The “Invisibles”

[Today’s guest post by Susi O. Fanabba is part of our paid blogging program.]

A few weeks ago, we celebrated National Sibling Day. This Sunday, we will celebrate Mother’s Day. And next month, we have Father’s Day. For many people, including many pro-lifers, these holidays are a cause for joy. But I implore you to be sensitive; many people have come to dread this time of year. Children who have lost parents are an obvious example. Let us also remember the “invisible” sufferers:

Those “only” children whose siblings have died.

Those, like me, who have lost a sibling to abortion.

Those parents who have lost their only children, and are therefore unlikely to receive any recognition on the days set aside for mothers and fathers.

Those post-abortive women who relive their pain each Mother’s Day.

Those single parents who are raising children on their own due to the loss of a partner. (My mom is in this category, having been widowed at a young age with four kids. While it’s been almost 20 years, it’s still painful for us on Father’s Day.)

We as a movement should do more to acknowledge these “invisible” victims. If you know someone who may find Mother’s Day or Father’s Day difficult, please consider sending them a message to check up on them, etc. Many of my friends who have lost children have been so touched to know that their babies are remembered.

500 replies
  1. Fusengammu
    Fusengammu says:

    I also lost a sibling due to abortion, making me an "only" child. My parents originally were planning on only 1 child, but unfortunately contraception failed. Being a 1st generation immigrant, I desperately wanted a sibling growing up because I had no other blood relatives within a 5000 mile radius. My mom was crazy busy with her scientific career, and I was a lonely child. However, as I went through my teenage years and realized just how much hardship she went through breaking through all the barriers she broke back in Japan to achieve what she has, I came to realize that without abortion, she probably would not have become the well-known scientist that she has become. She sometimes wonders what her life would have been like raising more than 1 child, but she ultimately doesn't regret her decision, and while I may have lost a sibling, I am truly inspired by my mother (and father). Seeing my mother truly live up to her potential completely outweighs any sadness I felt as an "only" child, and I wouldn't have wanted it any other way either.

    So just saying, not all of us "only" children feel like victims. I do agree with you that you should be mindful of others as they might be hurting, but also remember that not all "only" children because of abortion feel they are victims.

  2. Tullia_Ciceronis
    Tullia_Ciceronis says:

    It is a testimony to how sexist society is that women still have to choose between the lives of their unborn children and being successful with education/career. Women shouldn't have to choose. they should be able to have both. society needs to offer a lot more support for working mothers.

  3. guest
    guest says:

    You know, I tend to not think much about feminism (even though I'm a female), but you are absolutely right that this is sexist. You don't hear often, if ever, about a man being limited in career options just because he has children.

  4. Fusengammu
    Fusengammu says:

    Yeah, my mother had to deal with a sexist culture, but that is not the only thing. As a scientist on the bench working with E. coli that rapidly multiplied, when they were in the middle of an experiment, they would have to be committed to it round the clock for days. I remember as a 3-year old having to sleep on the floor in the laboratory for a few days on styrofoam as my parents did not have extended family as a support system and they were in the middle of an experiment.

    My mother laments that had she been a theoretical mathematician or a writer, she may have been able to bring work home and cared for more than 1 kid, but given her choice of discipline, 1 was the maximum. My parents worked as a team, so it wasn't really feasible for either one to take maternity or paternity leave. So my parents left Japan because the sexism held them back, but that alone account for her choice. Some fields just require more time than others, and will put a limit on the family structure a couple can support. Several of their colleagues also were married scientists, and I recall more than a few had only 1 child. That's just the nature of the game.

  5. purrtriarchy
    purrtriarchy says:

    Think about all the kids who are alive today because their mothers had abortions years earlier when it was the wrong time to have a kid. The horror.

  6. Tullia_Ciceronis
    Tullia_Ciceronis says:

    That statement doesn't even make logical sense. The woman could have had both kids. Giving birth to one child does not exclude giving birth to and conceiving another.

  7. Tullia_Ciceronis
    Tullia_Ciceronis says:

    And infanticide still=family planning among desperate teenage girls and women who only find out about the pregnancy when they give birth.

  8. Tullia_Ciceronis
    Tullia_Ciceronis says:

    Contraception and abortion are not the same. Preventing someone from being conceived is not the same as ending their life after they are conceived.

  9. Tullia_Ciceronis
    Tullia_Ciceronis says:

    Infants do not even know that they exist. They are pretty much mindless. Temporary coma patients aren't even conscious, or able to interact with the outside world. Are they someones?

  10. purrtriarchy
    purrtriarchy says:

    Infants are sentient. They can interact with the world. They can feel.

    A mindless ZEF can do none of that, because the structures that give rise to sentience simply do not exist.

  11. Tullia_Ciceronis
    Tullia_Ciceronis says:

    Infants are sentient, however they are not self-aware. A temporary coma patient is not sentient. Is that temporary coma patient a person?

  12. purrtriarchy
    purrtriarchy says:

    The answer is in your question. If the coma is temporary then the coma patient is sentient, and has the capacity for sentience, but is temporarily not using it. The structures *exist* in a temporary coma patient. They don't exist in a ZEF.

  13. Tullia_Ciceronis
    Tullia_Ciceronis says:

    The structures exist in the temporary coma patient, but their medical condition prevents them from having the capacity to be currently sentient. The ZEF will develop sentience, just like the temporary coma patient will.

  14. purrtriarchy
    purrtriarchy says:

    structures exist in temporary coma patient. coma patient is temporarily not using them but coma patient is still sentient. Sentient but unconscious.

    structures do not exist in a ZEF. It may not ever develop those structures. Potentiality is not actuality. ZEF is non-sentient AND unconscious.

  15. Tullia_Ciceronis
    Tullia_Ciceronis says:


    (sĕn′shəns, -shē-əns)
    1. The quality or state of being sentient; consciousness.
    2. Feeling as distinguished from perception or thought.
    According to the dictionary, sentience=consciousness.

  16. Tullia_Ciceronis
    Tullia_Ciceronis says:

    Oftentimes, it is uncertain that a coma patient will ever gain or regain consciousness. Is a patient with such an uncertain future a person?

  17. Tullia_Ciceronis
    Tullia_Ciceronis says:

    Definition of sentient (adj)
    Bing Dictionary
    [ sénshənt ]

    conscious: capable of feeling and perception
    responding with feeling: capable of responding emotionally rather than intellectually

  18. Tullia_Ciceronis
    Tullia_Ciceronis says:
    sentient /sen·ti·ent/ (sen´she-ent) able to feel; sensitive. sen·tient (sĕn′shənt, -shē-ənt) adj. 1. Having sense perception; conscious.

  19. Sounder0
    Sounder0 says:

    The coma patient does not have structures that allow sentience. They have more brain matter, more connections, more development and complexity, sure. But all that comes to nothing, because those structures are still incapable of conferring sentience. It's not just that they're currently not in use. There has to be some kind of important physiological change in those structures (healing, reduction of swelling, etc.) for them to gain the ability to confer sentience on the individual, but at present, they're just not capable of doing so.

    Someone who has structures which confer sentience but just isn't using them would be someone who is asleep-they can wake up at any moment. But that's completely different. Coma patients don't brain structures capable of conferring consciousness.

  20. purrtriarchy
    purrtriarchy says:

    If a coma patient is non-sentient then they would never be able to regain consciousness, because the capacity for sentience would be GONE.

    Since a temporary coma patient CAN regain consciousness, then yes, they still have the capacity for sentience, they are simply not accessing it at this point in time.

    If I stub my toe, it doesn't mean I am no longer a walker. It just means that I temporarily have to limp, because my toe is swollen and sore. I have not lost the *capacity* to walk, because I still have all of the structures that enable walking.

    I am a damaged walker. If you cut my legs off and smash my pelvis, I am no longer a walker. Because if my legs do not exist, I cannot walk. A ZEF lacks the structures that give rise to sentience. Period. They dont' exist.

  21. Sounder0
    Sounder0 says:

    If you damaged your toe such that you couldn't walk, then you would not have the necessary structures for walking. You would have a toe, sure, but a useless toe that did not have walking ability. You do, however, have DNA which codes for healing processes which will allow you to re-gain the structures necessary for walking in the future. You could not regain the ability to walk if gaining the ability to walk (through healing) was not an inherent part of who you are.

  22. purrtriarchy
    purrtriarchy says:

    If I stub my toe, it still exists, therefore, I have the capacity to walk, but am temporarily not walking.

    If you cut my toe/legs off, i have lost the ability to walk,and no longer have the capacity, because the structures that enable walking DO NOT EXIST

  23. D
    D says:

    Just a note – Terri Schiavo was NOT in a persistent vegetative state and her mind had NOT turned to mush – she was conscious and could respond to her surroundings, but was severely disabled. There is a difference.

  24. purrtriarchy
    purrtriarchy says:

    Not according to the AUTOPSY:

    he official autopsy report[27] was released on June 15, 2005. In addition to studying Terri Schiavo's remains, Thogmartin scoured court, medical and other records and interviewed her family members, doctors and other relevant parties. Examination of Schiavo's nervous system by neuropathologist Stephen J. Nelson, M.D., revealed extensive injury. The brain itself weighed only 615 g (21.7 oz), only half the weight expected for a female of her age, height, and weight, an effect caused by the loss of a massive number of neurons. Microscopic examination revealed extensive damage to nearly all brain regions, including the cerebral cortex, the thalami, the basal ganglia, the hippocampus, the cerebellum, and the midbrain. The neuropathologic changes in her brain were precisely of the type seen in patients who enter a PVS following cardiac arrest. Throughout the cerebral cortex, the large pyramidal neurons that comprise some 70% of cortical cells – critical to the functioning of the cortex – were completely lost. The pattern of damage to the cortex, with injury tending to worsen from the front of the cortex to the back, was also typical. There was marked damage to important relay circuits deep in the brain (the thalami) – another common pathologic finding in cases of PVS. The damage was, in the words of Thogmartin, "irreversible, and no amount of therapy or treatment would have regenerated the massive loss of neurons.

    Phillips, Rich, Producer. (2005-06-07). "Autopsy: No sign Schiavo was abused: Findings show woman's brain 'profoundly atrophied'". CNN. Retrieved 2006-05-03.

  25. Sounder0
    Sounder0 says:

    They don't exist either way. An intact and healthy toe has a present capacity to allow you to walk, but a severely damaged toe (or foot, whatever) does not. That fact that there is toe-shaped flesh on the end of your foot is irrelevant; it's physiologically incapable of conferring the ability to walk until it undergoes significant changes and healing/development. That's the distinction, an important physiological change has to occur before the toe can have a current capacity to confer walking ability.

    In terms of currently expressible capacities, there is no effective difference between having a severely damaged toe/foot, and simply having being born without one. In terms of inherent capacities, there is a huge difference, because if you inherently have the ability to have a healthy toe and walk, you DNA will cause healing to the damaged toe/foot that allows you to have a presently expressible capacity to walk. Healing of the toe/foot is analogous to development of the brain.

  26. Sounder0
    Sounder0 says:

    ….The TOE exists. A toe with a present capacity to confer walking ability does NOT. A damaged toe and an intact toe are fundamentally, physiologically different from one another, and it isn't until very significant changes occur that the damaged one gains the current ability to walk. Changes in tissue, growth of new cells, etc. Just because it was intended for walking, and used to be used to walk, and will be able to be used for walking in the future, doesn't mean it has a present ability to walk. The ability isn't "not being used," it's just not there. You said it yourself-if your foot or whatever is damaged, you're still a walker. But that's because of your nature and DNA, not because of your current abilities.

    Maybe "having a current ability to walk that you're not expressing/can't express" would be like if your toe/foot was healthy, but you were wearing a horrendously painful show, or the floor was too slippery or something.

    Not using a current ability to be conscious is like being asleep. A brain in a coma is physiologically incapable of currently conferring consciousness-period. Consciousness can only be gained if your DNA directs healing.

  27. Sounder0
    Sounder0 says:

    I doubt we're going to agree on this, but effectively, in terms of presently conferred abilities, they are the same. A foot that doesn't confer walking ability is just a bunch of bone and skin and muscle and tendon. It's not special. It has to be arranged in a very particular and specific way to have any function. And whether the brain can't confer consciousness because there aren't enough neural connections and brain matter yet, or it can't confer consciousness because the messages are unable to get through due to the particular brain structure, it comes to the same thing: no current ability to be conscious. With the coma patient there just happens to be more stuff there, but that stuff is currently, physiologically, 100% useless.

  28. Coyote
    Coyote says:

    To be fair, there are some (though probably a small number) of pro-choicers which do appear to support elective infanticide in at least some cases.

  29. Coyote
    Coyote says:

    "ZEF's are not a 'someone'. They are mindless animal organisms with the potential to be someone, nothing more."

    Can't this info be used to make a decent argument in favor of giving males a child support opt-out in at least some cases?

  30. Coyote
    Coyote says:

    From a politically anti-abortion perspective, your position here doesn't appear to make much sense.

    After all, if the Holocaust didn't occur, then my paternal grandparents might not have met (my paternal grandfather and his family moved very far away from their old place of residence in 1941 in order to escape the Holocaust), which in turn would have meant that I wouldn't have existed at all. Does that mean that I should celebrate the Holocaust? No, of course not. Frankly, I myself would have preferred the scenario without the Holocaust and where I wouldn't exist.

  31. Coyote
    Coyote says:

    "the STRUCTURES that give rise to sentience EXIST in temporary coma patients"

    These structures also exist in humans with global ischemia, correct?

    Also, your arguments here in regards to personhood might actually be very strong if you and your movement would be willing to fully take them to their logical conclusions.

  32. Tullia_Ciceronis
    Tullia_Ciceronis says:

    In both cases the ability to walk does not exist. The stubbed toe may exist in reality, but it is useless as a toe. it is merely a collection of tissue until the healing process occurs, just like the coma patient's brain.

  33. Fusengammu
    Fusengammu says:

    Hi Coyote

    In fact there was a childless relative of ours who really wanted that baby, and my mom did consider this option. She decided against this for two reasons. Reason 1 was that she didn't think she would be able to give up the child to someone else once she actually gave birth, that she would be too strongly attached to it. The relative that wanted the child is still very close to our family, and while she plead for my mom to reconsider, she fully supported my mom's decision. Reason 2 was that at the time, I was always questioning why I didn't have a sibling, and that I really wanted a brother or a sister. If she gave birth and then gave the kid away, she was worried how I might react to this, and she decided it would be better for me if I never knew about the possibility of a sibling.

    So yes, adoption was considered. I now understand her rationale for her decisions. As a parent now, I think she weighed her options carefully, and understand how she would not be able to let go of her baby once she delivered it. I wouldn't be able to either. I strongly believe adoption is not for everybody, just as abortion is not for everybody. One must consider how it might affect the family, as well as the feelings of the mother and father. So choice is important!

  34. purrtriarchy
    purrtriarchy says:

    The *capacity* is still there, and because of the bruising, you are temporarily not using the *ability* to walk. But the capacity is there because the toe EXISTS.

    if it does not exist, there is no capacity and no ability, period.

  35. Tullia_Ciceronis
    Tullia_Ciceronis says:

    If the toe is stubbed, you do not have the ability to walk until it heals. It is not a matter of choosing not to use the ability, it is a matter of not having the ability. ZEF have the capacity to become conscious because of their essential nature. They don't have the ability to be conscious, but they do have the capacity, because their genetic code contains the instructions necessary to produce the structures which the ability to be conscious depends upon.

  36. purrtriarchy
    purrtriarchy says:

    Capacity is not in the genome. It is in the existence of the structures. If those structures do not exist, there can be no capacity until they do. Period.

  37. Tullia_Ciceronis
    Tullia_Ciceronis says:

    the maximum amount that something can contain.
    "the capacity of the freezer is 1.1 cubic feet"
    synonyms:volume, size, magnitude, dimensions, measurements, proportionsMore

    the ability or power to do, experience, or understand something.
    "I was impressed by her capacity for hard work"

  38. Tullia_Ciceronis
    Tullia_Ciceronis says:

    Well, brain cells do exist from the embryonic period onward, according to my embryology textbook. So you are wrong about that. The unique genetic code that gives rise to these cells exists from fertilization onwards.

  39. Tullia_Ciceronis
    Tullia_Ciceronis says:

    The same could be said about the temporary coma patient, who has only the potential to recover consciousness.
    BTW, what do you have to say about all of the dictionary definations that I gave you, showing clearly that sentience=consciousness and capacity=ability? Why do you distort and change the dictionary definations of words in order to make your philosophical points?

  40. purrtriarchy
    purrtriarchy says:

    Dictionaries only record common usage. They do not enforce particular usage. Some words are in dictionaries despite the best efforts of English teachers to declare they should never be used (prime example: “ain’t”). One of the consequences of “recording common usage” is that many definitions tend to change as the generations pass. Words can even become obsolete.

  41. Tullia_Ciceronis
    Tullia_Ciceronis says:

    can you provide any examples of dictionaries defining these terms in the ways that you've defined them? Or did you just make up those definitions to suit your argument?

  42. Tullia_Ciceronis
    Tullia_Ciceronis says:

    At this point, you are just splitting hairs. I am left with the strong feeling that you have other reasons for wanting to deny personhood to ZEF that have nothing to do with sentience. It's just a philosophical smokescreen.

  43. purrtriarchy
    purrtriarchy says:

    The concept of “capacity” is directly related to something that exists right now. An unborn human does not “right now” possess the capacity to be a person-class being. Of course, as time passes, the capacities of unborn humans can grow, especially after birth, to indeed exceed the capacities of ordinary animals. So we are really talking about “potential”, not “capacity”.

    The average comatose human has certain already-existing abilities that simply aren’t getting used during the coma. (Does a professional dancer become an ex-dancer just by being in a coma? If during a coma abilities can be claimed to only potentially exist, then it should be impossible to ever exercise the ability to recover!) The prenate only has potential ability; it completely lacks actual person-class abilities, and won’t have them until it grows enough brain-power to accommodate those abilities.

  44. purrtriarchy
    purrtriarchy says:

    I have tonnes of science. Wanna see my citations? ZEF''s, at least not until the 24-26th week, lack the necessary brainpower to exhibit any form of sentience. it simply does NOT exist. Your average coma patient already has the brainpower, but is simply not using it temporarily, whereas it doesn't EXIST in a ZEF, and until it does, it's mere potential, nothing more. And it may never exist, hence anencephalic babies.

  45. Tullia_Ciceronis
    Tullia_Ciceronis says:

    I have researched this as well. Coma patients, on account of their brain damage, are not capable of sentience/consciousness until after healing has occured. It's not a matter of not using their sentience, it's a matter of not having the current capacity for sentience, due to the damaged state of their brains. Both coma patients and ZEFs lack the current ability and the capacity to be sentient/conscious.

  46. purrtriarchy
    purrtriarchy says:

    The capacity exists if the structures that give rise to it exist.

    The capacity does not exist if the structures are entirely absent, as in a ZEF.

  47. Tullia_Ciceronis
    Tullia_Ciceronis says:

    many times, patients who recover from comas have to undergo extensive rehab to relearn how to do anything, much like an infant have to lean everything. I asked you to cite a dictionary defination for me, not something that you just made up to support your argument. Cite me a dictionary, not your own musings that you made up to support your own desired conclusions.

  48. Tullia_Ciceronis
    Tullia_Ciceronis says:

    excuse me, but capacity=ability in every dictionary that I've looked it up in. Find me an official defination that disagrees with this, and we'll talk. Your own ramblings don't count.

  49. Tullia_Ciceronis
    Tullia_Ciceronis says:

    Coma patients cannot learn or do anything while in a coma. They can only do so after they recover, just like ZEF cannot learn until they become infants. Cite me a dictionary now.

  50. Ann
    Ann says:

    I guess dismemberment was the better choice.

    I wonder what the thoughts would be if the woman had terminated a co-worker in order to advance her career? Would people be as understanding?

  51. purrtriarchy
    purrtriarchy says:

    They are not strictly synonyms. They can be used that way, but capacity has a deeper meaning.

    Another distinction commonly drawn between ability and capacity holds
    that, in humans and animals, capacities are inborn, while abilities are learned. For instance, a child might be born with the capacity to
    become a chef, but the ability to cook must be learned

    The capacity is absent in a zef, because those brain cells simply do NOT exist. In fact, the brain of a zef is *significantly* different from that of a sentient newborn.

  52. Tullia_Ciceronis
    Tullia_Ciceronis says:

    I would encourage you to research vacuum suction aspiration and D and C…how would you describe these procedures? D and C dismembers the fetus, and since vacuum suction aspiration forces the fetus through a tiny tube that is too small for its body, it breaks up the fetus as well. Get an abortion providers manual and look it up for yourself like I did…

  53. purrtriarchy
    purrtriarchy says:

    I've seen it all. Including graphic videos. Zef's can't feel. And besides, pro lifers would still oppose abortion if it was done through c section. Heck, pro lifers oppose anything that might prevent a microscopic zygote from implanting.

    BTW, the majority of abortions are before 13 weeks, 61% before 9 weeks, and it is ejected whole, just like in a miscarriage.

  54. Tullia_Ciceronis
    Tullia_Ciceronis says:

    If it is done by vaccum aspiration, like the majority of abortions, the tub is only millimeters wide, so anything past around 7 weeks gestation is only going to be broken up because it can't fit whole through the tube.

  55. Tullia_Ciceronis
    Tullia_Ciceronis says:

    ggTo drive the first wedge, distinguish between ability and capacity. Ability denotes actual (as opposed to potential) skill that may be either native or acquired.1 On that point, Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary cuts right to the pith, stating that ability is “natural aptitude or acquired proficiency.”2(p3) Capacity, on the other hand, denotes the potential to develop a skill, a native characteristic that one either does or does not have and that cannot be acquired or developed.3 (Language purists might maintain that capacity should be used only to refer to space or volume, but its use to refer to aptitude is well accepted.) Moreover, whereas abilityand capacity can each refer to either physical or mental aptitude, capacity is more commonly used in connection with mental aptitude—in particular, to “mental or intellectual receiving power; ability to take in impressions, ideas, knowledge.”4

  56. Coyote
    Coyote says:

    In addition to looking at this from your perspective, it might be a good idea to look at this from a pro-choice perspective (even if you disagree with this perspective).

