, "Nope, sorry, you don't meet my criteria for eligibility for abortion, so let me enroll you in prenatal care?" I mean, follow that scenario to it's miserable conclusion, would you?
I remember the first time I was interviewing such a patient, and I went to my department chair to complain about the patient's attitude and he smiled wryly at me and said, "Well, what she's telling you is that she's responsible enough to know she shouldn't be a mother." I don't see many such women but I always remember him when I do.
It's been an interesting thread, but I'm signing off here. Alinka, Woodbun, Uriel, Rev. Smith, et alia, thank you for your comments. You nameless commenters (and you, and only you, know who you are) take care. If you ever want to seriously discuss, please register---all you're doing right now is making crazed pronouncements without having to explain yourselves. Kind of pointless....
I remember the first time I was interviewing such a patient, and I went to my department chair to complain about the patient's attitude and he smiled wryly at me and said, "Well, what she's telling you is that she's responsible enough to know she shouldn't be a mother." I don't see many such women but I always remember him when I do.
It's been an interesting thread, but I'm signing off here. Alinka, Woodbun, Uriel, Rev. Smith, et alia, thank you for your comments. You nameless commenters (and you, and only you, know who you are) take care. If you ever want to seriously discuss, please register---all you're doing right now is making crazed pronouncements without having to explain yourselves. Kind of pointless....
219
213,
You're kind of 'special' yourself.
An abortion, as I have pointed out, is not the same as killing a child, it is simply preventing one from forming. "Humanity" is what makes us smart enough to realize that.
And for the record, women that get one or two abortions in their 20s tend to settle down and have two or three kids in their 30s. They make excellent, responsible parents, especially since they waited until they were older, more experienced, and more financially stable to try raising kids.
You're kind of 'special' yourself.
An abortion, as I have pointed out, is not the same as killing a child, it is simply preventing one from forming. "Humanity" is what makes us smart enough to realize that.
And for the record, women that get one or two abortions in their 20s tend to settle down and have two or three kids in their 30s. They make excellent, responsible parents, especially since they waited until they were older, more experienced, and more financially stable to try raising kids.
221
attitude devant, thank you! I appreciate your involvement on this thread. Indeed, I've learned a lot from your experiences as an abortion provider, including how I was betrayed by my own high-school (as if that's news).
Woodbun, thank you also for your input. You and I share a lot of common positions regarding the abortion controversy, and it was cool to see those positions from a different perspective. Thank you for registering, too. I hope you stick around SLOG.
Allegedly, it is too bad you are not willing to take on a distinct identities, since you do make a valid point now and then, and it's hard to take you seriously in the ether or anonymity in which you dwell. (One never knows if I'm getting a response from the same Allegedly that I previously addressed.) Aside from, or perhaps because of your low content-to-attitude ratio you function as passable training opposition, and from what I've seen, adequately represent the hard-line conservative belief systems and talking points. Kudos for serving as the catalyst that perpetuates the reaction.
Woodbun, thank you also for your input. You and I share a lot of common positions regarding the abortion controversy, and it was cool to see those positions from a different perspective. Thank you for registering, too. I hope you stick around SLOG.
Allegedly, it is too bad you are not willing to take on a distinct identities, since you do make a valid point now and then, and it's hard to take you seriously in the ether or anonymity in which you dwell. (One never knows if I'm getting a response from the same Allegedly that I previously addressed.) Aside from, or perhaps because of your low content-to-attitude ratio you function as passable training opposition, and from what I've seen, adequately represent the hard-line conservative belief systems and talking points. Kudos for serving as the catalyst that perpetuates the reaction.
222
I think that abortion is wrong unless the baby is a result of rape. Otherwise it just makes me feel sick. And I know the mother might not be able to take care of the child but is murder really the answer or maybe some parenting help?
FACTS:
•Pain receptors begin to appear in the seventh week of pregnancy.
•The heartbeat begins on the 21st day after conception.
•Approximately 46 million abortions are performed globally each year.
•Of these, 26 million are said to occur in places where abortion is legal; the other 20 million happen where it is illegal.
•Approximately 26% of pregencies are aborted.
FACTS:
•Pain receptors begin to appear in the seventh week of pregnancy.
•The heartbeat begins on the 21st day after conception.
•Approximately 46 million abortions are performed globally each year.
•Of these, 26 million are said to occur in places where abortion is legal; the other 20 million happen where it is illegal.
•Approximately 26% of pregencies are aborted.
223
I do strongly believe that life begins at conception and should not be terminated unless the mother, the baby or both are in danger of losing their lives. If one is not ready to have children, then he/she should abstain from sex, use contraceptives, or other forms of birth control. It is irresponsible to have sex without protection especially in lieu of STDs. If however the baby is conceived, then one should look to adoption as an option. There are many families who will be glad to adopt the unwanted babies. It is also cruel to go through the pregnancy and dump the baby in a dumpster or toilet. It makes you wonder what the world has come to. No one says women should not have their rights but what if our parents had aborted us, none of us would be here today. Besides, you don't know if the child you are aborting will be the next world leader.
Chiaka Awuzie
Beyond Attraction
http://www.strategicpublishinggroup.com/…
Chiaka Awuzie
Beyond Attraction
http://www.strategicpublishinggroup.com/…
Most Commented on Slog
-
Slog Somehow Overlooked... by Dan Savage
-
VivaVulva Viagra! by Dan Savage -
Life and Death in a Recliner in South Carolina by Dan Savage
-
Health at Every Size by Dan Savage
-
"Let his days be few... Let his children be fatherless and his wife a widow." by Dan Savage
-
Feeling Sorry for Carrie Prejean by Dan Savage
-
Last Night's Colbert Report by Dan Savage
-
$2,600,000,000 by Dan Savage
-
All The Best Men Are Taken by Dan Savage
-
I Hate You, Garrison Keillor by Jen Graves
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (223) RSS