    At least that way one can examine this issue from both perspectives.

  57. Tullia_Ciceronis
    Tullia_Ciceronis says:

    Capacity, on the other hand, denotes the potential to develop a skill, a native characteristic that one either does or does not have and that cannot be acquired or developed.

  58. Coyote
    Coyote says:

    I think that (a part of) the distinction that purrtriarchy might be making is that comatose human beings already previously had consciousness and will have it again in the future, whereas prenatal human beings never had consciousness.

  59. Tullia_Ciceronis
    Tullia_Ciceronis says:

    ZEF have the potential to develop sentience/consciousness, by virtue of their genetic makeup. "Capacity denotes the potential to develop a skill"

  60. Tullia_Ciceronis
    Tullia_Ciceronis says:

    No, she's not. I already brought up the example of infants who are born into comas. Her issue is that ZEF lack the structures necessery for sentience, and she completely ignores the fact that while coma patients have these structures, they do not have the capacity to be sentient, due to their medical condition. She ignores the fact that both have the potential to be sentient, and both are not currently sentient. At this point, she's splitting hairs, so much so that I strongly feel that she is just trying to justify an abortion that she or someone close to her had.

  61. Fusengammu
    Fusengammu says:

    Purrtriarchy has it right, I am a guy.

    Ignoring delusional Ann for a moment, Coyote's call for also considering the pro-choice side makes me want to ask the pro-life side.

    I'm pro-choice but in no way do I think abortion should be taken lightly. I do agree it is a living thing that is being terminated. However, I think that at the early stages of pregnancy, a fetus has no mind, can't feel pain etc., and termination is as far as I know, creates no victims. I also don't believe in a soul, so I don't really buy into this idea that what is being destroyed is so special and so irreplaceable that it is world ending. The purpose in one's life can only be created by the person actually living it, I think.

    There is no way "science" can conclude whether abortion is moral or not, because science doesn't answer these sort of questions. It is a method of hypothesis testing only, it makes no value judgements.

    So the question I want to ask pro-lifers is, what possible harm to society does allowing abortion actually do? I hear "it devalues life", but AFAIK, we live in an era when life is the most valued in all of human existence. Torture is (at least officially) illegal in most of the civilized world, we lavish huge amount of expenses on premature babies and the elderly, there are consumer protection laws that have altered the shape of car fenders so that pedestrians are less likely to die upon impact. The list goes on. To me, this claim that abortion leads to a culture that devalues life sounds about as plausible as the claim that same-sex marriage devalues marriage. I just don't see it.

  62. Michelle Ewing
    Michelle Ewing says:

    Good question! Besides the post abortive mothers and unborn children, there is a few things that are harmed
    1) there is a correlation between access to abortion and STDs. I think many people are worried more about getting pregnant than STDs. Now hat getting pregnant is less of an issue because of abortion, It's perfectly acceptable to have many partners, and that exposes more people to STDs. most STDs are harmful if untreated.
    2) Father's rights. it's ok to force a man to have a child, but not a woman. it's ok to take a wanted child away from a father, but not a mother. Mothers are handed full custody unless she don't want it or has been proven countless times to be unfit. It wasn't too long ago that it was the other way around, or unbiased. Father's have no right's right from the beginning of that child's life.
    3) Abortion rises the question of "where do we draw the line"? Not to long ago it was ok to kill your slave or beat your wife. They belonged to their owner or husband and in the same way, the unborn belong to their mothers. killing and hurting these people, and other throughout history become illegal because society came to the realization that these people were also human. Human is human. if it's wrong to kill one it's wrong to kill all (unless that human will take the life of anther, and the only way to stop that is to kill them).
    4) legal abortion is deeply rooted in eugenics. it is used to weed out the poor and/or black population. getting an abortion wont get a mother living in poverty any more money. and that child isn't doomed to a horrible life because of it's parent's income level. There also isn't a reason to try to breed/abort out the black population.

    I'm sure there is more harm, but that's just what I can recall off the top of my head.
    NOTE: That wasn't in any order. I also use the term Black instead of African American because not all people with that skin color are from Africa. AND correlation does NOT mean cause.

  63. ignorance_is_curable
    ignorance_is_curable says:

    It looks to me as if this little argument took a wrong turn somewhere, and needs to be straightened out.

    First, "capacity" is about something that exists right now. A jar has a certain capacity to hold stuff. Whenever you use the word "capacity" in reference to some future ability to hold more stuff than can actually currently be contained, then you are really talking about potential, not "capacity".

    For example, let's compare a growing brain to a set of paper holders for rolls of coins. The holder for dimes does not have the capacity to hold quarters. At an early stage of growth, a brain might have the equivalent of dime-roll capacity. After it grows enough, it could then have the equivalent of quarter-roll capacity –but it still does not have capacity equivalent to holding a roll of half-dollar-coins. At the early stage of growth (including the entire time in the womb), the brain only has potential for greater capacity. It does not have the actual magnitude of capacity needed to support such things as the abstraction-processing that is part of using a language.

    It takes significant brain growth after birth for sufficient capacity to grow, for the ability to process language to begin to exist.

    Meanwhile, the average coma victim DOES have that capacity, because the victim demonstrated it by successfully using language prior to entering a coma –and when the coma ends, almost every such victim immediately continues to successfully use language.

    One of the common mistakes made by abortion opponents is to confuse HAVING an ability with USING an ability. They are two different things! Consider a credit card, which represents an ability to spend money in a certain way. Do you argue that if you are not actually using the card, you do not actually possess it? If "no", then why does any abortion opponent ever use the exact same doesn't-exist argument with respect to abilities associated with personhood? (Answer: As usual, abortion opponents simply don't know what they are talking about!)

    Personhood can be defined in terms of exhibiting certain abilities, but they don't have to always be exhibited. Imagine yourself on a starship as an investigator of alien life-forms, and your goal is to correctly distinguish alien persons from alien animals. You would NEED for the alien persons to exhibit certain abilities before you could identify them, simply because you have NO advance knowledge about them! But once they have been identified, they continue to be persons even if they temporarily stop exhibiting those abilities.

    The coma victim, just like a sleeping person, is in the situation of not being able to USE abilities that actually exist. But those abilities simply do not exist in the first place for unborn humans.

    Finally, regarding corpses. How long after death are you talking about? It usually doesn't take very long after death for the brain to become "non-reboot-able", and it certainly depends on a number of circumstances. A child that falls through ice and drowns in a lake can often be revived after 20 minutes because the cold water prevents quick decay; on a hot day you have maybe 6 minutes max, to reboot a stopped brain. When a brain decays enough, its abilities associated with personhood are physically destroyed by that process. So, a short time after death, corpses do NOT have "those structures" that you were arguing about.

  64. Coyote
    Coyote says:

    In regards to why I am politically anti-abortion (a term which I like better than "pro-life"), let me try explaining this:

    -First of all, I am simply stating a fact: Human infants are currently treated better than non-human animals with equal or greater current mental abilities to these infants (after all, human infants are considered to be persons and have rights, both of which are not true for non-human animals with equal or greater current mental abilities to these infants).

    Now, if you disagree with this fact and think that the law should be changed in regards to this, then the rest of what I am about to say doesn't apply. However, as far as I know, most people support the law in regards to this.

    -Thus, why exactly *should* human infants be treated better than non-human animals with equal or greater current mental abilities?

    The best response to this question that I heard is the fact that human infants will develop greater mental abilities to these non-human animals over time. (I am not sure if this response is convincing, but I haven't heard any better responses to this question.) However, if that is one's answer to this question, then it makes sense to consider embryos and fetuses persons as well.

    In addition, if one opposes giving males *any* sort of child support opt-out (and honestly, I don't see the law in regards to this changing), then it also makes sense for such an individual to consider embryos and fetuses to be persons. Here is a video which discusses this:

    Now that I established why I consider embryos and fetuses to be persons/worthy of having rights, I would like to address the bodily autonomy argument by posting these two videos (they respond to Judith Jarvis Thomson's Violinist scenario, but they apply to this topic in a general sense as well):

    Now that I have responded to both the personhood issue and to the bodily autonomy issue, hopefully you see why I myself am politically anti-abortion.

  65. Coyote
    Coyote says:

    For the record, I am willing to respond to any objections which you might have. In addition, I am open to changing my mind on this issue if I hear convincing enough pro-choice arguments.

  66. ignorance_is_curable
    ignorance_is_curable says:

    "but capacity=ability in every dictionary that I've looked it up in." THAT IS FINE. It is talking about something that EXISTS RIGHT NOW. Does an unborn human have the ability to exhibit ANY of the characteristics that can Objectively and Generically distinguish persons from mere animal organisms, anywhere in the Universe? ABSOLUTELY NOT. So, if they don't have the ability, they ALSO don't have the capacity, in perfect accordance with your definition!

  67. ignorance_is_curable
    ignorance_is_curable says:

    By That Logic, since you have the capacity to become a corpse (even if it takes a thousand years), does that mean you should be treated right now like you are a corpse, and be buried six feet under?

    It is because "potential" and "actual" are two different things that we can do different things about them! Therefore we do NOT allow burying living persons like corpses, and we DO allow abortions.

  68. Fusengammu
    Fusengammu says:

    Hi Coyote

    1) must remember that correlation != causation. People who would consider abortion are probably more sexually liberal. I bet there would also be a correlation between birth control pills and STDs. After all, it is a non-barrier contraceptive.
    2) I don't really understand this argument. 🙁
    3) I agree. Where do we draw the line? I think there is no black and white place to draw it, and it comes down to personal and emotional arguments.

    One criteria for me to become supportive of outlawing abortion would be if abortion can be shown to be the CAUSE or definitively be shown to LEAD to some situation that would negatively affect our civilization or lead it to devalue life. This is what I DON'T see. I think where #3 is trying to imply is that if we draw this line allowing the termination of pregnancy, it will lead to further shifts in this line, and will allow us to once again shift the line so that we can once again allow slavery or some such. I don't see this happening in any of the countries that allow abortion. Most of those advanced, western nations have become ever more protective of minority subpopulations.

    4) Abortion has been around a lot longer than the eugenics movement. However, this is not really a valid argument anyway, because even if abortion "the medical procedure" was in fact dreamt up by a eugenicist (it wasn't), the procedure itself is NOT eugenics. It is simply a way to terminate pregnancy. Many useful medical advances in surgery and disease prevention came about as a result of war. Does that make these advances evil, because they came about through war?

  69. GEIxBattleRifle
    GEIxBattleRifle says:

    HAHA be specific about the coma what caused the coma? How much brain damage was there?. My mom happens to work with them and there are various types of comas. Look up ''lock in'' coma some time. Do know about the field next time instead of just going in on it. Thanks!

  70. BloodShot9187
    BloodShot9187 says:

    When will you stop with the inherent talk? The only reason why you can come on this message board and type and respond is ONLY because of the mental stimulation your brain received when you were younger. So, everything you have right now was acquired not inherent. Go study up on feral children some time as they do exist still.

  71. Tullia_Ciceronis
    Tullia_Ciceronis says:

    An infant born while in a coma (which does occur sometimes) has the capacity (potential) but the not current ability to be conscious, due to their medical condition. A temporary coma patient has the capacity (potential) but not the current ability to be conscious, due to their medical condition, which currently prohibits consciousness. Are those individuals people? Is killing such an individual murder?

  72. Sounder0
    Sounder0 says:

    Yes, I got that. It terms of presently expressible abilities though it makes no difference. What I'm saying is that the reason for which a person with a severely damaged foot can still gain presently expressible walking ability later on, is much the same reason for which and embryo who doesn't have a foot at all will also gain a presently expressible ability to walk. It is grounded in their nature, in their DNA, which drives cellular processes resulting in a significant physiological change endowing the individual with the ability to walk.

    As you have pointed out, there is a difference between an injury that can heal and one that cannot. However just after the injury, neither the foot that will heal nor the foot that won't have current walking ability. The difference between them lies in whether or not the damage is reparable by cellular processes directed by DNA.

    You argue that the structures necessary for consciousness are there in the temporary coma patient, but they're not. There are huge physiological differences between structures which confer consciousness, and structures which do not, regardless or whether they don't because of having too few connections or simply being damaged.

  73. Sounder0
    Sounder0 says:

    You know, being rude and condescending doesn't somehow make your points more valid.

    Without my nature, I would not have been able to develop my mental and physical abilities, even with the mental stimulation you refer to. Other animals, even intelligent ones, would not respond in the same way to the same stimulation.

    I'm aware of what feral children are. The fact that they lack teaching and socialization does not change what they are. Would you say that no human becomes a person until they reach they point where they have developed self-awareness? Language? Rationality?

    If a child is still young enough that taking them out into the woods to be raised by gorillas (or whatever) would result in them becoming feral, are they non-persons who we may kill? I don't know exactly what this limit would be, but I suspect if you took a 3 or 4 year old into the woods they would certainly become feral. Can we kill 3 and 4 year olds?

  74. ignorance_is_curable
    ignorance_is_curable says:

    You are not talking about anything relevant to the ABORTION issue. It matters not if Science would deny person status to human infants, so long as the Law continues to assign that status to them.

    Also, note that there is NO significant political push to change that Law to match the Science; while there is a quite-large and idiotic political push to change the Law to make it even more mis-matched with the Science. Tsk, tsk!

    Anyway, both Science AND the Law deny person status to unborn humans, for excellent (even if differing) reasons. I ignore your questions, therefore.

  75. Fusengammu
    Fusengammu says:

    Hi Coyote.

    I'm also of the same opinion. If abortion can be shown to me to provide causal harm to the way we live as a society, I will support outlawing it.

    The video that you uploaded of the guy arguing that if we recognize men's role in creating life , that it must follow that we recognize that a person starts immediately after conception. I'm not too much a fan of these philosophical for the sake of philosophy sort of approach to deciding abortion rights, but this guys argument to me seems to be invalidated immediately if we consider the fact that if the father dies immediately after sex, the baby can still be born. If the mother dies immediately after sex, the baby will never be born. To me, that immediately tells me that a woman just has more role in the creation of life.

    I also don't understand how paternal rights and child support have anything to do with abortion. I just don't have the mind for this kind of gymnastics : (

    To me, abortion rights is purely a practical concern. In a perfect world with infinite resources, we can extend human rights to fetus. In the real world, we have many practical concerns about economics, education etc. This is an UNCONSTRAINED OPTIMIZATION problem. We are solving a CONSTRAINED OPTIMIZATION problem – make as many people happy as possible given the resources. In such a world, abortion rights is a necessity.

    To get a feel for what an UNCONSTRAINED vs. CONSTRAINED optimization problem is, consider maximizing the area of your yard. The unconstrained solution is inifinite area. The constrained solution would be a solution restricted by something like "your yard must be surrounded by a fence. You only have 500 2x4s. What shape is the yard." The solution to that problem is a square yard of finite area. To me, restricting all abortion and giving fetuses full person rights is the solution to the UNCONSTRAINED problem where we have infinite resources.

  76. ignorance_is_curable
    ignorance_is_curable says:

    Your reply hints that you might not have seen another message I posted to you above. Use Control-F to search the page for "wrong turn", and read that.

  77. ignorance_is_curable
    ignorance_is_curable says:

    I pay attention to the Facts. Newborn humans are mere animal organisms to which the Law has granted "legal person" status. I'm not interested in changing that Law to match the Science, but I'm very interested in keeping that Law from being changed to become more mis-aligned with the Science. For more information see the "Refutations" document at

  78. Coyote
    Coyote says:

    You are responding to Michelle here, rather than to me.

    For #2, I think that Michelle means that if males are forced to pay child support, then females should generally be prevented from having abortions.

  79. ignorance_is_curable
    ignorance_is_curable says:

    It's not necessary, especially if very-late-term abortions are allowed. Also, another thing that could reduce a desire to commit infanticide is an improvement in the adoption laws. Why would infanticide need to be allowed?

  80. Tullia_Ciceronis
    Tullia_Ciceronis says:

    What about disabled infants that have trouble finding adoptive families? Also, most people who commit infanticide are mothers suffering from post-partum depression and such. Why would you want to criminalize their actions if infants aren't persons?

  81. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    Never mind, you don't get it. Anyone born breathing air is a person. Prior to having the ability to breathe air, you aren't a person. Many people confuse what coma is. Coma isn't brain death. Brain dead is dead. Picture a TV screen. Normal brain activity, you can see the picture and hear the audio. Coma, there's still something on the screen but it can range from distortion to snow. Brain dead, black screen. No picture, no sound. People in a coma or PVS experience wake and sleep cycles, and have reflexes including pain response to noxious stimuli (depending on how deep the coma is.) Men will experience erection, etc. It is not necessarily a state of complete unresponsiveness. It depends on what is causing the coma, and if it's brain damage, how extensive. Coma is often medically induced with barbiturates to prevent brain swelling in response to trauma.

  82. ignorance_is_curable
    ignorance_is_curable says:

    Most disabilities should be detectable in the womb –and our techniques for identifying disabilities are only going to improve with time. Therefore, as mentioned, allowing very-late-term abortions means that infanticide need not be done in those cases.

    Regarding the other group, that is where easing adoption comes into play. If the main problem is the combination of depression-plus-squalling-baby, well, pre-natal education should include the possibility that a woman might need to recognize that she is not "cut out" to be a mother. It needs to be easier for her to give up the baby than to kill it.

  83. Coyote
    Coyote says:

    "TRUE, although you are neglecting the "Prejudice" factor. Remember that when anthropologists studied primitive tribes, they discovered that the definition of "person" was "a member of our tribe" and all outsiders were non-persons. Just because we took many thousands of years to finally become enlightened enough to include most humans in the definition of "person", that doesn't mean we still weren't Prejudiced!"

    -Yes, I agree that we (or perhaps more accurately, most of us) might still be prejudiced in regards to this. However, until we are completely free from prejudice in regards to this (if this genuinely occurs), then I might continue using this premise in my arguments.

    "TRUE; most human persons are still Prejudiced about the humans=persons thing."

    -We appear to agree here.

    "SOUNDS LOGICAL, but there are at least three factors you have excluded from consideration. First, almost as soon as a human infant is born, it begins interacting with others in a way that allows it to learn, even while its brain is still growing, things about how to behave like a human person (children are great imitators, remember). Most ordinary animals, even the clever ones, don't experience such interactions (primary exceptions: Koko the Gorilla and Alex the Parrot). Now note that unborn humans are NOT in any position to interact with others in any significant way."

    I will need to think over this point more.

    -However, even right now I can state that I am somehow skeptical that most people will support giving personhood even to *all* of few animals which *do* experience these kinds of interactions.

    I will respond to the rest here a little later.

  84. DianaG2
    DianaG2 says:

    Yes, I totally agree.

    When my daughter was finishing up her degree a few months before my grandson was born, one of her instructors asked what she was "going to do?"

    Like — it's her business?

    Feminists for Life has a "Pregnant on Campus" program.

  85. DianaG2
    DianaG2 says:

    (Lady black votes up LOL.)

    Sentience and feeling are not prerequisites for humanity.

    Twenty three pairs of chromosomes are the prerequisite.

    If SOMEONE has 23 pairs of chromosomes, then that SOMEONE is a human being.

    It doesn't matter how young she or he is, or how small.

  86. DianaG2
    DianaG2 says:

    It's easy for you to say a small human being can't feel because she or he can't talk, or run away.

    How would she or he be able to let you know how she or he felt? What evidence would you accept?

    Slaves had no guns, so plantation owners took that as confirmation that they were "happy."

    They didn't try to fight back, so they must not mind being enslaved. Otherwise, they would do something about it.

  87. purrtriarchy
    purrtriarchy says:

    They can't be, not by YOUR definition of what a human being is:

    If SOMEONE has 23 pairs of chromosomes, then that SOMEONE is a human being.

    Work on your definition if you want to be taken seriously.

  88. purrtriarchy
    purrtriarchy says:

    Slaves were sentient.
    Slaves were sapient.
    Slaves did in fact, fight back, and you may have heard of a little thing called the underground railway

    Slaves weren't mindless animal organisms.

  89. Suba gunawardana
    Suba gunawardana says:

    Unlike any other death, abortion is elective. The phrase "loss of a person to abortion" implies that decision was invariably WRONG (thus an attempt to incite guilt); and underplays the real losses people feel from death of a loved one beyond their control.

    BTW Real parents wouldn't look for "recognition" as in mother's/father's day. They are when their children are happy.

  90. ignorance_is_curable
    ignorance_is_curable says:

    -Yes, I agree that we (or perhaps more accurately, most of us) might still be prejudiced in regards to this. However, until we are completely free from prejudice in regards to this (if this genuinely occurs), then I might continue using this premise in my arguments.
    Are we miscommunicating? It is because of Prejudice that ordinary animals are NOT granted person status, even though they might be more qualified for it than newborn humans. That means the Prejudice has to be eliminated before most folks will see the Logic of your argument.

    -We appear to agree here [regarding most folks thinking humans=persons].
    Yet this is where Science eventually will have a major "say". Remember the definition of "person" discovered by the anthropologists? Because that definition is "parochial", it Historically led to many groups thinking themselves so superior to others that they were free to commit genocides.

    It is Good that most of humanity is NOW included in the definition of "person", BUT that definition is still Parochial with respect to the rest of the Universe! The last thing humanity needs is to go up against technologically superior aliens in a future interstellar war, ONLY because humans were Stupidly and Genocidally Prejudiced about the definition of "person"!

    So, we will eventually NEED an Objective Generic Universal definition of "person", that can always distinguish them from mere animal organisms. Science will have the job of creating that definition. Here is ONE thing that has been investigated.

    Two things we can tell already: First, no unborn human can ever qualify as a person, because we can Test infant humans (who are more physically and mentally developed than the unborn), and the infants always fail the Tests. Second, infant humans won't qualify, either. It would be more logical to remove their "legal person" status than to grant legal-person status to ordinary animals that happen to be better-qualified.

    (This does not necessarily mean that infanticide automatically becomes legal, any more than it is legal for people to kill each other's pets. For a whole lot more about this, see #103 in the "Refutations" document at )

    Most ordinary animals, even the clever ones, don't experience such interactions (primary exceptions: Koko the Gorilla and Alex the Parrot).
    I will need to think over this point more.

    -However, even right now I can state that I am somehow skeptical that most people will support giving personhood even to *all* of few animals which *do* experience these kinds of interactions.
    Again, we are dealing with existing Prejudice. After Science gets done with the job described above, though, there may be animals (like Koko, and possibly dolphins) where Prejudice can be overruled by the Law.

    I will respond to the rest here a little later.

  91. ignorance_is_curable
    ignorance_is_curable says:

    Humanity doesn't have anything to do with Personhood. Not so long as intelligent extraterrestrial aliens (it is a BIG Universe out there!) can qualify as much as do humans, for Personhood. And perhaps in 20 years, we will be building True Artificial Intelligences, mostly because of all the studies of how human brains function, that are yielding new designs for computer hardware.

  92. ignorance_is_curable
    ignorance_is_curable says:

    You obviously don't understand the difference between "a human" and "a human being". They are not synonymous, any more than the phrases "a rabbit" and "a rabbit being" are synonymous. Why do you NEVER use phrases like "rabbit being" or "oyster being" in casual conversations? It is because the word "being" is getting used, in the phrase "human being", to denote something special –Personhood. Likewise, phrases such as "intelligent being" and "alien being" are ALSO used to denote personhood. But rabbits and oysters are not persons, and therefore you don't call them "beings" in casual conversations.

    So, any organism with a full set of human DNA qualifies as "a human organism" (including a hydatidiform mole). It does NOT automatically qualify as a "human being"!

    Likewise, a brain-dead human on full life-support is NOT a human being any longer, because the PERSON is dead; only the purely-animal human body is alive. That's why the "plug" is Legally "pull-able"; you cannot kill a person that is already dead!

    Unborn humans are in the situation of not YET qualifying as "human beings", because they LACK all of the Objective Generic Universal characteristics that can distinguish ANY type of Person from ANY type of mere animal organism, anywhere in the Universe. Unborn humans are ONLY mere animal organisms, even though they fully qualify as human animal organisms.

  93. DianaG2
    DianaG2 says:

    Pro-aborts can only reason backwards.

    They decide on the conclusion FIRST.

    ("I want to be able to believe that abortion is not killing my fellow human being. Hm m m . . . Let's see. How can I come up with that as a conclusion? What road will I take to get there?")

    Why not just be honest, as Camille Paglia is? She is in favor of abortion, but she freely admits that abortion is the murder of an innocent human being.

    I kind of admire her honesty. I prefer her approach to mealy-mouth, whiney, ignorant, arrogant, self-righteous, deluded pro-aborts.

  94. purrtriarchy
    purrtriarchy says:

    According to the AUTOPSY her brain was full of holes and gooey. She was, for all intents and purposes, dead, with no hope of recovery.

    You are delusional.

    BTW, two species of deer have the same number of chromosomes as humans. Better give them full personhood status ASAP, since to you, 23 pairs of chromosomes = a person.

  95. DianaG2
    DianaG2 says:

    Well, you see, there's the rub.

    This instructor felt perfectly comfortable discriminating against and embarrassing a pregnant woman who happened to be in her class.

    Because my daughter's "choice" was unacceptable to her.

    Is it your business how I use my rights as an American citizen?

  96. DianaG2
    DianaG2 says:

    Way to undermine your own frickin' argument.

    Slave -owners claimed that slaves were mindless animal organisms.

    We know about the "underground railROAD" (not "railway") now.

  97. Tullia_Ciceronis
    Tullia_Ciceronis says:

    I understand perfectly well the differences between brain death and coma. ZEF respond to biological and chemical stimuli as well. People in very deep comas cannot feel pain, as you yourself admit. Very deep comas can indicate complete unresponsiveness. In certain countries, fetuses are considered persons. My question was to you-if sentience is what is you think is required for personhood, then wouldn't a infant born into a coma who has never been sentient before also not be a person to you, if you were being logically consistent, regardless of its legal status?

  98. Tullia_Ciceronis
    Tullia_Ciceronis says:

    Well, if sentience is what makes you a person, then clearly coma patients, especially deep coma patients, are not persons, even if they will recover. But this is not about logical consistency for you. This is about justifying the abortion that your mother had. This is why you spend all this time on the internet defending abortion. It's not about the objective search for truth, but a desire to justify your mother.

  99. Tullia_Ciceronis
    Tullia_Ciceronis says:

    I am not talking about strategies to eliminate the need for infanticide. I am talking about how you justify punishing desparate parents who commit infanticide when you believe that the infant is not a person. If the infant is not a person, how can you justify giving parents severe punishments for eliminating the non-person human?

  100. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    That's a tough question. Yes it is a person, as the infant would have a functioning brain, albeit not normally functioning. As sentience develops sometime late during gestation, it would be very difficult to determine or say "never sentient." Now, having said that this is a person and you cannot actively kill this person, are we then obligated to do everything possible to extend the life of this person? Of course not. We're dealing with an imprecise system with imperfect medical knowledge. The best we can do is "to a reasonable degree of medical certainty" if treatment is futile and will not result in improvement, it need not be initiated, or can be discontinued upon refusal by the patient, or next of kin if the patient cannot speak for himself.

  101. purrtriarchy
    purrtriarchy says:

    Pay attention to the bolded part, thanks:

    Personal Attack (Argumentum Ad Hominem, literally, "argument toward the man." Also called "Poisoning the Well"): Attacking or praising the people who make an argument, rather than discussing the argument itself. This practice is fallacious because the personal character of an individual is logically irrelevant to the truth or falseness of the argument itself. The statement "2+2=4" is true regardless if is stated by criminals, congressmen, or pastors. There are two subcategories:

    (1) Abusive: To argue that proposals, assertions, or arguments must be false or dangerous because they originate with atheists, Christians, Muslims, communists, capitalists, the John Birch Society, Catholics, anti-Catholics, racists, anti-racists, feminists, misogynists (or any other group) is fallacious. This persuasion comes from irrational psychological transference rather than from an appeal to evidence or logic concerning the issue at hand. This is similar to the genetic fallacy, and only an anti-intellectual would argue otherwise.

    (2) Circumstantial: To argue that an opponent should accept or reject an argument because of circumstances in his or her life. If one's adversary is a clergyman, suggesting that he should accept a particular argument because not to do so would be incompatible with the scriptures is such a fallacy. To argue that, because the reader is a Republican or Democrat, she must vote for a specific measure is likewise a circumstantial fallacy. The opponent's special circumstances have no control over the truth or untruth of a specific contention. The speaker or writer must find additional evidence beyond that to make a strong case. This is also similar to the genetic fallacy in some ways. If you are a college student who wants to learn rational thought, you simply must avoid circumstantial fallacies.

    For someone who considers herself to some sort of intellectual, I really would have expected more from you.

    BTW, I'm a virgin, and I don't know anyone who has ever had an abortion. However, I value bodily autonomy, and don't view women as mere incubators for mindless clumps of tissue.

  102. Suba gunawardana
    Suba gunawardana says:

    ASSUMING that a fetus is a juridical person (which it is not):

    "Abortion kills a human being" would be a valid argument ONLY if it were completely illegal and unacceptable to kill a human being under any circumstances. Is it? No.

    The same forced-birthers happily applaud all other situations of legalized killings (war, self defense, security, capital punishment, etc. and of course, the slaughter of billions of INNOCENT non-human individuals daily not just for our necessity but mere whim & pleasure).

    Unless you can provide valid justifications why an unwanted non-sentient fetus is more "special" than all these other individuals you have no qualms in killing, you have no right to clamor about fetuses.

  103. ignorance_is_curable
    ignorance_is_curable says:

    In other words, you no longer want to talk about ABORTION, because you have NO valid argument to oppose it???

    I don't have to justify punishment for infanticide. You have jumped to an irrational conclusion. Earlier you asked why I didn't want to legalize infanticide, and I answered that. But that doesn't automatically mean I want to keep it illegal. I BASICALLY DON'T CARE what the Law is, about that subject.

    So, either get back to the ABORTION debate, or I will start posting messages to the effect that you are "grasping at straws" in your feeble and fruitless efforts to provide a valid rationale to oppose abortion.

  104. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    I have no idea why you think I need to justify my mother. And I don't argue that sentience makes someone a person. I believe I was quite clear that anyone who has been born, and has not yet died, is a person.

  105. ignorance_is_curable
    ignorance_is_curable says:

    Only in your imagination. Perhaps you should look at exactly how a dictionary adds words. When lots and lots of people use the language in a Stupidly Prejudiced way, the dictionary merely RECORDS that usage. It does not state, "this definition is Objectively Valid".

    So, just because Stupidly Prejudiced humans claim that all humans are persons, that does not make them right, not in the slightest! It doesn't make them one whit more right than in the old days of Stone Age tribes, when "person" was a member of the tribe, and everyone else was a non-person. THAT Parochial Prejudice led to genocides all through History.

    Well, even though today most humans are considered to be persons (and most of them indeed are!), that definition is still Parochial with respect to the wide wide Universe. Are you PLANNING on encouraging future genocides of other intelligent beings, JUST because they are non-human?

    If not, then we NEED an OBJECTIVE definition of "person", one that is not influenced by the Stupid Prejudice of humans, especially ignorant abortion opponents!

    By the way, some dictionaries include "a rational being" in their definition of "person". This connects back with what I wrote in that earlier message above –the word "being" is associated with personhood.

    A question for you: Why is it ever necessary to use the phrase "a human being" instead of the phrase "a human"???

  106. DianaG2
    DianaG2 says:

    Yes, that's what it boils down to.

    They can't accept the grief, guilt and anger, and they want to blame it on pro-lifers — who , by the way, were the ones telling them not to abort in the first place.

    Thanks, dear.

  107. Tullia_Ciceronis
    Tullia_Ciceronis says:

    What if the infant has a good chance of recovering? I know that from the Baby Doe Law, medical professionals and parents are required to provide lifesaving medical care to all children, regardless of quality of life, unless the child is terminally ill or permenently unconscious.

  108. Suba gunawardana
    Suba gunawardana says:

    What would you say to women who are happy and relieved about their abortions?

    More importantly, what would you say to women fraught with anger & guilt for HAVING children they never wanted?

  109. Tullia_Ciceronis
    Tullia_Ciceronis says:

    Neither I nor anyone views women as incubators. Saying that is like saying that those who support mandatory child support view parents as walking talking bank accounts. "Mindless clumps of tissue" well according to the science of human embryology, fertilization creates a new human organism. If you were intellectually honest, you would admit, like pro-choice philosophers Peter Singer and Camille Pagalia, that abortion kills an innocent human being. I have to conclude that you are arguing backwards, because honestly, the distinction between coma patients and ZEF is minimal as far as consciousness is concerned. You just want a justification to kill the ZEF if it is inconvenient for you.

  110. Suba gunawardana
    Suba gunawardana says:

    My response got buried so I am re-posting up here. I apologize if it comes on twice.

    ASSUMING that a fetus is a juridical person (which it is not):

    "Abortion kills a human being" would be a valid argument ONLY if it were completely illegal and unacceptable to kill a human being under any circumstances. Is it? No.

    The same forced-birthers who oppose abortion happily applaud all other instances of legalized killings (war, self defense, security, capital punishment, etc. and of course, the slaughter of billions of Innocent non-human individuals daily not just for our necessity but mere whim & pleasure).

    Unless you can provide valid justifications why an unwanted non-sentient fetus is more "special" than all these other individuals you have no qualms in killing, you have no right to clamor about fetuses.

  111. Tullia_Ciceronis
    Tullia_Ciceronis says:

    I did not dismiss your argument becuase of ad hominum dear, I dismissed it because it was bad. You relied on distinctions with differences, and your entire argument sounded very much like ("I want to be able to believe that abortion is not killing my fellow human being. Hm m m . . . Let's see. How can I come up with that as a conclusion? What road will I take to get there?") So I did not say that you had an abortion, I said that it felt like that, because of the level of intellectual avoidence.

  112. purrtriarchy
    purrtriarchy says:

    They are human organisms with the potential to be people. They are mindless, and lack all of the objective traits associated with personhood.

    Coma patients are not genetic blueprints, and you know it.

  113. purrtriarchy
    purrtriarchy says:

    You can't argue your point, so you have to resort to baseless ad hominens and talk of infanticide.

    What's next, gonna accuse ignorance is curable of the same?

  114. Tullia_Ciceronis
    Tullia_Ciceronis says:

    Coma patients are mindless however. Who determine the traits associated with personhood? Some philosophers, like :Peter Singer, honestly believe that infants aren't persons because they aren't self-aware. Who's to say that his defination of personhood isn't more valid than yours?

  115. Tullia_Ciceronis
    Tullia_Ciceronis says:

    You resorted to ad hominums as well. You claimed that I view women as incubators when I do not. Your entire argument is an exercise in avoidance and dismissal.

  116. Tullia_Ciceronis
    Tullia_Ciceronis says:

    Parents can't kill infants that are disabled or because they are poor and have too many. If abortion is justifiable even though ZEF are human beings, then infanticide should also be justifiable.

  117. purrtriarchy
    purrtriarchy says:

    You believe that the wishes of pregnant women to be non pregnant do not matter, because you care more for zygotes. You ignore a woman's agency and right to self determination. You want to force women through the law to give birth whether they want to or not. This is to use them as a mere means to an end, ad an object, as an incubator.

  118. Suba gunawardana
    Suba gunawardana says:

    -Infants do not LIVE INSIDE the parents body

    -The fact that its already an infant means the mother CHOSE to carry the pregnancy, thereby making a commitment to the child. That voluntary commitment should be tantamount to a legal contract, which prevents her from abusing or killing the child, ever.

  119. Tullia_Ciceronis
    Tullia_Ciceronis says:

    Do you support mandatory child support? Then you view the wishes of parents to be non-parents and free of responsibility to not matter, because you care more for infants that don't even know that they exist. You ignore the parent's agency and right to self-determination. You believe in forcing parents by law to pay enormous sums of money for their children that they never wanted in the first place. This is to use parents as a mere means to an end, as an object, as a walking, talking bank account.

  120. Tullia_Ciceronis
    Tullia_Ciceronis says:

    What about men? They don't have the right to choose. If a man consents to sex, he consents to 18+ years mandatory child support, while women consent to nothing but sex. By that logic, a man should have the right to abuse his kid, because he did not voluntarily commit to that child.

  121. Suba gunawardana
    Suba gunawardana says:

    IF the man didn't want the child, and made that intent known, he should NOT be held responsible for child support.

    If the woman chose to have a baby against the father's will, she should suck it up & pay for everything. She'd better NOT neglect the child either.

    And NOBODY gets the right to abuse children, for any reason whatsoever.

  122. Tullia_Ciceronis
    Tullia_Ciceronis says:

    Here in the US, that's not the case. If a parent does not pay child support, his wages are garnished, his passport is seized, and in extreme cases his driver's license is revoked and he is sent to jail. Child support agencies are very good at collecting and tracking down parents from across state lines. Relinquishment of parental rights is only allowed if the child is being given up for adoption and there is someone willing to adopt, so a man is pretty much trapped for life if the woman decides to have the baby.

  123. Tullia_Ciceronis
    Tullia_Ciceronis says:

    Any proof of these accusations? I happen to personally know all of the leaders of this organization, and I can attest that they are all atheist or agnostic. Or do you think that someone can only be an atheist if they agree with you about everything?

  124. purrtriarchy
    purrtriarchy says:

    Trillions of neurons. Physical structures. A fetus brain is not even hooked up like the brain of a sentient individual. Its completely different. The trillions of neurons do not yet exist. Minds can be detected with various tests. A non sentient fetus has the same clinical readings as a braindead cadaver. They are nothing like a coma patient, who has already developed the necessary neurons and proper thalamcortical connections. I could show you various citations from neuroscientists but my PC just mysteriously crashed and is utterly inoperable. I am on my mobile ((((

  125. Suba gunawardana
    Suba gunawardana says:

    I am in the US, and I disagree with those laws.

    If abortion and contraception were more accessible, there would be far fewer unwanted children, and men would be far less victimized by these laws. (not that they don't need to be reformed).

  126. Rainbow Walker
    Rainbow Walker says:

    Wrong. There are billions of
    dollars of back child support owed and courts rarely intercede. Most states are
    too back logged to care. I work for the state and know better.

    Furthermore relinquishing of
    parental rights happens every day. If a parent cannot care for a child they can
    give their parental rights up anytime. So no once again you are wrong.

    I assume you only get your information from anti-choice blogs, given all your erroneous responses.

  127. Suba gunawardana
    Suba gunawardana says:

    So where does the idea come from that an unwanted non-sentient human fetus deserves more consideration than a fully grown fully sentient animal?

  128. Tullia_Ciceronis
    Tullia_Ciceronis says:

    Really? According to Human Embryology and Tetratology by O'Rahilly and Muller, 1999-Individualized brainwaves recorded via electroencephalogram (e-lek’tro-en-sef’a-lo-gram), or EEG, have been reported as early as 6 weeks, 2 days.2 Brain dead individuals have no brain activity whatsoever.

  129. Tullia_Ciceronis
    Tullia_Ciceronis says:

    Actually, I got the info from the US Department of Health and Human Services. They have a parent's guide to child support. You can find it easily by googling parents guide to child support us department of health and human services.

  130. purrtriarchy
    purrtriarchy says:

    Those are not the brainwaves that are associated with consciousness. And a braindead individual can have a functional brainstem but no higher brain. A zef is equivalent to that.

  131. Rainbow Walker
    Rainbow Walker says:

    That’s only information they give you. It doesn’t tell you what the realities are. Take a look at this.


  132. Tullia_Ciceronis
    Tullia_Ciceronis says:

    Also, on the issue of relinquishment of parental rights, I have consulted multiple lawyers and legal sources. in order to voluntarily relinquish parental rights, you have to go before a judge and the judge has to approve of that relinquishment. I was told by multiple lawyers who have experience with the system that since the guiding principle of family court is in the best interests of children, judges cannot approve if the parents reason for relinquishment is to get out of paying child support.

  133. Tullia_Ciceronis
    Tullia_Ciceronis says:

    Actually that is PVS. Here in the US. PVS patients are consider to be legally alive because According
    to the mainstream whole-brain approach, the human brain plays the crucial role
    of integrating major bodily functions so only the death of the entire brain is
    necessary and sufficient for a human being's death (Bernat, Culver, and Gert
    1981). Although heartbeat and breathing normally indicate life, they do not
    constitute life. Life involves integrated functioning of the whole organism.
    Circulation and respiration are centrally important, but so are maintenance of
    body temperature, hormonal regulation, and various other functions—as well as,
    in humans and other higher animals, consciousness. The brain makes all of these
    vital functions possible. Their integration within the organism is due to a
    central integrator, the brain.

    leading case for the whole-brain standard, then, consists in an organismic
    conception of death coupled with a view of the brain as the chief integrator of
    interdependent bodily functions.

    However, prior to the brain's development, zygotes and embryoes are able to coordinate and integrate their growth, development, systems, and functions into a unified whole as an organism. Emrbyoes that cannot do that end up being miscarried. After the brain develops, it is the organ responsible for this.

  134. Rainbow Walker
    Rainbow Walker says:

    There it is. Didn’t take long for my bait to catch something.

    Leaders? What is this a sect?

    A true atheist understands science. They understand a fetus isn’t a juridical person and can respect the rights of the woman. Believers cannot wrap their tiny little heads around this concept. It’s called logical inference.

  135. Suba gunawardana
    Suba gunawardana says:

    I would think that if the man could prove the child was birthed against his will to begin with, he should get the right to relinquish.

    However I am sure justice is not served when the general mindset happens to be "breed-breed-breed no matter what cost to the children or parents".

    As is amply evident with the mindset on this site which attempts to force women to carry pregnancies they never wanted to begin with.

  136. purrtriarchy
    purrtriarchy says:

    Patients with a dead cortex are unhooked from life support all the time, and organs harvested. Only the brainstem is keeping the body alive, but the mind, the self, is permanently gone. That's death.

  137. Tullia_Ciceronis
    Tullia_Ciceronis says:

    fetus isn’t a juridical person -slaves used to be considered non-judical persons as well. arguing from what the law currently is is not arguing what it should be. Also, no true scotsman logical fallacy. I know pro-choice Christians and pro-life atheists. Isn;t not believing in the supernatural enough to make you an atheist?

  138. Tullia_Ciceronis
    Tullia_Ciceronis says:

    I'm sure that you;ll be delighted to know that some of the biggest supporters of mandatory child support laws are women's rights orgs that believe in giving women the right to choose, but not men. National Women's Law Center, NOW, etc.

  139. Tullia_Ciceronis
    Tullia_Ciceronis says:

    Well, one could believe that all biologically living human beings should have basic human rights. Don Marquis has an argument on this called "A Future Like Ours" which asserts that it is wrong to kill someone who will have the future ability to be sentient. Also, my issue is that few apply worldview consistently. If sentience convays personhood, then logically coma patients aren't people.

  140. Rainbow Walker
    Rainbow Walker says:

    I am a child psychologist with a JD. You are wrong. All you need to do is go before family services DPR. They recommend
    you have a lawyer present. They will ask you to fill out paperwork. This is called a “suit for voluntary termination parent petitioner.” They will file it with the clerk and the judge rubberstamps it. Sec. 161.005. TERMINATION WHEN PARENT IS PETITIONER.


    I have never seen a judge not allow revocation. Courts believe that if a parent cannot care for a child, based on economics or health it’s in the best interest of the child to
    terminate guardianship.

  141. Suba gunawardana
    Suba gunawardana says:

    If SENTIENCE is the deciding factor, it should be absolutely unacceptable to kill (even torture) billions of fully sentient animals daily for our necessity and convenience.

    To oppose killing fetuses while merrily killing.& torturing animals is hollow & hypocritical.

  142. Suba gunawardana
    Suba gunawardana says:

    No one has the right to live inside another person's body without their consent. Those who do, are not juridical persons.

    Slaves didn't live inside other people.

  143. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    I guess the ability to sustain one's own biological functions has a lot to do with it. No longer needing to have someone breathe, digest and eliminate for it. The umbilical arteries and vein cease to function, the holes in the heart close up, the placental connection is severed and the organ dies and is sloughed off. Voila' an individual comes into being. Maybe you were unaware that a lot more happens then merely "sliding out of a vagina."

  144. Rainbow Walker
    Rainbow Walker says:

    Wrong again. Being a juridical person means actuating those rights. The slave argument is a non sequitur. A slave is one who could cognate and recognize the law and all its forms, sign contracts and so forth. A fetus cannot. Further complicating this is the fact the fetus INHABITS a juridical person. A slave did not.

    “Also, no true scotsman logical fallacy.”

    Prochoice christians can exist because they were brainwashed at youth but slowly learned reason. Prolife atheists are an impossibility. And no, not believing in the supernatural is not the
    definition of an atheist. An atheist is one who doesn’t believe in a god, an afterlife, religion or any dogma whatsoever. An atheist by definition is governed by rational and they are usually educated [not religious education]. Believers follow what others tell them. You are a perfect example. Therefore by definition an atheist cannot be prolife.

  145. Rainbow Walker
    Rainbow Walker says:

    Coma patients do give up their
    rights. That’s why a lawyer will tell you to make advanced directives so your wishes are known prior to hospitalization. Doctors often pull life support on john/jane does who have no family present or advance directives.

  146. Rainbow Walker
    Rainbow Walker says:

    If you convey juridical personhood to fetuses, where does it end? As my law professor said, a Jain could argue the personhood of viruses or bacteria. Then we would have to forfeit all medical
    treatment because of someone else believes.

  147. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    Once again, I do not see sentience as a qualifier for being a person. The chance of recovering needs to be taken into consideration. Once again, your "Baby Doe Law" doesn't require that futile care be given. Some examples of futile care might be (and this is not a laundry list) the attempted resuscitation of a 21 week fetus, a child in the end stage of any terminal disease process, a child who is brain dead. In addition, some courts are starting to rule against extreme interventions in favor of parents. A good example of that is the recent case of the little Amish girl who's parents resisted chemotherapy for her cancer. Maybe you didn't fully comprehend my post or you wouldn't be asking these questions. All we have to go by in making decisions is the best educated guesses of the best physicians, or "to a reasonable degree of medical certainty."

  148. Tullia_Ciceronis
    Tullia_Ciceronis says:

    That is the case in UK, but here in the US we have a different standard. Patients with brain stems are alive, and medical treatment can only be denied if the patient requested so in a living will or if the patient has given power of attorney to someone else while still sentient. Patients with brain stem function don't need life support, they do need feeding tubes. In the US, death, legally as well as medically speaking, is when the organism ceases to function as a unified whole, which occurs upon whole brain death, if the organism is developed enough to have a brain.

  149. Tullia_Ciceronis
    Tullia_Ciceronis says:

    Conjoined twins cannot get separation surgery unless both twins consent, even if one twin is unequally dependent upon the other twin for survival. Why not the same standard for abortion?

  150. Tullia_Ciceronis
    Tullia_Ciceronis says:

    Well, are conjoined twins persons? They depend on each others bodies for survival. In the case of Anastasia Dogaru, she depends on her twin Tatiana's body for kidney filltration, since she has no working kidneys of her own. Should Anastasia Dogaru be considered a person, if personhood is dependent upon being able to live separated from someone else's body?

  151. Tullia_Ciceronis
    Tullia_Ciceronis says:

    I acknowledged that Baby Doe does not cover futile care. I am talking about cases where the child has a good chance of recovering from the coma.

  152. Tullia_Ciceronis
    Tullia_Ciceronis says:

    One could also deny personhood to human infants because some bioethicists believe that they aren't persons. You are using the slippery slope logical fallacy.

  153. Tullia_Ciceronis
    Tullia_Ciceronis says:

    Yes, if the medical care is futile and the patient has no chance or a poor chance of recovery. I am talking about temporary coma patients who have a good chance of recovery.

  154. Tullia_Ciceronis
    Tullia_Ciceronis says:

    An infant cannot really cognate, recognize the law and all of its forms, and and sign contracts. By your logic, infants aren't persons.

  155. Tullia_Ciceronis
    Tullia_Ciceronis says:

    I looked through the link that you provided me. I found lots of info on involuntary termination of parental rights, and info on parents terminating rights because they cannot care for the child. I did not find info on parents terminating rights becuase they want to get out of paying child support that they can afford. As I all of the other lawyers that I have consulted have told me that judges almost never allow relinquishment if the parent is just trying to get out of paying child support that they can afford, since family court decisions must be made in the best interests of the child.

  156. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    Parents make those decisions in consultation with doctors. Nothing has changed. That's what's known as a "feel-good" law. If the parents and doctor disagree, a court sorts it out.

  157. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    I've heard this argument before. Never commented on it, but it doesn't impress me. If the kidneys belong to Tatiana, and her sister's dependence on them endangered her life, she should be able to separate. Conjoined twins, like all other identical twins, are two people who happened to malform in such a way that sometimes organs are missing in one, and the other is sort of parasitic on the person who has the needed organ(s). One conjoined twin is often sacrificed to save the other. But yes, they are both persons. They have both survived birth. If it comes down to losing both, then a choice must be made to save one or let both die. Who knows what decision would be made.? I would likely (reluctantly) choose to abort such a pregnancy.

  158. Rainbow Walker
    Rainbow Walker says:

    Once again you ignore the fact that infants no longer inhabit a juridical person. Yours is the fallacy. Your path
    would lead to personhood for viruses, bacteria, plants and animals. Then medical treatment would be banned and the only food we could eat would be synthetic.

  159. john lind
    john lind says:

    Yeah right, because some virus or bacteria will eventually develop to the point that they can post on websites and assert that they have rights.

  160. Suba gunawardana
    Suba gunawardana says:

    No, I am saying fetuses should NOT have equal rights.

    If you oppose the killing of fetuses for whatever reason, you have to oppose killing of animals too. Because the EXACT SAME reasons apply to animals.

    If your only justification is the "humanity" of fetuses, then that sounds like religious-based illogic; the "human superiority syndrome"

    Pro-lifers wish to take away other people's right to kill fetuses for their necessity & convenience, while retaining your own rights to kill all kinds of other individuals for your own necessity & convenience.

    Doesn't work that way.

    -If it's OK to kill for your necessity & convenience, you cannot oppose others exercising the same right.

    -If killing is wrong, it doesn't become magically OK when you condone it.

  161. john lind
    john lind says:

    Yet another brilliant pro-feticide bumper sticker truism. If you are against the dismemberment of unborn humans then you have to be dancing for joy when people are killed in wars or by capital punishment.
    No non-human animal has ever asserted rights. If one could, or would, it would be reasonable to grant all members of that particular species rights.
    A ZEF, being a member of homo sapiens should be granted rights because it is a member of the only species that can assert rights.

  162. Suba gunawardana
    Suba gunawardana says:

    No animal has ever asserted rights? Neither has a embryo/fetus, EVER.

    MY argument is NOT that animals should have rights, but that fetuses should NOT.

  163. john lind
    john lind says:

    So those that are incapable of typing or don't have a computer should be denied the right to life?
    What if the person will learn to type in 5 years. Is it reasonable to assume because he or she is currently unable to type, he or she should be denied rights?

  164. Rainbow Walker
    Rainbow Walker says:

    They still have their rights rescinded. This is for their protection. Case law supports this. Long ago individuals
    would forge signatures of people in comas in contracts. Courts recognized that individuals who were non compos mentis were not juridical persons under common or statutory law.

  165. Rainbow Walker
    Rainbow Walker says:

    Evidently you didn’t. Keep


    Sec. 161.101. PETITION ALLEGATIONS. A petition for the termination of the
    parent-child relationship is sufficient without the necessity of specifying the
    underlying facts if the petition alleges in the statutory language the ground for the termination and that termination is in the best interest of the child.

    Grounds include economical and health.

  166. Suba gunawardana
    Suba gunawardana says:

    According to YOUR logic, Yes. I was responding to YOUR argument that animals shouldn't have rights simply because they cannot type or assert their rights. If that's the case, neither should fetuses.

  167. john lind
    john lind says:

    You are missing the point.
    If any single animal in a particular species could assert rights, it would be reasonable to grant every animal in that species rights.
    Homo sapiens is the only species that has had at least one member assert rights. As such, every member of homo sapiens should be granted rights.

  168. Rainbow Walker
    Rainbow Walker says:

    Actually they might evolve to that point. Scientist have already fashioned micro mazes for single celled organisms which can navigate them.

    Furthermore they are more aware then you are.

  169. Suba gunawardana
    Suba gunawardana says:

    Those "rights" are made-up concepts made by humans for their own benefit, AT THE EXPENSE OF non-humans.

    And why cannot animals "assert their rights" in this human-infested world?

    Because humans subjugate and exploit them for no reason other than "because we can".

    If it's perfectly fine to kill/exploit/torture animals "because we can", what's wrong with killing fetuses for the exact same reason?

    Not that there aren't far better reasons for abortion, but "because we can" seems ti be a reason you can relate to.

  170. Rainbow Walker
    Rainbow Walker says:

    Many members of the race homo sapiens are not granted rights for obvious reasons. Infants and children are not
    juridical persons, people in commas and anyone declared non compos mentis and of course criminals. I guess you would have children signing contracts had having sex at six? But of course most believers love child brides.

  171. john lind
    john lind says:

    When any member of that single celled organism can assert rights then every member of that species can be granted rights.

    "Furthermore they are more aware then you are." Gee that sounds like a statement made by one that is "governed by rational."

  172. Rainbow Walker
    Rainbow Walker says:

    Obviously you don’t understand rights. If only one can assert rights and all others cannot then why would the right “wash over” to the others by default? Just because one child is emancipated doesn’t make all children emancipated.

    “Gee that sounds like a statement made by one that is "governed by rational."

    Obviously. Painfully so.

  173. john lind
    john lind says:

    Sure her rights matter, and she can do whatever she wants with her body. The ZEF is not her body. The close proximity does not cause the ZEF to become her body.

  174. Suba gunawardana
    Suba gunawardana says:

    The fact it's living inside her body (thus violating her body) gives her the right to expel the intruder IF she so wishes.

    If a rapist is violating your body, you may accommodate him at the expense of your body, but you certainly have the right to kill him to get him off your body.

  175. john lind
    john lind says:

    Obviously you don't understand different levels of rights. The right to not be aggressed against is a universal right, whether it is respected or not. A property right is not universal…you don't have the right to own the same property that I own.

    You might want to check your use of juricdical person…

    A juridical person is a legal entity created by the law which is not a natural person, such as a corporation created under state statutes. It is a legal entity having a distinct identity and legal rights and obligations under the law.

  176. john lind
    john lind says:

    So if a third party handcuffed us together, I have the right to kill you and you have the right to kill me because each of us is violating the other's body through loss of liberty?

  177. Rainbow Walker
    Rainbow Walker says:

    Yes it’s not part of her body, but inside. Under the fourth she has the right to be secure in her person. That’s why the law has abolished forced sterilization, lobotomies and other cruelties. The state has one of few choices with a criminal even: death, incarceration,
    probation or fine. No cruel and unusual punishments. She should be able to evict anything [even bacteria] from her body if she so chooses. That’s why the
    Jain argument is interesting.

    We have only explored the right of privacy under roe. I cannot wait until someone uses the fourth and all restrictions will vanish.

  178. john lind
    john lind says:

    Again, you have no concept of differing types of rights. "But of course most believers love child brides." Once again, quite a rational statement. It would be like me saying, "all pro-feticide atheists are self-assuming jerks", based solely on your demeanor.

  179. Suba gunawardana
    Suba gunawardana says:

    Right, and what is not a juridical person? A fetus.

    EVEN IF a fetus were a person (juridical or natural or whatever), NO person has a right to inhabit another person's body without their consent.

  180. Rainbow Walker
    Rainbow Walker says:

    I studied constitutional law in depth. Property rights are universal, see the fourth amendment. One must prove ones claims [or rights] to property, once proven an individual has the right be
    secure in them.

    Obviously you don’t understand juridical person. Cutting and pasting doesn’t cut it.

    Juridical persons are fictitious [artifice or artificial] created by statue and framework [constitutional] capable of having legal rights and duties within a certain legal system, such as to enter into contracts, sue, and be sued. These rights are not fixed but are moveable, and revocable.

    Can a fetus be held libel if it
    kills the woman? Can a fetus enter into a contract? And more importantly how does that affect the rights of the woman?

  181. Rainbow Walker
    Rainbow Walker says:

    How does that apply in the context of your original question? In this case I would be the aggressor. Therefore the question is used to elicit an emotional response.

    What you fail to understand is life [or it’s protection at all costs] was not of great concern to the framers.
    Rights were and are. When one commits homicide the law may use these words to
    quantify action, but what they are in the end concerned with are the violation
    of one’s rights.

    I can kill you to protect my life. Simple as that. If you are threatening my life. You are simply attempting to elicit emotion to justify an illogical stance.

  182. Rainbow Walker
    Rainbow Walker says:

    My JD says otherwise. Go to law
    school. Then we’ll talk.

    As for the later statements, thank you proving me correct. All forced birth morons do love marring child brides. Remember it’s illegal in these parts.

  183. MarcusFenix
    MarcusFenix says:

    Morality can find grounding in religion, but does not require it…unless you would like to tell atheists and agnostics that they can't possibly be ethical unless they are religious.

    The definition of morality is the ability to define distinctions between right and wrong. People who are religious use their faith as the underpinning for such an idea, but those without faith are still capable of making such judgments. It's not terribly complicated.

  184. MarcusFenix
    MarcusFenix says:

    Your professor would be right that they can argue that point…but they'd also be terribly wrong and would lose the argument quickly.

    Science has established repeatedly that a virus or bacteria doesn't fall under what we consider the definition of life. Your professor would have been remiss to not mention the fact that this argument has been had, and settled, many times over…unless you chose not to mention that part. Or…he's very wrong. Or, misleading. Or uninformed.

    Here's some info:

  185. MarcusFenix
    MarcusFenix says:

    Since that's not a real syndrome, I have no idea.

    Of course, you're trying to move away from the very point you started with. Your question was answered.

  186. Suba gunawardana
    Suba gunawardana says:

    Where does the idea come from that an unwanted non-sentient human
    fetus deserves more consideration than a fully grown fully sentient
    animal (or a tree, which actually helps other life)?

    I thought "humans come first at the expense of all else" was a strictly Christian concept.

  187. MarcusFenix
    MarcusFenix says:

    There's a problem in your logic, DC…but not surprising.

    The "structures that give rise to sentience" are there. If they were not, you wouldn't have the capability to ask that very question, because those "structures" don't magically pop into existence at the moment you exit the birth canal.

    Even if you make the argument that the structures are under-developed and want to exclude them…then it means they are there and under-developed and nothing more.

    You're not making a solid argument here.

  188. purrtriarchy
    purrtriarchy says:

    They don't exist. Period. Stop with the lame semantics.

    And zygotes are a genetic blueprint…and the embryonic brain and fetal brain prior to 24-27 weeks ain't nothing like the brain of a fetus or baby capable of sentience.

  189. MarcusFenix
    MarcusFenix says:

    You do know what "sentience" means, right? So, a 14 week old fetus has eyes…but they're just there for show? Those structures exist, and develop, over the course of a lifetime…from the point of inception. It's not semantics, but the fact you believe it to be so is where your error starts.

    If you want to make the apples and oranges comparison, you're welcome to do so. Since, for example, babies can't experience the world like you, they're not really sentient either. Their experiences are, at best, stunted and worthless. Same thing with the elderly, the blind, those in a coma, the deaf, and everyone else who relies on those "structures" to experience sentience.

    The problem with the "capable" label is that there is a point where a fetus -is- capable. A point where it will become -more- capable. You're basing your weak ideal on what is happening at a specific moment, rather than taking in the bigger picture. Sorry, no points DC.

  190. MarcusFenix
    MarcusFenix says:

    Immediately, your argument is tainted by multiple pejorative and subjective items, which you then try to tie into some objective answer. Sorry, but it doesn't always work that way.

    You immediately go with the "unwanted" angle, which is weak (as in, not always the case, not a permanent condition, etc) at best, parade "non-sentient" as a some defining item of note, and then state that somehow, a person who believes in pro life must therefore be trying to give greater rights to one living being over another. It's not that way, and your bias does nothing to push that farther.

    The "humans come first" ideology is ingrained in us as a species, as it is every species. Biologically, living things seek to propagate and strengthen themselves. It's not even close to being an only-human trait. Breaking it down to just people though, consider the concept for a moment. No person, sans religion, is greedy? They don't look out for themselves, seek to fulfill whatever biological or psychological imperative they have, cannot seek out motive or desire outside of religion, and so on?


  191. MarcusFenix
    MarcusFenix says:

    Your dodge is subtle, but still there.

    You started with this:

    "A mindless ZEF can do none of that, because the structures that give rise to sentience simply do not exist."

    But those structures, and their ability to develop, do exist. Like i said, they don't magically just pop into existence, or some fairy just drops them off one day. Those connections develop, along with everything else.

    Of course, this somehow doesn't even touch the idea that sentience isn't a part of the discussion, or that sentience removes the moral problem with abortion, since it does nothing of the kind. It's an interesting discussion item, but bears no real weight otherwise, since sentience isn't a measuring stick.

  192. purrtriarchy
    purrtriarchy says:

    Ability to develop is not the same as actually having the capacity for certain functions.

    You have the ability to develop into a corpse. This does not mean that we can bury you right now. Potential is not actual.

    Zef's are mindless animal organisms. We don't subjugate people to other people, let alone to animals. Zef's are mere animals.

  193. MarcusFenix
    MarcusFenix says:

    Round we go again…

    I didn't say it was. If you're trying to conflate the two and then knock it down, then you'll have to try a different straw man. That one isn't terribly good.

    Faulty analogy. You don't "develop" into a corpse…though there are a few people who look it. You either -are- a corpse, or you are not. You can develop sickness and then become a corpse, but there's no real sliding scale for "becoming" a corpse outside of that. It's an all or nothing situation. There's no one who is, in context, half dead or mostly dead, or developing dead. Either you're dead, or you're not.

    "Zef's are mindless animal organisms"

    Interesting, since your first message is all about semantics, then you engage in it repeatedly. How about "undeveloped human organisms"…which is both factually correct and not de-humanizing…would you still say semantics? Clearly, there is a difference between a zebra (or, insert your favorite See and Say animal here) and a human, in every way. And, bonus points, in every stage of development. Unless you think we all start out as an animal and become human later? That would be an interesting discussion.

    Oddly enough, we have all kinds of laws to protect animals…yet you can't somehow imagine, or want to, as to why someone would want to provide protections to the same developing members of our own species.

  194. purrtriarchy
    purrtriarchy says:

    Ageing = developing into a corpse.

    Not all humans are persons. No mind, no person. Zef's are so mindless that I would say they are below animals.

  195. MarcusFenix
    MarcusFenix says:, no. That's not even in the ballpark.

    Aging (or ageing for the British) isn't a development into corpse. That…isn't even close to being accurate. Aging is the changing differences in an organism over time…you don't "grow" into a corpse. Aging is…aging. You will eventually -be- a corpse, given enough time and circumstance, but there's no stage where we go "well, they're about 50% corpsified!"

    "Not all humans are persons. No mind, no person."

    So, coma patients aren't people. Got it.

    I don't want to bore you with definitions to words and stuff, since you apparently have the "Dunce Commander Dictionary" all ready to go, but…you should check the Oxford definition of "person". That might help with your argument.

    "Zef's are so mindless that I would say they are below animals."

    And yet, animals never change. Your dog can't be taught his ABC's one day, or how to fill out a drivers license application. Your cat can't pay the cable bill, or recite Patrick Henry's famous "Give me Liberty" speech. You're still in the mindset that because potential doesn't = right this very second, that clearly it all fits into one category. It doesn't, and busts your "animals" idea in all sorts of fun ways.

    Of course, if animals are so mindless, why can't i go out and curbstomp the neighbors dog? It's mindless and I'm sentient, so…shouldn't that be ok? The fact you're making a "might makes right" argument in regards to the topic isn't lost on anyone who might read this.

  196. purrtriarchy
    purrtriarchy says:

    Ageing is the process of growing old. The body breaks down and eventually you die of this. Its part of the human life cycle!!!

    Your average coma patient has the capacity for sentience, they are temporarily not using it. The capacity literally does not exist in a zef.

    As for animals…

    1) last I checked, we eat them in the millions

    2) the neighbors dog can't use your body as life support

    3) if a mosquito bites you, you are within your rights to swat it, even though it *needs* your body to sustain its own life.

  197. MarcusFenix
    MarcusFenix says:

    "Ageing is the process of growing old. The body breaks down and eventually you die of this. Its part of the human life cycle!!!"

    Correct. But you don't age -into- a corpse. There's no magic cut off line where , "Oh, Ms Sophie's 92nd birthday is tomorrow…she'll be a poor corpse!". Aging is a part of life, but the idea that you "develop" into a corpse is nonsensical and incorrect. Nice try to paint it differently, but no.

    "Your average coma patient has the capacity for sentience, they are temporarily not using it."

    Which makes it no different than a 24 week old fetus. The fact you can't seem to recognize that fact is a bias on your part. If you knew a coma patient was going to be moving around, interacting with their environment, trying to communicate with people, and could convey basic wants or needs in say, 3 and a half months, you'd be considered a monster for pulling the plug and letting them die. I do so love it when your own statements work with me. 🙂

    As for animals:

    1. Yes. We don't eat people. So what?

    2. No, it can't…but now you're abandoning your point to move on to the Violinist experiment. I'm guessing you conceded the point prior. You do know that even the woman who created the Violinist thought experiment recognized a fetus as human, even agreed with most pro-life stances, but simply said abortion should be allowed anyway. I'll let you process that for a bit.

    3. Since humans arent bugs, you're arguing apples and oranges, with no real point to your original position. No points there either.

  198. MarcusFenix
    MarcusFenix says:

    As an aside, I would have thought by now you'd have learned that these weakly supported arguments wouldn't work on me…but see, i can be wrong at times. 🙂 Guess you're going to have to call in someone else to quote you, attribute the quote to me, and then deconstruct your ideals as if they were mine. I have to admit, that was quite entertaining, almost surreal.

  199. MarcusFenix
    MarcusFenix says:

    That's your only defense? I'm not arguing semantics at all, but you keep claiming it while engaging in it yourself. Let's do an easy demonstration.

    One of these is semantics, and the other is an accurate, factual description term. Can you tell which is which?

    "Zef's are mindless animal organisms""

    "undeveloped human organisms"

    See, one of those is a factual, actual, accurate description. The other one (the first one, in case there was some confusion) is a pejorative, dehumanizing item meant for a particular purpose.

    I'm being specific about meaning, and using terms in their actual context and definition. You, sir, are not. It's just that simple.

  200. purrtriarchy
    purrtriarchy says:

    Yes, you do age into a corpse. Gradually the organs stop working as the body breaks down – just the way it was designed to, by nature.

    Yes, a fetus does not develop the capacity for sentience until 24-27 weeks. Abortions after that period are very rare, and are for medical emergency.

    Yet here you are, trying to argue that zygotes and embryos are sentient creature because they *might* be sentient one day.

    Until a zef can function as a person, it isn't one, and has no right to be treated as one. We don't allow animals to use our bodies, and a zef is a mere animal.

  201. MarcusFenix
    MarcusFenix says:


    Thanks, Dr. Oz, for pointing out how aging works. You're conflating aging with being a corpse, which is incorrect. It's not factual. It's not science. It's nothing more than your own say-so. You don't go from part corpse to all corpse as a result of aging.

    Just as aging is part of life, death is as well…the very end of it. You are either dead, or not. You're a corpse, or you're not. The fact that this easy item gets away from you is silly. Let it go.

    "Yes, a fetus does not develop the capacity for sentience until 24-27
    weeks. Abortions after that period are very rare, and are for medical

    Which is fine. Sentience isn't, as mentioned above, a meter stick for some version of your "might makes right" idea. If that were the case, we'd kill every coma patient right now. We'd line up people who are blind and deaf as well, because they're not as sentient as you or me. I'm not sure what ideology you use where sentience is the measurnig tool for morality, but…clearly it needs some examination. If sentience were such a tool, there are all sorts of things we could simply wipe out of existence on a whim as a result, which isn't the case.

    "Yet here you are, trying to argue that zygotes and embryos are sentient creature because they *might* be sentient one day."

    See, excellent use on your part of semantics, even if i have to point it out to you. I'm arguing that a fetus is a living human organism, just as you are I, and is in the proper place. At its proper stage of development. As Wilcox often uses, and I agree, that they have the capability of being rational moral agents.

  202. purrtriarchy
    purrtriarchy says:

    They really are mindless. Minds can be observed, and zefs don't have them. 50 years of neuroscience is not wrong.

    And you can't dehumanize something that does not have anything in common with a person. A mere mindless clump of tissue that can't feel, suffer and is not even aware, because it is not a SENTIENT creature. And to take it even further, it is not possible dehumanize a zygote, which is merely DNA.

    Not all humans are persons. And only persons can be dehumanized.

  203. purrtriarchy
    purrtriarchy says:

    And you are conflating 'capacity to develop' with capacity for sentience. Just because some humans are persons does not automatically mean that all humans share those traits, or will *ever* share them. Tsk tsk.

  204. MarcusFenix
    MarcusFenix says:

    Not at all. I'm specifically saying that the capability to develop them allows for the capacity to do so. If you can develop something, you have a capacity for it. It's not hard to really see where that line of thought goes, you just don't like the answer and want to make it something else.

    "Just because some humans are persons does not automatically mean that
    all humans share those traits, or will *ever* share them. Tsk tsk."

    So, how many humans can you identify as non-persons? See where semantics gets you? Painted into a corner, having to answer a question like that, and all of your "tsk tsk"-ing in the world doesnt change the idea that you've got no real argument here. 🙂

  205. MarcusFenix
    MarcusFenix says:

    See, now we're back to the core of your argument style. When all else fails, we go back to the arguments in your post here. I'll take that as concession of your previous points, since really..there's no defending them logically anyway.

    "They really are mindless. Minds can be observed, and zefs don't have them. 50 years of neuroscience is not wrong."

    Ahh, more semantics. Aren't you accusing me of this, yet here you are doing it. Awesome. A fetus is still in development…but there's a problem with your idea. We can, in fact, know when the brain develops in a fetus. The National Institute of Health has your preconceived notions beat here.

    Looks like….week 5? If there is a brain forming, then we're only left with your definition of "mindless"…which is subjective, irrelevant, and unimportant for the purpose of the discussion. Sorry.

    "And you can't dehumanize something that does not have anything in common with a person."

    I just want to be clear with what you're saying here. Are you saying that, as a whole, none of us went through this same period of growth, or that because it doesn't have a social security number and a favorite boy band that it's not human? I mean, i notice that you're trying to bob and weave between human and person, but it's not working. still waiting for the answer about who is a person but isn't human, and so on. Can't wait to see that answer.

    You're still using sentience as the bar for morality. You never answered why, and really…i doubt you have a logical answer for it.

    But yes, please tell me about all of these humans who are not persons. I'm dying (but not corpsifying!!) to hear that.

  206. GEIxBattleRilfe
    GEIxBattleRilfe says:

    A lack of a right to life is not a automatic death sentence. Will you know go and kill off the dolphins in the zoo because they are non persons? If no, then there is no need to kill the human infant and this is something pro lifers like yourself forget again and again and again.

  207. Ingrid Heimark
    Ingrid Heimark says:

    ave you ever heard of human-ethics? Of human rights, are you saying human rights that the whole world agrees upon are based on religion? The same rights that guarantee gays the right to their relation ships based on the fact that they are humans with equal rights? They are human-based. Noone can say THAT is religion

  208. Suba gunawardana
    Suba gunawardana says:

    Using many words to criticize the argument WITHOUT providing a real rebuttal is a classic tactic of avoidance.

    I addressed this before. If the concept "humans come first at whatever horrible cost to all else" does not come from religion, then it's rooted in selfishness.

    While killing/exploiting non-humans "because we can", you pretend to have ethics for fetuses selectively. You wish to take away other people's right to kill for their own necessity & convenience, while retaining YOUR right to kill for your OWN necessity & convenience. It doesn't work that way either.

    if it's fine to kill/exploit animals "because we can", the exact same logic can be applied to fetuses.

    Not that there are no better reasons for abortion, but considering "because we can" is the real reason people use to justify killing non-humans weaker than us, why shouldn't it apply to humans weaker than us?

  209. MarcusFenix
    MarcusFenix says:

    "Using many words to criticize the argument WITHOUT providing a real rebuttal is a classic tactic of avoidance."

    Not criticism. I answered your question and you wanted to diverge it into something else. Was pretty straight forward, without avoiding it…kind of hard to use avoidance when I answered you like that.

    "I addressed this before."

    Not with me, but ok.

    " If the concept "humans come first at whatever horrible cost to all
    else" does not come from religion, then it's rooted in selfishness."

    Perhaps. I don't disagree with that necessarily. I could very easily dovetail that very sentiment into abortion…98% of them, in fact, are done as a point of selfishness/greed on some rather large levels. That doesn't make the argument religious, since you had asked "if not from religion, then where?". It seems you already had the answer to your own question.

    "While killing/exploiting non-humans "because we can", you pretend to have ethics for fetuses selectively."

    Not only is that a bold blanket statement, but patently untrue. If I've been selective in my argument with you, please show me where and how.

    "You wish to take away other people's right to kill for their own
    necessity & convenience, while retaining YOUR right to kill for your
    OWN necessity & convenience. It doesn't work that way either."

    Not sure what you're getting at here…unless you're assuming (and we know what that does), that I have a motive (or a target, no less) for such motivations. You're going to have to flesh this part out, since there's nothing of substance here so far. Who/what am i killing for convenience? You're going to have to give some details, rather than make massive blanket statements that have no bearing.

    "Not that there are no better reasons for abortion, but considering
    "because we can" is the real reason people use to justify killing
    non-humans weaker than us, why shouldn't it apply to humans weaker than

    Since this links to the last paragraph, I just have to wonder…do you have some idea that "because I can" is a reason that I, personally, am doing something? Specifically, what "non-human" am I killing for this reason, and why?

    As far as "why shouldn't it apply"…if, and that's a huge word, we're talking about killing animals….well, we're not really animals in that sense. Still not sure what you're driving at in total, so I don't want to go farther down the rabbit hole without you having a chance to explain your position in full.

  210. Suba gunawardana
    Suba gunawardana says:

    You have taken thousands of words to say nothing.
    Here, I summarized my point.

    -If it's fine to kill for your own necessity & convenience (animals, plants, humans or whatever; Any and all legalized killings that you condone and/or benefit from), you cannot oppose others exercising the same right.

    -If killing is wrong, it doesn't become magically OK when you condone it.

  211. MarcusFenix
    MarcusFenix says:

    I appreciate you making a summation of your point, though "thousands of words" is a bit overly dramatic, don't you think?

    According to MS Word, after removing the parts of the post where i quoted you, my word count was 288. You're welcome to verify that…but it's not even close to "thousands and thousands!" Leave the pseudo-hysterics elsewhere please.

    When I've read your summation, though..i find myself in something akin to the Twilight Zone. You receive answers directly, and then spout off something not connected while simultaneously saying I'm avoiding you. Very odd.

    Moving on.

    "-If it's fine to kill for your own necessity & convenience (animals,
    plants, humans or whatever; Any and all legalized killings that you
    condone and/or benefit from), you cannot oppose others exercising the
    same right."

    So, let me get this straight. You're saying that if I kill an animal, or plant, to eat (we need to eat, convenience notwithstanding), that if i think that eating food is ok, I can't tell someone else that abortion is a bad thing?

    You do realize how absolutely far apart those two lines of thinking are, yes? They're not even in the same universe. I think it's just fine for someone to kill a pig and make bacon. A pig is a source of food for a human. Just because I don't own it and kill it myself, but rely on the convenience of getting it from a grocery store….changes nothing.

    Your entire line of argument there is one really odd non-sequitur. Nothing more, nothing less.

    Even if I were to grant you some leeway, and presume you're talking about me in the specific sense, and presume we're talking about supporting something like the death penalty, that's also an entirely separate discussion with entirely different moral and legal parameters. Things like that are not mutually exclusive or intrinsically tied together.

    "If killing is wrong, it doesn't become magically OK when you condone it."

    Except for the glaring and obvious fact that I haven't condoned anything, and most of what you've put here isn't an argument.

    Try again.

  212. Fusengammu
    Fusengammu says:

    I disagree with the positions of the pro-life movement (both secular and religious), and this forum has its share of crazies on both sides, but I don't doubt the sincerity of most of the proponents of secular pro-life. I may be wrong about my pro-choice position. It could be that 100 years from now, my great-great grandchildren would be horrified at what I supported (I strongly doubt it, but…). Rainbow, you should at least hear them out before accusing others of dishonesty.

  213. Suba gunawardana
    Suba gunawardana says:

    Once again you are criticizing the argument an attempt to excuse your lack of valid rebuttal.

    This is simple. Don't need so many words.

    What is killing animals and plants (for food, clothing, entertainment, whatever)? Killing innocent individuals for our necessity & convenience.

    What is abortion? Killing innocent individuals for our necessity & convenience.

    If one is perfectly acceptable, why not the other?

  214. DianaG2
    DianaG2 says:

    To the first group, I would say, "Ok, great."

    (I would want to say, "Wait and see," but I'm not that rude. Nevertheless, if I see one of these moms ten or fifteen years later —- assuming she has not committed suicide — I believe they would have changed their minds about that so-called happiness and relief. It takes a decade or two to realize you were duped. And, it takes another few years to deal with the self-imposed trauma that a mom "chose.")

    To the second group, I would say, "Well, there is a group called Silent No More Awareness, where moms carry signs that say, 'I regret my abortion,' and dads carry signs that say, 'I regret lost fatherhood.'

    "So," — (I would continue, speaking to these moms fraught with guilt) — "I'm sure there are ALSO organizations where moms and dad's carry signs that say, "I regret that my son or daughter was ever born."

    I would tell that mom to go find one of those organizations, because thee are so many other moms marching in "pro-choice" parades displaying signs that say, "I regret that my son or daughter was ever born."

  215. MarcusFenix
    MarcusFenix says:

    "Once again you are criticizing the argument in an attempt to excuse your lack of valid rebuttal."

    Then let me make it simple. You're not making a coherent argument that requires ones. When you do, I'll make one. Otherwise, there's no actual "valid rebuttal" to be made when what you're presenting is a non sequitur

    Break down what you're saying….you're comparing the food chain and how it operates to abortion. They're nothing alike. There's no real comparison to be made here. The fact you keep trying to make it is laughable.

    In fact, it's not hard to make the argument that if you're absolutely appalled by someone eating bacon, that another person killing their biological offspring in utero would be equally abhorrent. You go the exact opposite direction, which can be labeled hypocritical, at best.

    When you can stop making ignorant comparisons about having to eat to survive versus abortion (pro tip….they're nothing alike and it's foolish to compare them)….then i'll actually have an argument to make.

  216. DianaG2
    DianaG2 says:

    The truth is, we have no way of knowing who is or is not sentient by outside observation.

    I don't know if you are sentient right now. Same for you. You have no way of knowing if I am sentient.

    That is why we go by the pairs of chromosomes. (Except for Trisomy, true. They are also human.)

    We need a verifiable standard. We have a verifiable standard.

    Pro-aborts want to wish it were not so, because they want to be free to pretend otherwise.

  217. Suba gunawardana
    Suba gunawardana says:

    You purposefully avoided the point. You know very well that food is NOT the only reason animals and plants are killed.

    (I even said so in my post).

    Try again, if you can.

  218. Suba gunawardana
    Suba gunawardana says:

    I find it quite amusing the "abortion regretters" you speak of don't seem to exist in real life (except maybe in strictly religious communities where women are TOLD what to think). Otherwise they exist only on anti-abortion websites. & no way to verify if they ever had an abortion.

    A mother supporting choice absolutely does not mean she regrets her own children.

  219. purrtriarchy
    purrtriarchy says:

    Yes we do. Minds can be observed, and fetal brains have been studied in depth. I will take 50+ years of neuroscience over your uninformed opinion.

    Fetuses register the same on an EEG as a braindead corpse. The only thing that's really active in a fetus, prior to sentience, is the brainstem. They lack the trillions of neurons and a *specific* thalamacortical hookup that gives rise to sentience. Until that develops, they are completely devoid of sentience.

    And yes, we know that were are both sentient and sapient, because we are typing on computers, and THINKING. We are self-aware. Do a brainscan of us now, and you will detect the brainwaves associated with consciousness/thinking. Do a brainscan of a pre-viability fetus and those brainwaves do not exist.

    Your ignorance is pretty astounding.

  220. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    Oh yeah, I remember you. You're the kook who thinks I was a dance instructor in another life. Look, nut… I don't teach dance, I have never taught dance, and don't even know HOW to dance in any way that any person would be crazy enough to pay me money to teach them. Hell, I've never even taken dancing lessons, so it would be very difficult for me to teach it. Go away and hump someone else's leg, mkay?

  221. Jennifer Starr
    Jennifer Starr says:

    What planet are you on? I'm actually familiar with that particular instructor–she still teaches and knows a friend of mine and they don't even look alike–they don't even live in the same state.

  222. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    I don't see "unwanted" as a weak angle, particularly when referring to one's right to make decisions about one's own body and health. If you have cancer all through your body (for example) and you don't want surgery, chemo or radiation, and wish instead to enter palliative care, no one has the right to force you. That's something we take for granted as adults living in a free society. The right to self-determination. You start with the premise that you DO have the right to force others to make life-or-death decisions in a manner that you agree with. You don't.

  223. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    Actually science has established that bacterium are indeed life. They are single-celled life, as any elementary biology student knows. Viruses are different, in that they aren't fully "life" because they lack features common to living organisms, yet they can be killed and they do multiply in a parasitic fashion. If viruses could not be killed, we wouldn't have vaccines.

  224. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    I sort of enjoy having one day where my children can honor me, and they do every day, but a call or card to thank me for my part in making them the people they are today is nice. All people enjoy being thanked for a job well-done.

  225. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    No they are not the same. But they are both part of the human condition, and have been around for a long time. Abortion and contraception are not the same as infanticide or abandonment, either. If you make the first two impossible, you make the last two inevitable.

  226. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    This is MRA garbage. He has no say in a pregnancy because he isn't pregnant. Once there are feet on the ground, those feet have a right to support from BOTH biological (or adoptive) parents. The rights of a born child are not abrogated by decisions made by adults before the child is born.

  227. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    By the way. he might even have a point if women reproduced on their own. Neither men nor women reproduce on their own, and it's not an instantaneous process, like a bacterium that divides in two. A lot happens between conception and birth, and none of it happens in the body of a man. That's where his argument falls apart.

  228. MarcusFenix
    MarcusFenix says:

    Then you're purposely not making an actual point. Sure, food isn't the only reason we kill anything. Of course, you didn't ask if i thought hunting for sport was wrong (which i do think is a bad thing, btw)…but there's a larger point.

    You're. Not. Making. An. Actual. Argument.

    Trying to compare the action of chopping up lettuce to make a salad and banking it against the issue of abortion isn't relevant, isn't a proper comparison at any level, isn't even in the same universe as being anything alike, and is a non sequitur. It's not an argument. Stop asking for a rebuttal to something that is not an argument, start making an argument that has something to do with the topic at hand, and you'll get an actual rebuttal.

    You'll asked a question to start off with and got a direct answer. You waffled on even that.

    Stop with the nonsense and make a point that is worth something, and we'll go from there.

  229. MarcusFenix
    MarcusFenix says:

    It's like a broken record with you.

    Sentience is not a bar that's used to gauge anything. I asked you specifically before to point out where and why you thought that was the case. You can keep talking about it all day, but it doesn't change the fact that sentience isn't used as a measuring stick for morality. Done and done.

    If you want to talk about something meaningless, then perhaps we could start by you answering a question like that, rather than just jumping from point to point as they get smashed upon the proverbial rocks.

    "And no, not all humans are persons. We value humanity for our minds, not our bodies."

    That second bit isn't a universal statement, but that's a quibble on my part.

    I'll ask for the 3rd time…how is a person not a human? You've yet to answer that. Notice a pattern…you are asked a question, but keep going on about other, non important items?

  230. purrtriarchy
    purrtriarchy says:

    Not all humans are persons.

    I will try to make it realllly simple for you.

    Persons have minds. Animals do not. Zef's do not have minds. Neither do anencephalic babies and beating heart cadavers. Those without minds do not qualify as people and this is why we pull the plug and do not keep non sentient humans on any sort of life support. Unless we are delusional of course. Only persons have a right to life, and, judging by the above example if personhood is missing (no mind) there is no right to life. Zef's are mindless animal organisms, in fact, they are beneath that, since even my cat has more brainpower than a zygote.

  231. MarcusFenix
    MarcusFenix says:

    Sorry, but using "FAIL" doesn't give you a win. It makes you look like a child.

    The ability to develop a trait you innately possess is different from something you don't. In this case, you're comparing the ability for a developing fetus to be something different later, in a stage of growth, with their ability to play basketball later in life.

    For whatever reason, you can't seem to process what naturally develops in it's own course, with skills and traits developed as a part of learning or other processes.

    "And non-persons = mindless bodies."

    Which makes them no less human, but "non-person" would be a bit offensive to the families of those folks, eh? A person is defined as an individual, not by sentience or some other elusive measuring bar you don't want to talk about. A person in a vegetative state is no less the individual, regardless of their cognitive ability. If use of your cognitive functions is a measure of humanity, most people you know would be less human than a member of MENSA. People with mental disabilities would be 3/5 of a person? Notice how your measuring tool there is weak and without merit.

    Also, the uncomfortable item you lost last time we discussed this point is, again, that a "zef" (an abbbreviation designed to be dehumanizing in your context), when left alone and under normal circumstances, would be all the things you claim have value…..sentience, viability, and be a person….while your use of the aforementioned "non-persons" are not capable of returning to that state. The fact you lump a developing item with one damaged beyond repair and equate the two is incorrect. Notice earlier that I pointed out someone would be monstrous for pulling the plug on someone you knew was going to wake up?

    You had no answer for that, and still dont.

  232. MarcusFenix
    MarcusFenix says:

    Oh, it's you.

    Thanks for telling me what my preferences and premises are…that's an excellent way to start out on your part.

    "Unwanted" is a weak angle because it's fluid and subjective. It's not a definitive state of being, nor a constant or unchanging one.

    The rest isn't worth much. Unless you equate pregnancy with cancer or other items, then you've got nothing. Sorry.

  233. purrtriarchy
    purrtriarchy says:

    Zef's don't have minds, unlike the disabled.

    And no, I will repeat, the capacity to develop a trait does not mean you already possess that trait. It only denotes potential, nothing more.

  234. MarcusFenix
    MarcusFenix says:

    If you could please show where that is the case, you might have a point. Sorry if I don't accept your word at face value, given the decades of research and other reports that contradict you.

    Specifically, you're confused with something being "alive", in the case of bacteria, as "life", which in context and use has a totally different meaning.

    Good luck with showing your work on this one.

  235. MarcusFenix
    MarcusFenix says:

    Addressed this earlier, no need to repeat.

    I will put here that the reason we pull the plug, as it were, is because we have a reasonable expectation that the person (yes, the person) isn't going to get up again. They are not going to wake up, not going to function, and not going to do anything except lay there for as long as we have machines to keep them alive.

    Notice the comparison…a permanent situation there versus a temporary one elsewhere. Again, if you knew one of those people was going to be awake, functional, and go on to live a full life after a few months, you'd be a monster for pulling the plug and would be universally condemned for doing so. the fact you can't reconcile those two points, much less argue other points effectively without having to skip to others right afterward, are really all we need to see.

    I also notice you keep using zygote when it's a way to try and shift the discussion in a specific way, but use "zef" otherwise….subtle, but not useful.

  236. MarcusFenix
    MarcusFenix says:

    But using your logic, the disabled are less human because they're less sentient, because they're less cognitive in their process, and in your continuing line of thinking where might makes right, then we'd be free to snap their neck at will because well, they're not worth as much as you or me.

    If you looked at the NIH chart I sent you, at 11 weeks or so, a fetus can ball their hands up and uncurl them again..which is 10 times more than someone in a "mindless" coma can do. Wonder how that works?

    You can repeat it all you like, but the fact that it develops and comes into being, while everything else you mention is the result of something being destroyed or damaged, speaks for itself. You keep talking about potential and dismissing it, as if what's going on right this second is all that matters. Very short sighted, and incorrect when banked against your comparisons.

    Hope that's easy enough for you.

  237. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    Bacteria are life. They are single-celled flora and fauna. Because they are cells, they meet the description of life as being cell-based. They metabolize and excrete, and reproduce without the need to parasitically use other cells to do so. And you owe your own health to the fact that your digestive tract (gut) is full of "good" bacteria that break down your waste and keep harmful pathogens in check. Do you enjoy eating yogurt and cheese? They are produced by the life-processes of bacteria. Whether or not you believe me or not is irrelevant to me. I'm not your teacher or your Mommy and I do not think you're cute when you drool. DON'T take my word for it. You are obviously bright enough to use the internet. Go and look for yourself.

  238. MarcusFenix
    MarcusFenix says:

    Sorry, but that's not showing your work.

    "You are obviously bright enough to use the internet. Go and look for yourself."

    Onus probandi. YOU are making the claim, so YOU have to back it up. I'm not going to go looking for the answers to your premises. If you want to prove your point, then you use the internet and YOU prove your point. Stop asking others to do the work for you.

    So no, i don't take your word for it, unless you've got something to back it up.

    Of course, you bypassed the nuanced meaning of "alive" versus "life", but don't let such petty details get in the way of being pedantic.

  239. purrtriarchy
    purrtriarchy says:

    Those movements are reflexive actions and they do not signify any sort of consciousness.

    I personally draw the line at the capacity for sentience, so your slippery slope fallacy regarding the disabled will not fly with me.

  240. MarcusFenix
    MarcusFenix says:

    so, enough mind for reflexs (more than the aforementioned patient), but nothing else. For a few weeks. Oh no,it's not right this second, what ever will we do?

    It's not a "slippery slope" when what we're discussing is the natural, biological development of a species. Trying to use a slippery slope fallacy for something that is a biological process that's been observed billions of times is laughable at best.

    Also, your line drawing means nothing, since you seem to arbitrarily draw lines where they suit you, and only for your purposes. There's nothing logical, or even consistent, with it. So, you "personally drawing the line" means absolutely nothing.

  241. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    You made the initial assertion that bacteria are not life. You prove that you are correct. My biology education tells me otherwise. There is no distinction between life and being alive. When you never were alive, or you have ceased being alive, you are not "life" either.

  242. MarcusFenix
    MarcusFenix says:

    I also provided 3 independent links showing my work. You're welcome to verify them if you like, but they're clearly there for you to read. The fact you either didn't bother, or didn't care, doesn't make a hill of beans. I made a claim and then provided evidence to that effect.

    "There is no distinction between life and being alive."

    Science disagrees with you…as those links show. Imagine that!

    " When you never were alive, or you have ceased being alive, you are not "life" either.

    If we're talking about inanimate objects, such as a rock, sure…they don't fit. The scientific definition of life is well established…but again, i showed my work. You, however, have not, and keep making bare assertions that anyone who went through a biology class would be correct to counter.

  243. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    As is the case with many links your side offers, these links do not say what you think they say. These links all go to what I would consider reputable citations, but they make no mention of bacteria. Only viruses, which I clearly stated are NOT life. Viruses are organic compounds but they are not themselves alive. Viruses are not bacteria. Now prove your assertion or be known as a liar.

  244. MarcusFenix
    MarcusFenix says:

    Then what do they say?

    Where is the error? You do realize that calling me a liar, when you offer nothing to justify that, is pointless?

    Do you typically level charges of bulverism and show up empty handed? I mean,it's not unheard of for you to be judgmental, whiny, and without merit in an argument, but you could do it with some panache sometimes.

    Also, "your side" is a bit pejorative. I'm offering you fact. You're turning them down, because the person using the source (which you yourself claim to be fine with) disagrees with you.

    Now, prove your assertions or scurry back into your hole. You do know how debates work, right?

  245. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    I already told you that all three links are about viruses. Why are you asking me what they say? YOU POSTED THEM. I accept your concession. Now begone, unless you have some proof to offer that bacteria are not life. We can grow them in petri dishes (nutrient base). Viruses can only be grown inside living cells. I don't know what PART of that is confusing to you, but you're beginning to bore me. Put up or shut up.

  246. MarcusFenix
    MarcusFenix says:

    Yes, you did. You also didn't take into account the nuances we spoke of earlier, and chose to ignore them. So, congratulations for cherry picking an argument that you state, up front, uses proper sources.

    You've not offered me any proof. What part of SHOW YOUR WORK didn't sink in? What part of "provide a source" or even just doing anything other than bloviating for your own sake did you not understand? So yes, please…put up or shut up.

    Yes, boredom…the first refuge and final resting place for the unimaginative and simple. I get bored with you after a while, but only because you simply can't be bothered to make an argument, and rely on a bare assertion the entire time as if your word is above reproach.

    Post some facts, use some science, show me the work, or don't bother coming back.

  247. MarcusFenix
    MarcusFenix says:

    Hell, lets say i play along with your childish display….bacteria are off the table. Do you care to respond to the rest of it, or are you so hung up on a single point that you can't be bothered without wiping the foam from your mouth first?

  248. DianaG2
    DianaG2 says:

    "Hyperbole is the use of exaggeration as a rhetorical device or figure of speech."

    The point was claiming "unwanted" is no reason to kill the little guy or gal before birth.

    Oh, dear. It's difficult to pick who is more charming, gracious, intelligent and lovely?

    Lady Black, or Jennifer Starr?

    Tough call.

  249. purrtriarchy
    purrtriarchy says:

    Reflexes like that originate from the lower brain. Its meaningless. Brainstem has ZERO to do with sentience.

    And yes, you are using a slippery slope fallacy by talking about the disabled. They are conscious beings. Zef's are not.

    And the line means everything, since we value humanity for our minds, not our bodies, which is why no one bothers keeping anencephalic babies on life support for 30 years. If bodies mattered just as much as minds, we would keep every individual with a dead cerebral cortex alive indefinitely. We do not.

  250. purrtriarchy
    purrtriarchy says:


    Zef's have potential, nothing more. The point of the braindead patient is to point out that minds are associated with personhood, not bodies

  251. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    I did give you the science, you were not paying attention. "Life" is such a broad term that defining it becomes characterizing it by what we observe about living organisms. A living organism engages in metabolism ("eating" and "eliminating"), respiration, and reproduction. All living organism engage in these activities. A virus, which cannot reproduce outside a living cell, and do not metabolize or breathe (respiration) doesn't qualify as "life." A bacteria DOES qualify as life. You can verify this as easily as googling "bacteria."

  252. MarcusFenix
    MarcusFenix says:

    You've completely missed the point, Lady.

    I asked for you to show the evidence. Not to tell me about it. Pretty simple. I'm going to let you show your work.

  253. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    I do not care to engage you about abortion. The ZEF is both alive and human. Alive and human are not qualifiers that entitle use of someone else's body to sustain that life.

  254. MarcusFenix
    MarcusFenix says:

    Yet, don't happen elsewhere. Odd how that works out.

    -You- are talking about a slippery slope. I'm talking about the progression of human development. Different items. But if there's a slope, i'm simply using your logic and reasoning to generate it.

    A line may mean something, but you're drawing them at will and without any regards to the bigger picture, which is evident by your drawing of the "personal line". A personal line anywhere counts for exactly zero.

    I don't disagree that people who are brain dead and never will get up go through a process..but you're using the same permanent example to then liken it to the temporary situation elsewhere is incorrect, which is the same point i've been making all along.

  255. MarcusFenix
    MarcusFenix says:

    You don't care to engage, and that's fine…it's not an engagement in which you'd fair well. I applaud your restraint and self preservation.

    You would, however, be slightly wrong about the last part. Since you're using it, the Violinist thought experiment has been revised and discussed, by the author herself. As i pointed out to dunce commander earlier, the original author even agreed with most points, as far as the stance pro-life has, but simply went on to say that she felt it was fine to abort anyway, regardless.

    Past that…well, there's not much to discuss then.

  256. Jennifer Starr
    Jennifer Starr says:

    Actually, I asked the question very politely. And yes, I know what hyperbole is. Your statement was more confusing than hyperbolic, which is why I asked for clarification.

  257. MarcusFenix
    MarcusFenix says:

    Hardly. I've been consistent with my argument. I never made the connotation that i didn't inject them, as others have and as you yourself have referenced. Why is that hard for you to keep straight? I simply took your premise, and followed it to the conclusion that was most logical, given the fact you're all over the map and keep having to change arguments back and forth when one no longer works.

    Keep your shit straight, as it were, and this goes easier.

  258. MarcusFenix
    MarcusFenix says:

    Yet, the braindead have zero potential. They're braindead, as it were…there's nothing left for potential. Nowhere left to go, nothing left to do, no growth to be had and no life to be lived.

    Again, you keep conflating temporary and permanent, and trying to make a case. It's incorrect, and your repeated attempts to do so simply show you have no real rational argument to make otherwise.

  259. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    Look, you are undoubtedly alive and human. That doesn't mean you can hook yourself up to someone and demand that they breathe for you. Even if its your parent, and even if you'll die otherwise. Those are my thoughts on abortion. The bodies of women are not public property, and the gift of bodily donation is just that, a gift. Not an obligation.

  260. MarcusFenix
    MarcusFenix says:

    but you said i was a liar and needed to go look my own stuff up! LOL…..

    I showed my work, you then told me to go research your point, and i said "no". Simple as that.

    You're done.

  261. MarcusFenix
    MarcusFenix says:

    And right on time, the repeat of the Violinist experiment as the end all, be all of discussion points.

    I would ask that you educate yourself about the thought experiment, and its counters, before making this argument again.

    It's on the internet, I'm sure you can look it up and find it. 🙂

  262. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    I'm calling you a liar because your "work" didn't prove your assertion insofar as I disagreed with it. Your "work" did a fine job of proving that what I said was true. But since you didn't bother reading your "work" I am under no obligation to regurgitate on command for you what your own references state. Hint: Your "work" says that bacteria are life, and viruses are not, proving my assertion. Now YOU'RE DONE.

  263. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    Yeah I'm familiar with that argument and it's fallacious. I am not required to provide either "ordinary" nor "extraordinary" bodily donation for sake of anyone else. Take a hike. My body belongs to me, exclusively and I will do with it as I like.

  264. MarcusFenix
    MarcusFenix says:

    so, now tie it back to the topic in hand, since you've caught me red handed! Oh noes!

    Or, are you not willing to engage?

    All you do is regurgitate. I just figured it was a natural state for you. My bad.

  265. Adam Peters
    Adam Peters says:

    "A rapist gives up his rights while raping someone, i.e. while violating someone's body."

    Yes, a rapist chooses to violate his victim's body. At what point in a pregnancy does a fetus choose to violate her or his mother?

  266. MarcusFenix
    MarcusFenix says:

    Ok, so why is it fallacious, other than your injection of "ordinary" or "extraordinary"?

    You're more than welcome to do what you want with -your- body. Of course, you'd already know the Violinist experiment was dealing with 2, or the charge that pro life levels is that there's 2 involved. You clearly are fine with making a judgment about yourself, and that's great.

    But the fact you're more worried about the lives of viruses and bacteria rather than human beings is a bit telling.

    So, feel free to hike wherever you like, while you go round and round with zero rational, moral, or philosophical reasoning beyond what equates to "because i can"….

    Which, you'll find oddly enough, was smashed elsewhere in this thread. Do you typically subscribe to "might makes right?" Quite the stance to uphold.

  267. Suba gunawardana
    Suba gunawardana says:

    You repeating something till you are blue in the face, doesn’t make it true.

    I simplified my point several times. If you still cannot grasp it, the problem is yours, not mine. (Forced-birthers come in a range, but many of them actually can grasp a point. Their general problem is wth responding. YOU have a problem with both).

    Anyway, I will try to simplify it even further: Fetuses are NOT the only innocent individuals in this world. The same forced-birthers who oppose abortion because “it kills the innocent” have no qualms on killing OTHER innocent individuals for their own necessity & convenience
    when it suits them. If “killing the innocent” is wrong, it doesn’t magically become OK when forced-birthers do it.

    “You'll asked a question to start off with and got a direct answer.”

    Wrong again. My question was where the concept that “humans come first at the expense of everything else” originated. You went on & on about morality, which has nothing to do with my question. Unless morality means selfishness & subjugation of others. Does it? Now that was a direct question.

  268. MarcusFenix
    MarcusFenix says:

    "You repeating something till you are blue in the face, doesn’t make it true."

    Correct. why do you keep doing it then?

    "I simplified my point several times. If you still cannot grasp it, the problem is yours, not mine."

    You made a point multiple times. Did you notice that i read it, posted "this isn't a real argument and the two aren't alike", and then let it go? I'm guessing not.

    "(Forced-birthers come in a range, but many of them actually can grasp a
    point. Their general problem is wth responding. YOU have a problem with

    Forced deathers (i can be pejorative too!) can't seem to grasp the concept that nursery school sing about, which is "one of these things is not like the other".

    You're comparing the need to eat to something completely unrelated. It's not a complicated concept to see, but clearly for you it's an issue.

    "Anyway, I will try to simplify it even further: Fetuses are NOT the only innocent individuals in this world."

    No one said they weren't. You're making another non-point.

    "The same forced-birthers who oppose abortion because “it kills the
    innocent” have no qualms on killing OTHER innocent individuals for their
    own necessity & convenience"

    The same forced deathers who make this error-filled comparison simply are using a conjuction incorrectly. I have a problem with killing innocent humans, as well as killing for sport or other pointless and needless death. If your own view was consistent, you couldn't support one end of your argument (animals and the poor helpless plants!), and then turn around and say it's ok on the other end. Terribly inconsistent.

    "If “killing the innocent” is wrong, it doesn’t magically become OK when forced-birthers do it."

    So, if we can't kill a plant or an animal to eat, what do we do? Notice how easily your comparison is jacked up with such a simple concept? You're conflating two things that have *nothing* to do with the other, and calling it an argument. It's a non-argument…a non sequitur. It's also silly.

    Wrong again. My question was where the concept that “humans come first
    at the expense of everything else” originated. You went on & on
    about morality, which has nothing to do with my question. "

    Actually, from's your statement:

    "You dodged my question. Where does that concept come from if not from religion?"

    I didn't dodge the question. I stated that morality (which a major item in the abortion debate, in case you were somehow oblivious for some reason, which is likely) was independent of religion. Your question was answered with a broad, applicable example. The morality a person has can be based on, or not at all be based on, religion. Do you believe atheists are somehow absolutely morally bankrupt? If so, then….well, they'll want to have a conversation with you.

    If not…then now you've got an answer. you just don't like the answer. Not my problem.

    So yes, the position being argued is a moral one, a legal one, a philisophical one…all kinds of facets. I answered with the moral part of it. Please keep up.

    "Unless morality means selfishness & subjugation of others. Does it? Now that was a direct question."

    To answer directly….in case it's not obvious that i'm doing that this time….morality is the process of determining what is right or wrong. If i were to tell you that forcibly subjugating someone else to be somewhere they don't want or have no control over is wrong, would you then agree that abortion would be morally wrong as a result, since that's the case? No. You'd argue a different point, bypassing the uncomfortable question involved.

    You do know what morality is, and how it works (both personally and socially) right?

  269. purrtriarchy
    purrtriarchy says:

    You should know, your entire method of debating is by playing word games, it's all you ever do.

    And no, a zef's state is not 'temporary' because you are *assuming* that they will gain sentience in every single case. Well, they won't. So, to treat something as if it is sentient when there is no guarantee that it will EVER become sentient is to treat the potential as the actual.And, even if they were to gain sentience in every single case, they still do not have the right to be treated as sentient beings before they are sentient, just as we don't treat people like corpses before they die, even though we know that everyone will die someday. We treat people and things for what they ARE, not for what they might be.

  270. MarcusFenix
    MarcusFenix says:

    It's funny how defining things specifically and in direct context counts to you as "word games".

    If so, you're poor at them.

    "And no, a zef's state is not 'temporary' because you are *assuming* that they will gain sentience in every single case."

    See, word games.

    I'm simply using the basic biological and normal processes that an unborn child goes through, from conception to birth, to base a judgment on it. Either you don't get that, don't want to get that, or want to use exceptions and faulty comparisons as something legitimate. It's not, and you get upset and go all broken record on me when i don't let you get away with it.

    "And, even if they were to gain sentience in every single case, they
    still do not have the right to be treated as sentient beings before they
    are sentient…."

    Yet, we can logically and consistently show how that process ends up, after birth. Are you arguing that life starts basically at birth, or some other strange idea?

    "So, to treat something as if it is sentient when there is no guarantee
    that it will EVER become sentient is to treat the potential as the

    so, we're back to using exceptions and bad generalizations to justify your point. Must be where your "personal life" was drawn, for this particular post.

    " We treat people and things for what they ARE, not for what they might be."

    Ohhh, more word games. Love it. Let's do this.

    I look at a fetus as alive, and human, in it's proper state of development and in the proper location. As stated, I agree with Wilcox that the idea that humans are rational, moral agents….you get the idea, right?

    So, to wit…if i see something as alive and human, but you don't…is that just your personal line getting in the way again, or do you agree that a fetus is alive and human? Since sentience is an arbitrary bar you already admitted earlier to just drawing for yourself, let's deal with more concrete items. Or, "word games", as you call them.

    Easy line of thought…if I can show where a fetus is both alive and human, from the moment it starts….your next reply is going to be personhood. I'll reject it and your coloring book mentality, and you'll flip to something else, hence the word games.

    You've never answered me about the moral underpinnings (remember, i've asked those before today), nor have you justified any real line as being anything other than arbitrary.

    So please, stick to one sentence responses. It takes me less time to roll my eyes and respond with the same thing over and over again, since i'm having to deal with a broken record.

  271. purrtriarchy
    purrtriarchy says:

    The concept of “capacity” is directly related to something that exists right now. An unborn human does not “right now” possess the capacity to be a person-class being.

  272. MarcusFenix
    MarcusFenix says:

    See, I was right. Thanks for avoiding the larger points at the bottom, and skipping right to the broken record.

    Capacity, in the sense of living things, develops. We can agree at least on that, right?

    consider an easy example. A foundation for a house has the potential to be a house. I don't have the foreman on the site bulldoze it down because it's not a house right now.

  273. MarcusFenix
    MarcusFenix says:

    We may be at different ends of a debate, but this is a refreshing post and i applaud you for putting it here.

    In the interest of not arguing (isn't there enough of that already?), I would ask in an innocent fashion…if you believe there is an error in the pro-choice line of thinking, where would it be? Or do you believe that there is one? I ask, because the realization that your future family members may see it that way would indicate that there's at least a method to demonstrate that stance.

    Curious. No judgments or snark from me on this one. Asking a question, and nothing more. 🙂

  274. Rainbow Walker
    Rainbow Walker says:

    I appreciate your civility. However, you seem to think this is my first rodeo. I have studied the so called
    secular pro-life movement at length. It always goes back to churches. All these so called secular movements get church funds. I would love for the owners of this blog to post the domain ownership and their funding sources.

    If a so called atheist must lie about science they aren’t atheists, they are wolves in sheep’s clothing; i.e. believers.

  275. Rainbow Walker
    Rainbow Walker says:

    How can one be right for bringing a point if the point is invalid?

    Furthermore you don’t understand the law. The law doesn’t operate inside the realm of science [while it may listen to expert testimony it is not necessary for constitutional matters]. If it did most of these laws and rights
    wouldn’t exist. Creating a legal fiction [a juridical person] does not mean
    it’s “alive”. A corporation is seen as a juridical person, yet it has no pulse, but is driven by individuals. Having a pulse is not a prerequisite for rights.
    Cognition however is.

    And no, legally speaking it has not been settled, for these arguments have yet to be posed before a court.

    Your science is also misdirected. That’s why I disagree with your links.

    Viruses are being classified as living creatures.

    new study suggests they should, showing that giant viruses have some of the
    most ancient protein structures found in all organisms on the planet.”

    If single celled organisms can be trained to navigate a maze, mimic the layout of man-made transportation
    networks and choose the healthiest food from a diverse menu it proves these creatures don’t need the benefit of a brain or a central nervous system to
    solve problems and store memory. Humans however cannot function without them.


    Bacteria are already considered alive. So are microbes and parasites. Although all these need a host to survive, by definition all life needs an environment to survive as well. Humans can be called a virus on the earth. We drain the host and give nothing in return.

    So by your definition even your so called scientific argument fails.

    So Physarum polycephalum [slime
    mold] could be the first single celled organism to be declared a juridical
    person, if your fetal personhood hypothesis flies. And there goes all medical treatment. Back to the middle ages.

  276. MarcusFenix
    MarcusFenix says:

    As devil's advocate…would it not stand to reason, in these cases, that the enemy of my enemy is my friend?

    If two groups, even with different agendas, support the same thing..then it makes sense that such support would come in different forms. It doesn't immediately tie one intrinsically to the other. Just my 2 cents.

  277. purrtriarchy
    purrtriarchy says:

    SPL also doesn't seem to mind having their links posted on LAN and LIFESITE where they routinely bash atheism and blame atheists for abortion and every other conceivable crime.

  278. MarcusFenix
    MarcusFenix says:

    while i disagree with your slippery slope idea at the end, i'm willing to concede to you that my knowledge on the subject was dated. LB doesn't get such concession, since she's basically a harpy. 😉

    "Furthermore you don’t understand the law."

    I'm not arguing the legality of the issue, so…claiming i don't understand a facet i'm not arguing isn't really valid on it's face.

    "And no, legally speaking it has not been settled, for these arguments have yet to be posed before a court."

    Hence why i didn't make that argument.

    "Your science is also misdirected. That’s why I disagree with your links.

    Viruses are being classified as living creatures."

    Dated, yes. I'm willing to eat crow and say i was wrong, so thanks for pointing it out and not being a total Lady Black about it. However, if I pull a page from DC's playbook down there, potential doesn't = actual, and therefore you would be wrong, using his own logic. I'll let you work the details out with him. 🙂

    "If single celled organisms can be trained to navigate a maze, mimic the layout of man-made transportation
    and choose the healthiest food from a diverse menu it proves these
    creatures don’t need the benefit of a brain or a central nervous system
    solve problems and store memory."

    Would have to read the report. Is it really being taught, or is it navigating in a pattern due to outside stimuli and physical barriers? Again, would need to read the report, but it's a point to be made.

    "Humans can be called a virus on the earth. We drain the host and give nothing in return."

    We could, but then we'd be stretching the definition past the basic parameters of established thought. We can make the analogy, and in some cases I'd agree with you, but it doesn't make us a virus, or make life worth less as a result of comparison.

    "So by your definition even your so called scientific argument fails."

    Except when we stay with what actually is defined…there's that.

    "So Physarum polycephalum [slime
    mold] could be the first single celled organism to be declared a juridical
    person, if your fetal personhood hypothesis flies. "

    The easy error to point out is that a slime mold will never have a drivers license. Never go to school, or do other human things. It's not human, and using a bad comparison simply doesn't change that, no matter how sophisticated your rebuttal. slime will never be given personhood as long as there is at least one person with more than 3 brain cells sitting on a bench. It's just not a real thing.

    Based on this, it's not a logical stretch to point to your last item as being irrational and not a point, and move on.

    Thanks for the reply.

  279. MarcusFenix
    MarcusFenix says:

    and nothing but one lines and out of hand dismissals from you…or broken record mentality.

    Points for using "bafflegab", but nothing past that for not being able to actually place a rebuttal.

  280. Suba gunawardana
    Suba gunawardana says:

    Intent of the invader matters ONLY regarding determining their guild/innocence (if you wish to press charges). It has nothing to do with your right to protect your body.

    Your right to protect your body does not diminish due to the invaders' innocence or lack of intent.

    You may CHOOSE to accommodate an invader at the expense of your body, but you should never be obligated to do so. The choice is yours alone.

  281. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    You are very dim for someone who claims the ability to read my mind. I told you what is fallacious. My body belongs to ME and nothing "belongs there" without my consent. My vagina was "made" to receive a penis, but that doesn't mean it's ok for anyone to stick their penis there without my consent. I'm so not impressed by arguments that fetuses "belong" in the uterus. While it true that if someone wants a baby, the use of a uterus is (at least for now) essential to the process. But if the woman doesn't want it in her body it has no natural claim to be there. Especially since it's doing more in there than merely taking up space. Also known as the "tiny house" argument. The woman owns the house, full stop. It doesn't matter that it's only nine months. That isn't justified for nine days.

  282. MarcusFenix
    MarcusFenix says:

    "You are very dim for someone who claims the ability to read my mind."

    that street goes 2 ways, remember…scroll back up for reminders.

    " I told you what is fallacious."

    Wrong. You stated you thought it was fallacious…you didn't say what fallacy it was. There's a wiiiiide group of them to choose from. Can you name one or two of them? Are they logos or mythos? Formal or informal? And why?

    See, that's more of "show your work"…so go for it.

    "My body belongs to ME and nothing "belongs there" without my consent."

    Which is fine, when we're talking about rape, etc….totally agree. Past that, there becomes a difference of opinion about who was culpable of putting what and where…but you said you didn't want to engage this, so……

    " I'm so not impressed by arguments that fetuses "belong" in the uterus."

    So where do they "belong"? And why use quotes? flesh that out.

    "While it true that if someone wants a baby, the use of a uterus is (at least for now) essential to the process."

    Actually, it's essential as an objective point. Later on, if it's not…then we both can agree that such advances would be awesome. It would reduce on-demand abortion AND remove your argument as being necessary. We both would win. 🙂

    "But if the woman doesn't want it in her body it has no natural claim to be there."

    Interesting choice of words…since it wasn't placed their by its own choice, or any other process other than the actions of others. Again, a divergent point you've said you don't want to engage.

    " Also known as the "tiny house" argument."

    I'm familiar with Jarvis-Thompson and her thought experiment here as well. Since i say show your work, I'd like to point out some rebuttals to her, starting with SPL's own Clinton Wilcox:

    (I've linked page one of five, and five of five…you're welcome to read the reviews with the links on that page.

    Here are a few more, just for extra credit…though whatever religious content there may be is neutral to me and i'm not interested in it specifically.

    I could link rebuttals until tomorrow morning when my fingers bleed. I'm sure you get the idea. Also, would ask you to (again) read Jarvis-Thompson herself. She agrees with more than some pro-abortion folks like to admit.

    " It doesn't matter that it's only nine months. That isn't justified for nine days."

    You've stated you didn't want to engage this, again, so…unless you do, I'll let this stand as just…nada for either of us.

  283. MarcusFenix
    MarcusFenix says:

    "I am under no obligation to regurgitate on command for you what your own
    references state. Hint: Your "work" says that bacteria are life, and
    viruses are not, proving my assertion."

    See, you regurgitate naturally.

    I made a comment about this error to someone else who wasn't a complete harpy, so you're welcome to read that above.

    At least one though? Heavens no, it's a full blown bum rush!

    It's fun watching you be a harpy though…i find it amusing. thanks for the entertainment! 🙂

  284. Suba gunawardana
    Suba gunawardana says:

    You took another thousand words to say nothing. Of course your "rebuttal" would be to whine "it was less than a thousand". Basically all you do use an inordinate amount of words focusing on inane details & criticizing the argument, while refusing to address the argument itself.

    Even your attempt at childish retaliation makes no sense, and even technically incorrect:

    Forced-birthers are those who force others to give birth against their will, by taking the choice of abortion away. Who are forced deathers? No one is FORCING anyone else to have an abortion. Its their own choice.

    “Actually, from's your statement:"You dodged my question. Where does that concept come from if not from religion?" I didn't dodge the question”

    Could you BE more wrong? Go back & look at that post again. Was it even addressed to you? Had I even asked you any question before that? What are you on?

    Finally back to the point: Looks like you are totally unable to grasp that plants can feel pain, so let’s start with animals.

    Meat/animal products are not essential for survival. So killing animals is not a NECESSITY. How would you feel if every time you sat down to eat or went to the store, some vegans were in your face yelling “stop killing the innocent!” That’s exactly what forced birthers are doing
    to pregnant women.

  285. MarcusFenix
    MarcusFenix says:

    "You took another thousand words to say nothing. Of course your "rebuttal" would be to whine "it was less than a thousand".

    Do long responses confuse you or cause you distress? I pointed out that you were being overly dramatic saying "thousands and thousands"…which was true. It wasn't a rebuttal. It was a rejection of your non argument and overly dramatic responses.

    Now that we've cleared that up, lets move on.

    "Basically all you do use an inordinate amount of words focusing on inane
    details & criticizing the argument, while refusing to address the
    argument itself."

    Did you miss the part where me saying that you comparing eating, or the food chain, to abortion was not an actual argument. Let me say it again.


    There you go.

    "Who are forced deathers? No one is FORCING anyone else to have an abortion. Its their own choice."

    so, pejorative for thee, but not for me? The fetus involved is forced into the procedure, or did that somehow get away from you in the discussion.

    You do know this is a discussion about abortion rights and the like…not animal rights, not how immoral someone is for cutting up lettuce in a salad or w/e other idiotic analogy you want to try and draw from this. Get over it.

    "Meat/animal products are not essential for survival. So killing animals is not a NECESSITY."

    This is called "whataboutery". Are you trying to say that only vegan people are correct about abortion? See, stupid conclusion from a non argument!

    "How would you feel if every time you sat down to eat or went to the
    store, some vegans were in your face yelling “stop killing the

    I'd feel they had a right to their free speech, whether I agree or not. Just because they have the right to say it doesn't make them automatically correct, or that they even have a real point. You're still mixing the two.

    Humans arent cows, or chickens, or pigs…so get over that too, please.

    " That’s exactly what forced birthers are doing
    to pregnant women."

    That's not what people are "doing", though i'm sure you're eager to post links about people in front of clinics and the like….which i already can tell you i disagree with the disruptive portions. More often than not, their presence there is peaceful, but…don't let facts get in the way.

    Sorry, but if you can't stay on topic, and can't stop making this about how eating a steak is somehow as horrible as abortion….then we've got nothing left to discuss.

    Bonus points for the fact that abortion, except in cases of extreme duress, is also not a (using your addressing style) NECESSITY.

    So, since we can agree that unnecessary killing is worthless and shouldn't be done, when can i expect you to join the pro-choice camp, since you agree with the very basis of the argument…that the innocent should not be arbitrarily or unnecessarily destroyed?

  286. Suba gunawardana
    Suba gunawardana says:

    Totally missed the point again did you? No surprise there.

    Let me make it REALLY simple for you.

    My argument is NOT that animals/plants should have right to life, but fetuses should NOT. So far you have provided NO JUSTIFICATION why they should. "Innocent" is not good enough, since most other individuals legally killed are innocent too.

    Long posts without substance (such as yours) just waste my time. I have real arguments to respond to elsewhere, & its annoying to have my time taken up reading tripe.

  287. MarcusFenix
    MarcusFenix says:

    "Totally missed the point again did you? No surprise there."

    Clearly, i didn't. You keep making the case that animals deserve some special protection, but members of your own species do not….

    And you do so via a comparison about the food chain and food consumption, to incorrectly illustrate the point.

    It's not an argument, with those things in place. It's not a misunderstanding. It's that you're making no real argument that bears weight.

    Likewise, you've made no justification why plants should be shielded and guarded, but that members of your own species should not. I've asserted that as a member of the species, we should protect our developing young.

    You, however, keep injecting this "innocent" angle…as in innocent animals and all. Are they not as innocent as our own species can be, especially given the conversation?

    Clearly, you don't get the difference, and you're right..there's tripe and it's annoying.

    Go back to believing that cows are better than people, or whatever drivel you believe.

    I do note…you didn't answer my last statement there. If animals are innocent, and we can establish that a fetus is likewise innocent (which is an easy burden to reach)….then when will you join the pro life side, so as to be consistent with your own world view that we shouldn't kill anything innocent out of basic wants?

    You say "no substance". Clearly, you wouldn't know substance if it was slathered on a steak and roasted.

    But I would. And deliciously so.

    So please, don't waste our time with your odd innocent animal arguments. It's completely contradictory on your end, and it's getting old.


  288. MarcusFenix
    MarcusFenix says:

    Kudos, however, for keeping the sock puppetry to a minimal. I honestly didn't recognize that you, and someone else here posting that actually sounds like they have a brain in their head, are the same person.

    Keep up the excellent levels of uneven logical conclusions and pretending to be multiple posters at the same time!

  289. Adam Peters
    Adam Peters says:

    Well, one could argue that in some ways a fetus is analogous to a kidnapping victim: she or he was forcibly placed into the womb through the choices of others and coerced by them into depending on her or his mother. So, if you've taken someone hostage, then it surely follows that at the very least you're responsible for her or his life.

  290. AmyE
    AmyE says:

    Why do you care if their funding comes from religious groups? It's not like they are using their site to disprove or attack religion. The true hypocritical action would be if they were putting down abortion and then receiving money from a source that was also connected to an abortion provider. Or if they were arguing against religion, but involved somehow with a religious group. The issue here is abortion and thus they want to link themselves with other allies whether they be religious or not. It's kind of like how the Abortion Network links different pro-choice sites together from Sistersong to Faithaloud.

  291. Suba gunawardana
    Suba gunawardana says:

    The one piece of substance in your whole post:
    " I've asserted that as a member of the species, we should protect our developing young."

    NOT when their future safety and well-being cannot be guaranteed, i.e. when their mother is unable/unwilling to care for them, and no responsible caring adult is available to care for every unwanted child. In this situation, unwanted fetuses are better off dead than being neglected/abused as unwanted children.

  292. AmyE
    AmyE says:

    Oops. I didn't scan down before I posted. Yeah, my feeling too. You might not agree with someone on the smaller issues, but if you agree on the larger…

  293. Suba gunawardana
    Suba gunawardana says:

    To have equal rights:
    -One should also have the ability to take responsibility for their actions. An ability gays have, fetuses and animals don't.

    -One should NOT be violating someone else's rights, as in inhabiting their body without their consent.

  294. Rainbow Walker
    Rainbow Walker says:

    Because it means they are paying for the outcome. Disprove or attack? Indeed this is about abortion not ideas. Because the religious right knows anything that comes from their side is bought and misconstrued science they “plant” a decoy. In this case they try to say “see if an atheist likes it you have got to.” It doesn’t work that way. A real atheist is ration.

    “It's kind of like how the
    Abortion Network links different pro-choice sites together from Sistersong to

    It’s not. When one is a believer and comes to the understanding of rational they see that abortion is logical and backed by science and law. As the link I provided indicated so called secular atheists can only use the same methods
    force birthers use: deception, false science and censorship.

    A perfect example is Calvin
    Freiburger. That nimrod banned me several ties from his little corner of
    insanity. I think you saw that. I read up on him. Supposedly an atheist. An atheist would debate not sling false allegations and run off like a child. Funny the moment I mentioned doppleganger he swooped
    in and banned me. I think he and PJ4 are one in the same. Same removal from
    reality. Same disregard for boundaries and a control freak. He’s also a coward. But he’s feels big behind the screen. I won’t say anything online I wouldn’t say to your face.

  295. Rainbow Walker
    Rainbow Walker says:

    What you don’t realize is I see unbelievable cruelty to children. There are 400 million unwanted children in the world and ever birth adds to that. Your belief feeds that uncounted fold.

    Yes there is one flaw in the
    argument. That they give any concessions whatsoever to forced birthers. I don’t
    believe in limits or restrictions and neither should the law. They have only argued privacy but we are guaranteed to be secure in our person and slavery has
    been abolished. And yes it is slavery to force woman to give birth against her
    will. Far more have died for this then you know. Someone will argue these points and all the restrictions will fall.

    So how will that effect future family members if they don’t exist? You either haven’t seen much suffering or don’t care. I will be glad if they aren’t born. It will affect your future generations far more. How will you feel knowing they are suffering?

  296. AmyE
    AmyE says:

    In this case they try to say “see if an atheist likes it you have got to.” It doesn’t work that way. A real atheist is ration.
    I'm not really sure I understand this. Are you saying that Secular Pro-life tries to prove their point by proving that atheism is right so therefore they are right?
    It is the same as the abortioncarenetwork. I clicked on their links. Some prove abortion is okay due to science (secular) and some due to faith (religious.) I consider that to be the same as that which I see in the pro-life sphere.
    Lastly, on your attack on Calvin. Atheism does not mean rationality. Atheism means a belief that there is no god. I've known logical atheists who have come to this conclusion through science and I've known atheists who have come to this conclusion because they can't believe a man exists in the sky so they're just accept religions as untrue. Just because Calvin is misguided does not mean he is not an atheist. Not all atheists are logical.

  297. AmyE
    AmyE says:

    Doesn't mean he wasn't right about that. Plus in this scenario I doubt secular pro-life will get their head cut off by a religious pro-life group. There is always the chance that a religious pro-life group will sabotage them, but this group would have to be very ignorant or not care as much about abortion as they claim to attack an ally. And the links I've seen posted on secular pro life lead to groups that are a mix of secular and religious. I haven't seen any of the "you're either with us (on everything) or against us" fundamental groups recommended here.

  298. Rainbow Walker
    Rainbow Walker says:

    He wasn’t right. And you didn’t
    catch my meaning. What I was meaning is this little facade will be shown for what it is and it will all come down.

    Of course they mix, because they are the same. The secular prolife movement was created as a front for religion.

  299. Rainbow Walker
    Rainbow Walker says:

    “Are you saying that Secular
    Pro-life tries to prove their point by proving that atheism is right so therefore they are right?”

    No. Once again it has nothing to do with belief in and of itself. Because anything that comes from the religious right is seen as anti-science [which is true] they needed to counter this. So religion fabricated the secular “movement” to justify forced birth.

    As for Calvin, you missed the
    point again. He follows the same ideation as believers, denial, delusion, fabrication and worse he shuts off everyone on his blog [I note he posts nowhere else on disqus] who doesn’t adhere to his ideation. That goes against the very principles of atheism. We are trying to get away from that, not
    propagate it. Unless he is constructing this whole diorama to make atheists
    APPEAR illogical.

  300. Rainbow Walker
    Rainbow Walker says:

    It seems you are proliferating a baseless accusation forged by a forced birth coward.

    I have already called Calvin out for the coward he is and proved the lie. Oddly enough the minute I mentioned individuals on his little realm of insanity were doppelgangers he swooped in to ban me. Wonder why. And he would not reply. Guess I got too close.

    Of course forced birthers are very gullible and stupid. No wonder you accepted it.

  301. MarcusFenix
    MarcusFenix says:

    No one's safety and future status can be promised. That is no justification to eliminate them as a result.

    Again, you're relying on "want" as a permanent and irrevocable status, rather than even count the possibility that such a thing can change.

    Of course, you're too busy pretending to be like 4 people to actually argue this effectively, so…there's that.

  302. MarcusFenix
    MarcusFenix says:

    Well, in the case of Rainbow there….she's too busy using 3 or 4 accounts to talk to herself here and elsewhere, so the entire lack of credibility kind of shines through.

    I'll reply to sock puppet one more time though, and be done. 🙂

  303. Rainbow Walker
    Rainbow Walker says:

    You are an idiot. I created two accounts because the coward Calvin banned me. He was the one spreading this lie. Of
    course you took it, hook line and sinker. I proved I and Suba are not the same and Suba has no multiple accounts.

    Just another diversion because you lost another debate.

  304. MarcusFenix
    MarcusFenix says:

    I wasn't right…because you and your sock puppet accounts all got together and said I'm not? Got it!

    Oddly, there are multiple facets of this you don't seem to grasp, which isn't surprising given you and the other voices which can't seem to stay on target with one account.

    A religious person can make a secular argument, sans injecting God into the conversation, and be right. Facts are facts, and as you'd be fast to point out otherwise, you can't change facts/numbers/science on the whims of a deity.

    Past this point, unless you want to argue that a person who is absolutely secular cannot be rational, reasonable, and possess morals or principles, then you're going to have no luck asserting that they can't make decisions about such items as abortion, the death penalty, poverty, and so on. By all but coming out and saying that those who arent religious at all cannot possess a moral compass which points in a direction other than yours, you discount the fact that people can, in fact, be rational and principled.

    Consider, if you will, an atheist who considers the death penalty as something they wish to abolish. How did they get to that point? Was it because they're mindless, unprincipled sheep who just go with the flow? Or, did they come to an understanding about a topic based on what they have decided lies in the areas of right and wrong? At the center of the abortion debate is the question of its morality. The legality is something that can change, and has, and may yet again. Laws are not set in stone, yet you would have us believe they are (oh….sorry, that's your "constitutionally knowledgeable" persona…didn't mean to confuse the two!)

    If you've done all of this extensive research, as you've claimed here with others, then I'd love to see it. Please, by all means, post your information. If you're correct, and basically all agnostics and atheists are just Xtian puppets dancing to the tune of their masters, then…..there are quite a few people who would LOVE to know that.

    Or…the more Occam's Razor-like idea is that you can't seem to wrap your head around the idea of someone who isn't religious, and that on most other topics would vehemently disagree….suddenly turning on you and not supporting your position, because your bias about religion, people, animals, crayons, or whatever else you have going on over here will not allow.

    Like the idea that buying a steak at the grocery store is nothing like elective medical abortion practices, the idea that someone who doesn't worship God can't come to the same conclusion on topics of note as those who do is simply beyond your ken.

  305. Rainbow Walker
    Rainbow Walker says:

    Note to PJ4/Calvin.

    In the Little world of Calvin all the children are crying because their world is crashing down. Invaders came and
    brought reality. []

    PJ4, Calvin since you blocked my last attempt on that thread to reply I think you will see this, if not maybe the other forced birthers will convey it.

    I called him what he really is. If he wanted to debate he would reply. But he cannot and would not. Because he is a controlling coward with no argument.

    My first comment wasn’t invective.

    This is what I said: “The person[s] she [Tullia] was unsuccessfully arguing with wasn’t just purrtriarchy; it was I and many others. Strange she need to run and get help.
    And you didn’t come. Only put forth unfounded diagnosis.

    As a psychologist I need to tell you, you’re practicing without a license. She [purrtriarchy] is not suffering from any personality disorder. You are just a forced birther who cannot debate.”

    Then you started yell at everyone Calvin, I mean PJ4. The minute I intimated you have or [maybe you are a doppelganger] you swooped in and banned me. Got too close. Why do you have such a need to lie and delude yourself?

    I can give you help if you want it.

  306. Rainbow Walker
    Rainbow Walker says:

    Yes facts are facts and I showed them you did not.

    Once again diversion because you lost the debate. You don’t have to believe the other lies but you choose to. Logic always wins out. This would make a
    great study. Believers will believe anything they are told.

  307. MarcusFenix
    MarcusFenix says:

    LOL, dirty tactics. Lets see, the admin of a site notes you and one other poster have the same identical IP address….which one of them is then banned, and you go back and make a new screen name and brag about it. That's 3 accounts right there.

    What part of "sock puppet" don't you get? God, it's like an echo chamber in there, isn't it?

    You weren't blocked for "opposing views". You were blocked for being an idiot with mulitple accounts, while talking down to people using copy/paste of the DSM to make pseudo-diagnosis on people you don't know.

    See, this is how it went:

    You posted this:
    "Either she has you snowed or you’re her doppelganger. People with disorders often
    create multiple profiles to “talk” to themselves and others online. To bolster
    themselves and their claims."

    You then turn around, and do just that…have multiple conversations with yourself, like clockwork.

    This lead the admin there to post this on the thread:

    "Add confirmed lying hypocrite sock puppet" to that list. Just checked the
    IPs — he and Suba gunawardana are the same guy."

    So, either you and someone else are sitting side by side and you forgot to mention it, someone is hacking your network and posting on the same sites as you and agreeing with you because they're super swell like that, or….

    You are a "Add confirmed lying hypocrite sock puppet".

  308. MarcusFenix
    MarcusFenix says:

    I'm the idiot, who got caught with multple accounts and was banned for being nuts. Ooook.

    "I proved I and Suba are not the same and Suba has no multiple accounts."

    And you did this how? By your say so? Because we should totally trust you right? Suda says you're legit, so it must be right!

    Same IP means…..what exactly? Just wondering if you can clarify this for me.

    In full disclosure, i haven't been back to read it, so…please, prove it's all just a horrible lie! I'l wait!

  309. MarcusFenix
    MarcusFenix says:

    (As an aside)

    Usually,the ones who have a "you're with us or against" us would be the folks, i've primarily found, on the other side of the debate. Mention the word "restriction", and abortion supporters go nuts every time.

  310. Adam Peters
    Adam Peters says:

    What's up Marcus? I don't mean to sidetrack things, but do you mind if I bring up the fetal pain issue? As I said earlier this month…

    Based at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center in Memphis, Dr. Anand’s findings indicate that a fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks gestation. He explains that “a fetus at 20 to 32 weeks of gestation would experience a much more intense pain than older infants or children or adults” due to the underdevelopment of “fibers which dampen and modulate the experience of pain.” This is especially important when one considers that an abortion at 20 weeks usually involves dilation & evacuation (D&E), a procedure in which the child is pulled apart piece-by-piece. Some, such as Dr. Mark Rosen, contend that a fetus lacks the conscious ability to feel pain as we understand it. But while the nuances of how to define pain may be disputed, University of Utah neurologist Maureen Condic argues that in light of the huge potential for suffering, “there is sufficient uncertainty to warrant giving the fetus the benefit of the doubt.”

  311. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    Who cares if you agree with the current law? It's been the law for a long time, and changing that law is bad public policy. If you think the courts are going to suddenly wake up some day and say, "Hey, wouldn't it be great if we didn't make fathers support their offspring?" then you've been smoking something you shouldn't be smoking. By the way, that isn't begging the question. However, the video you posted is an excellent example of "begging the question."

  312. Coyote
    Coyote says:

    "Who cares if you agree with the current law?"

    I do, considering that we are discussing what the law should be.

    "It's been the law for a long time,"

    You appear to be guilty of the red herring fallacy here.

    "and changing that law is bad public policy."

    That might be debatable.

    "If you think the courts are going to suddenly wake up some day and say, "Hey, wouldn't it be great if we didn't make fathers support their offspring?" then you've been smoking something you shouldn't be smoking."

    Frankly, I do not know what the future holds, and neither do you. In addition, if the law in regards to this will not change, then I will simply continue pushing for a ban on most abortions.

    "By the way, that isn't begging the question."

    Yes, it is, because you using the current law in a debate about what the law should be when not everyone agrees with the current law. That is essentially what begging the question is–it is using a premise to support one's argument(s) when not everyone agrees with your premise in the first place.

    "However, the video you posted is an excellent example of "begging the question.""

    How, exactly?

  313. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    Here's why it's irrelevant that women "make the final decision." That's biology. A pregnancy cannot be carried in the body of a male. How can you give a male any say over what goes on in a body that isn't his? I'd be interested to hear exactly how this works out in action. It sounds as though what you're purporting is that men fling their seed around wherever they wish, and then after the fact, they get to hold a refusal to support a child if she decides to bring it to term. Here you are neatly using your Magical Eraser to erase the fact that his biological role in the creation of new life is not equal to her role in the first place. His part takes what? A couple minutes and he's done. You can't erase that fact. Also there's an inherent he said/she said issue in this setup. People do change their minds, especially men, once they realize the girl doesn't necessarily become part of the deal because the relationship doesn't work out. It's nearly impossible to bring equality into a situation that is inherently unequal without granting the male undeserved rights over the body of the female through coercion, i.e. "have an abortion or bear the entire burden yourself." And no it doesn't require any acknowledgement of personhood beginning at conception, unless you're through the looking glass. If personhood begins at conception, then he's on the hook for even MORE expenses related to the pregnancy. I don't believe that's fair to him. During the pregnancy, the bills are her bills BECAUSE the ZEF isn't a person.

  314. Suba gunawardana
    Suba gunawardana says:

    How come you have no problem with the "moderator" of your sacred LAN banning people without an ounce of proof for his claims?

    The burden of proof should be met by those making the allegations you know.

    Why would anyone be so afraid of opposing views to the extent of banning people on false allegations? Because the opposing views constitute the TRUTH.

  315. Suba gunawardana
    Suba gunawardana says:

    As I said above, the burden of proof is not mine, but that idiot who made the allegations in the first place.
    Not surprising that YOU don't need proof to condemn people.

  316. Rainbow Walker
    Rainbow Walker says:

    Banning me with no justification. Then spreading a lie and not coming forth to defend it? That’s proof enough. He’s a coward.

    Now I have to get back to work caring for the children you religious nuts abuse.

  317. Fusengammu
    Fusengammu says:

    Hi MarcusFenix

    Yup, got to keep it civil 🙂

    I don't find an error in the pro-choice line per se. I am pro-choice because I don't see the fetus as a full person, and I believe given the current state of medicine and science, this is a justifiable position. Whether we grant the fetus full person status really comes down to emotion. As it stands now, I don't see how not granting the fetus full person status negatively impacts society, ie values life less etc. Society now values life more than it has ever done in the past – think consumer protection laws, the enormous amount of money we spend on saving premature babies etc. So in such a situation, I think it would be wrong to restrict abortion based on the emotions of pro-lifers.

    That being said, I see the abortion debate as mainly hanging on whether one considers a fetus as a full person. I think this view can change with advances in medicine or science. For instance, if neuroscience were to advance to a degree that we could decipher the on-goings inside the very rudimentary fetal brain, and discover that the fetus actually has emotions and feelings, my views about the fetus may change. As a practicing, publishing neuroscientist, I very much doubt this will ever happen, but if this is turns out to be true, I would probably change my position.

  318. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    For one thing, your very young MRA rube slides right past the biological facts of how we humans reproduce to arrive at the stunning conclusion that it's 100% women's decision "whether or not to create a new life." (His words, not mine.) Except it's not. It's 100% a woman's decision whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term (or attempt to do so). Actually two people make a decision that may or may not lead to conception. At that point, one of them has safely completed his contribution, but the other has a long way to go to complete hers, fraught with peril. Get the picture? And then your answer to this dilemma of unequal reality is to 1) cheerlead to allow the man to them financially abandon his offspring and stick the one who has already done most of the work with ALL of the work. Or 2) keep pushing to make sure she has to do all the work or die trying. Then maybe if he feels like it, he'll help out a bit. It doesn't surprise me a bit that men make these ridiculous arguments. Your teenaged video star is a clueless cretin. It's no skin off his nose either way is it? Fortunately, our legal system isn't that dumb, and will continue to see that children are the only ones in the situation with rights once they have been born. His rights? Who gives a rat's ass? Time for him to step up and do the rest of his part. She's already done the lion's share of the work, and that will continue for the next 18 years. He gets to do nothing more than lift a finger to write a check.

  319. MarcusFenix
    MarcusFenix says:

    Actually, the double account thing was justification…not to mention you were acting like a jackass. Just food for thought.

    *You* religious nuts? So, if someone disagrees with you, then clearly it's based on religion? Wow…whatever "care" you're giving to these people (if that's even what you're doing….we know you're not honest at this point)….is something you should likely reserve a bit for yourself.

  320. MarcusFenix
    MarcusFenix says:

    Jennifer there likely doesn't know, or care, that you're using yourself to respond to people as more than 1 account. She's an idiot anyway, but…yeah.

    I have no problem with a moderator banning you from a site for dual accounts. I have no problem with a moderator banning you for acting like a little child and pretending to play doctor. I have no problem with a moderator banning you for the brand of toothpaste you use, because it's Wednesday, because you have hairy toes, or any other of the billion reasons that moderators everywhere do what they do.

    It's their site. they can ban people for anything, anytime, at their own discretion. the fact you got popped for sock puppetry was yours, and your magical say so is not proof.

  321. MarcusFenix
    MarcusFenix says:

    Im just not sure what part of "These 2 accounts are coming from the same IP address" that you don't get.

    I mean, if you WANT him to publish those, and you want people like me having access to your networks and hacking your systems, then sure. Ask him to publish the data. Ask him to give anyone who wants to read it access to that.

    I'm sure that will end well.

    You keep asking for proof….I notice that you give none in your own defense, other than "I said so". That's not proof. Sorry.

  322. Suba gunawardana
    Suba gunawardana says:

    To all the cowards on Live Action Network, who make unfounded allegations and ban all opponents from their site,
    then continue the “debate” unopposed:

    I am rebutting all your responses here. Many of my responses apply to this thread as well. (If I missed any, I will respond if you re-post them here)

    @PJ4: How are animals different from us? Seems to me they
    are weaker & more vulnerable. If humans are “superior” shouldn’t they be protecting those weaker than them? If you think it’s perfectly fine to kill animals because they are weaker than us, why doesn’t the same principle apply to fetuses?

    @Ingrid: There’s no law stating you cannot get rid of an invader unless they come from outside. The fact that the invading entity was created inside your body, does not preclude your right to get rid of it if you so wish. Such entities include fetuses; tumors; parasites born inside your body.

    @John Lind: Indeed I am, and the value of my philosophy is
    exemplified by the stupidity & cruelty of a population who forces unwanted children into life then abandons them to misery neglect & abuse; and keeps breeding relentlessly at the expense of all living beings on a fragile planet. The importance of my philosophy is also amply demonstrated by the collective
    stupidity & cowardice of the inhabitants of the LAN site who cannot face opposition even on their own turf.

    @Basset Hound: Have the guts to come here and have a real
    debate, instead of insulting people behind their back?

    @MamaBear: – If we ARE superior, we should be helping & protecting ALL those weaker than us. If we are nothing
    special, it would be fine to kill ALL those weaker than us, i.e. animals, fetuses, children, whatever. You can’t have it both ways, i.e. Claim we are superior, yet exploit/kill those you want (while prohibiting others from killing what they want).

    -Abortion is just ONE solution to child abuse, which cannot make a dent in the huge epidemic of child abuse. Just like seat belts cannot prevent all the car crashes, or even make a big enough dent in it. Does it mean seat belts should be abolished?

    @Calvin the Cowardly moderator: You made false allegations.
    I challenged you to put your money where your mouth is and defend the allegation. All you could do was ban me without providing an ounce of proof. Thus you have shown yourself to be a liar and a coward afraid of any opposition. I challenge you to come out of your hiding place to any common thread and have a real debate with me in public.

  323. Rainbow Walker
    Rainbow Walker says:

    Off the argument about the fictitious atheist force birth movement? No by a long shot. And of course you only post on one forum. You don’t have the guts to venture forth from your safe haven.

  324. Rainbow Walker
    Rainbow Walker says:

    “I tend to try and do something about that problem…which would go hand in hand with the ideas I believe in which come from a pro-life philoso phy.”

    Actually forced birthers usually do nothing. Furthermore they create and cause the problem from the get go.

    “You're pushing stats together to make a conclusion, without knowing all of the cogs that go into it. No dice.”

    Really? The vast majority of these children are neglected and abused. Very few wind up orphaned because of the “breaks
    of life”.


    “Well, if you can admit that,
    there's hope yet!”

    You really don’t get it. That flaw is not in rational, it’s in application. Forced birthers have no rational.

    “Yet, if we were talking about anything else, like plants….you'd have restrictions lined up around the block.”

    Did I ever say I wanted plant rights? Your ideology will make us like Korea. It will strip all rights from

    “i won't devote time to sock puppets, past one post like this.”

    Of course you won’t answer anyone, you have no argument. You believe a lie because it’s an easy out. And if you won’t devote time to so called “sock puppets” why are you still answering?

    “the woman (98% of the time) places herself into the situation that she finds herself.”

    Forced birthers love this
    argument. Straight from their iron age book of fairy tales. Always blame the
    woman. You try to restrict birth control access and sex education and ignore
    the fact that over 60% of sex in the world is due to rape. Typical, you want
    someone to abuse and then blame them for it. Even if it was voluntary, the
    choice should be hers.

    It is slavery when you dictate to a woman, tell her what she can and cannot do with her body, rape her and then say she must carry the child. You are cruel and stupid. But then look who I’m talking to. You probably would love a child bride.

    “Appealing to consequence or pity (take your pick…there's more than 1 of you, so you might be able to have both!) won't work here.”

    I appeal to nothing but logic. I won’t find it with you.

    “You're concerned with suffering to the point that you've convinced yourself that it's inevitable.”

    You don’t even understand Retrospective Determinism [because something happened, it was therefore bound to happen].
    This is when one uses assumed qualifiers. My qualifiers are not assumed, they are fact. That’s how science works. You see a pattern and if that patter doesn’t change and is constant you can count on it. Like gravity or the earth spinning on its axis. Except for something drastic [like the earth blowing up] it won’t change.

    “What a foolish and uneducated statement..”

    Hardly. All one needs to do is read your drivel. You feed on suffering.

    “Slip up, or bad context?”

    Idiot. If they don’t exist how
    does it affect anything? Except they don’t suffer.

    “You assume there will be
    suffering, where I do not.”

    Because you are delusional. You actually think you are talking to multiple persons when we both know better. You
    use this leveling and projecting tactic because I outed you Calvin. Why are you so afraid? And use your dopplegangers to speak for you? That way when they are proven to be idiots it’s not a loss to be attached to your name.

  325. Rainbow Walker
    Rainbow Walker says:

    Still putting forth lies with no substance. I posted the links. You cannot read.

    You are projecting with that Cruise allegory. Man I hit a nerve. Calvin if you were any kind of man you would stop this charade. You want everyone to think Suba and I are the same person, but will show no proof. And yes you can publish ip’s. There is little danger today. If in doubt block out one or two octets. You can still derive basic location. Then I can show you the one’s I found that are public.

    At any rate, I don’t care if you want to feed your dissociative identity disorder. I will NOT use your multiple profiles as an excuse to avoid answering.

    “Notice the interesting irony of this?”

    No irony. Only truth in my
    statement. You told a lie and believe it.

  326. Rainbow Walker
    Rainbow Walker says:

    Since the forced birthers are replying to my comments on the communist LAN and being banned there by the little coward Calvin I will reply here.

    @Ingrid Heimark who said:

    “You didn't know GAF has two dimensions? Symptoms AND Functioning? And GAF is a measurement when it comes to
    symptoms, as psychotic, ie under 40. Functioning, would a mother of 5 studying at uni have a GAF functionng at 51? Nope. But you are diagnosing a person based on your opinions of abortion. This is funny. And embryology has actually PROVEN our case, that a new and distinct human life exist at fertilization, depending upon implantation for further development. Are you gonna take a shot at MY GAF?”

    Once again you are wrong. At least here I can post links, on LAN the only links one can post are to forced birth sites. It’s not for symptoms, only function.

    Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) scale was introduced in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 3rd Edition (DSM–III) as a method for rating patient functioning for all psychiatric disorders.”

    It is not dependent on the symptom.

    patients with borderline personality disorder (BPD) were followed up for a mean of 27 years… Mean GAF score was 63.3, mean SCL-90 raw score was 0.7, and mean SAS-SR score was 2.0.”

    Personality Disorders can be highly functioning. Ever heard of a cool, calm, psychopath?

    And no embryology has disproven your myth. It doesn’t matter whether or not it’s “new and distinct”, a corpse
    has the same genetics. Until it’s aware, it’s not human and the sensory connections for that aren’t present until late third trimester. Furthermore what makes us human is a deep psychological awareness. You gonna tell me a
    fetus can reach out and shake hands with you or play ping pong? Yes I know an infant cannot either. But the connections and synapsis have formed in an infant and more importantly THEY DON’T INHABIT A JURIDICAL PERSON.



    I think you are using this to feed the forced birth delusion. Otherwise, why would you respond to a profile you
    know is defunct? You could easily have come over here and replied.

    As for your GAF, your lack of awareness speaks volumes.

  327. MarcusFenix
    MarcusFenix says:

    LOL, what part of "Not Calvin" did you not get?

    Seriously, your defense is that everyone who disagrees with you is, in fact, Calvin.

    What a paranoid, delusional fool you are.

    Do you have proof? Let's see it. Otherwise, put a sock (puppet) in it.

  328. MarcusFenix
    MarcusFenix says:

    I would be remiss to point out, btw….

    You now have said that Calvin, PJ, Adam and me are all the same person…along with likely Ingrid and a few more over on LAN. You've got it in your head that we're all the same person.

    But, unlike you, i'm not a complete retard.

    The admins here would be pretty fast to point out if we were all the same person if asked. Feel free to do so. I can at least verify that myself and PJ are 3000 miles apart. The others, no idea where they're from.

    You're sad…sad and angry and bitter. No wonder you think the way you do.

  329. Rainbow Walker
    Rainbow Walker says:

    What am I supposed to believe, your word? Everyone who disagrees with you is a sock puppet. Your favorite excuse when you lose. That’s why you’re so upset. I outed you.

    Prove it? You made the allegation first. Prove yours.

  330. MarcusFenix
    MarcusFenix says:

    I didn't allege anything. I made note you were kicked off a site for multi-logging and being a sock puppet.

    Your rebuttal? "I'm rubber, you're glue!"

    How very adult of you!

    Everyone who disagrees with me is a sock puppet? That means you and everyone here would be that…and in your case, it's already been discussed.

    LOL, this is getting more ridiculous every time you post. Give up.

  331. MarcusFenix
    MarcusFenix says:

    You do realize that you're literally replying to yourself….you're talking to yourself…….as usual.

    She responds and upvotes because, if you look in my profile page with all 23 followers….she's one of them. She can see what's going on in my feed and can go right to it.

    Sorry you don't understand how the internet, or computers, or IP addresses work, or the fact that anyone reading this is laughing their ass off at you.


  332. Rainbow Walker
    Rainbow Walker says:

    Defensive now, aren’t we? And we’re supposed to take your word for it. A man who uses a character from a video game as his user?

    “The admins here would be pretty fast to point out if we were all the same person if asked.”

    You are a complete moron if you think we believe that. The mods here are the doppelgangers. I have never seen a blog where the mods are so involved with the thread. Most of the time they are invisible.
    I have friends who are mods. You control the whole show. Talk, interact, demean and accuse [with no proof] only on LAN. If you must venture forth it’s with an avatar. And the minute someone challenges or threatens to out you, there’re banned.

    You are afraid of something. Or being

  333. Suba gunawardana
    Suba gunawardana says:

    Your words
    "I can at least verify that myself and PJ are 3000 miles apart."
    We are supposed to take YOUR verification on anything we can't see?

  334. Rainbow Walker
    Rainbow Walker says:

    Anouther one of the cowards on LAN is maligning me.

    @MamaBear who said:

    “Constantly accusing people of needing medication and giving out a new phony mental health "diagnosis" in almost every post is neither debating about nor commenting on the subject. I happened to see the deleted posts before they were deleted. It is extremely rare for people to be deleted on LAN, but those posts were so rude and off topic, they deserved it.”

    Which I never did. Those are spurious allegations. I hope you can back it up. I have all the posts I’ve ever written. I only provided one opinion and PJ4 requested it.

    Extremely rare? I see people a plethora of folks banned from your sight. All prochoice. The minute someone brings argument they cannot face, or in my case the moment I outed Calvin he banned me, with no proof.

  335. Suba gunawardana
    Suba gunawardana says:

    My question was not why she was up voting you, but why she didn't respond to my rebuttal.

    Obviously I cannot respond to her, since she didn't post here.
    So to WHOM should my post have been addressed?

  336. MarcusFenix
    MarcusFenix says:

    I'm not being defensive at all..and have no reason to be. Seeing shadows around every corner? Everyone is a "doppleganger" now?

    I think you're a complete moron for a multitude of reasons….some of this notwithstanding.

    I haven't been on LAN in months, btw…you can check my feed as proof of that, if you like. Please, enjoy reading everything i've written, and none of it there.

    I'm not afraid of anything you have to offer, much less am i being paid. Hell, I'd talk trash to you and push buttons (while you show all of this insanity) for FREE.


    Please, more accusations and deflection….you know, since literally everyone on LAN is me, everyone here except you is me, and it's one huge conspiracy!!!


  337. MarcusFenix
    MarcusFenix says:

    Nope, but…if you believe that i'm like 15 different people on 2 websites and *I* am the reason you got banned, then you're pretty far gone at this point 🙂

  338. Suba gunawardana
    Suba gunawardana says:

    I never said you are the reason I got banned, unless you are Calvin. Are you?

    You may well be a sockpuppet, since you got so defensive at the mention of that & started providing "verifications" that you are not.

    Funny when I was accused of being a sock puppet and I simply denied it, you refused to believe me, yet here you are expecting me to take YOUR word.

    I was banned because Calvin is afraid of opposing views. From what you just said, sounds like you are Calvin. If so, I challenged you above. Come debate me as yourself.

  339. MarcusFenix
    MarcusFenix says:

    "I never said you are the reason I got banned, unless you are Calvin. Are you?"

    I'm not…but you keep saying i am, so i have to go along with the idea that if you've mistakenly thought i was him, that you'd in turn blame me….and your posts here are pretty clear on the matter.

    Define "defensive". What was defensive about telling you that your credibility is shot. That you're an idiot. That you are a sock puppet, a whiner, and a fool? That's not defense. But keep thinking so!

    Please keep towing the "I was kicked for my opinion!" line. Whatever helps you sleep at night.

    I am debating you as "myself"….you can't even handle that. You don't want to have people gang up on you, now do you? ROFL

    I don't expect you to accept anything i say…you've proven how irrational, how silly, and how idiotic you can be. Do whatever you like, but it's fun watching you melt down like the Wicked Witch at a Super-Soaker fight.

    Or is that tooooo "defensive"?


  340. purrtriarchy