8 Things “After Tiller” Left Out

[Today’s guest post by Maria Tsikalas is part of our paid blogging program.]

Social media is erupting this week in the latest abortion-related controversy: PBS’s decision to air “After Tiller” on Labor Day.

“After Tiller” is a documentary that examines the motivations and difficulties of four late-term abortionists—LeRoy Carhart, Warren Hern, Susan Robinson, and Shelley Sella—and some of their patients, in an attempt to contextualize late-term abortion and humanize the doctors. There is not much to add that hasn’t already been said on other pro-life websites, blogs, and Twitter (#AfterTiller), but here’s a list of simple facts that further ‘contextualize’ the procedure and those who perform it.

  1. In the film, we are told that third-trimester abortions are less than one percent of all abortions. What we are not told is that one percent = approximately 10,000 babies in the U.S. per year. 
  2. Most of the pregnant patients featured in the film were carrying babies with severe abnormalities or disabilities, but in reality, Tiller himself admitted that this situation constituted only about eight percent of his abortions. So that means every year these doctors abort about 9,200 healthy, viable, developed babies with no health complications whatsoever.1
  3. At least four women have died from legal second- and third-trimester abortions in the past two years. 
  4. Carhart has been responsible for eight medical emergencies (that we know of) since March 2012, including the death of Jennifer Morbelli last year. 
  5. Carhart has described babies in the womb dying as being “like meat in a Crock-pot.” 
  6. Former Tiller employee Tina David said of Sella: “[The] baby came out, and it was moving. I don’t know if it was alive or if it was nerves, I have no clue. But Dr. Sella looked up right away at me and took a utensil and stabbed it, right here, and twisted. And then it didn’t move anymore.”

 
  7. Former Tiller employee Luhra Tivis has said that she was trained to answer the phone like a salesperson marketing a product, selling abortion to the caller. Tivis also described seeing Tiller carrying a heavy cardboard box full of dead babies into his crematorium and smelling the flesh as it burned. 
  8. Robinson was shocked when she realized a baby she’d thought to be 32 weeks from the ultrasound was actually closer to 37 weeks when he or she was aborted.
Hard to humanize all that.

[1] Please note that I am not arguing that abortion is more justifiable for babies with disabilities than without. The film features some women who had received diagnoses that their baby would die would die in utero or shortly after birth, or that their child would be in pain for his or her entire life, leading viewers to believe that such extreme circumstances constitute the majority of late-term abortions, when that is not true.

500 replies
  1. eroteme
    eroteme says:

    Why does it matter, if you equate zygotes with toddlers? Isn't birth control that allegedly prevents implantation just as "barbaric?"

    Reply
  2. KM
    KM says:

    Question for you: Do you think it is possible for someone to oppose late term abortion without opposing contraception?
    This debate is really just about where do we draw the line. Many of us may not see contraception as a problem, while we do have a big problem with killing fully formed babies who may in some cases be viable.

    Reply
  3. eroteme
    eroteme says:

    I was under the impression that, from the reading I've done here, that zygotes are already fully formed, rational people – only smaller.

    Reply
  4. Clinton
    Clinton says:

    Who's equating zygotes with toddlers? There are very obvious differences between a zygote and a toddler. What pro-life people argue is that the zygote is a member of the human species and since it shares the same qualities we do that make it wrong to kill us, it makes it wrong to kill them.

    What's really disingenuous is that pro-choice people keep focusing on the "zygote" when, in fact, no human zygotes are killed through abortions. Most abortions kill late embryos or early fetuses, and contraceptives that also act as early abortifacients prevent the embryo from implanting in the uterus when it is past the zygote phase of its existence.

    Reply
  5. eroteme
    eroteme says:

    That should be irrelevant, since PL states that zygotes = fetuses = toddlers = 12 year olds = 55 year olds etc.

    They are all exactly the same in regards to moral worth.

    Reply
  6. Clinton
    Clinton says:

    Regarding moral worth, yes. But we're not equating them, because they're not equal in terms of development.

    But constantly talking about the zygote when it's not the zygote that's ever killed is disingenuous, because due to less emotional ties it's easier to justify killing the zygote in the single-celled stage than it is to kill an embryo or fetus who looks closer to "one of us" (although what an entity looks like is irrelevant to the question of can we kill it).

    Reply
  7. eroteme
    eroteme says:

    Why should emotional ties matter? Or even terms of development? Should the penalty for killing a 55yo be greater than for killing a newborn because one is further along?

    Reply
  8. someone45
    someone45 says:

    Well if something is not fully formed it is usually not going to be viable. The embryo at 8 weeks is not viable and it is not fully formed. This is when MOST abortions happen.

    Regardless it is not the choice of anyone but the woman who is pregnant. It doesn't matter if you people think she is only an object meant to bring the fetus to term. The choice is hers.

    Reply
  9. Blueberry
    Blueberry says:

    What you just said is a common pro-life argument. Neither emotional attachment nor level of development should make a difference in the moral value and rights of a human being, and it shouldn't be more permissible to kill younger humans than older ones.

    That means that, although a 55 year old is not THE SAME as a newborn, since they are difference ages, they are equal in terms of moral value/human rights/personhood.

    It also means that, although a newborn and a fetus are not the same, and a fetus and a zygote are not the same, they are of equal moral value. Killing one is not any more justifiable than killing another.

    I don't think Clinton was actually saying that killing a zygote is more justifiable than killing a slightly older human. Rather it's easier for us to imagine that it's justifiable, and convince ourselves that it's justifiable, because there's less emotional attachment. Which is why pro-choicers often refer to aborting zygotes: the public is less likely to have a negative emotional reaction to that, than to aborting an older human with whom it is easier to form emotional attachment.

    Reply
  10. Blueberry
    Blueberry says:

    Indeed it should. More work should be done to humanize all human beings who are dismissed, disposed of, ignored, discriminated against, or marginalized.

    Working to end late term abortion doesn't mean you can't also be working to end early abortion, embryonic stem cell research, etc. But I doubt that we'll reach the point where there's legal protection for individuals for whom it's difficult to form emotional attachment or concern, before we've even secured protection for those who nearly everyone considers a baby.

    But seriously, if you don't think that a 55 year old or 10 year old is more valuable than a newborn, why is a newborn more valuable than a fetus, or a fetus more valuable than an embryo?

    Reply
  11. Blueberry
    Blueberry says:

    As you are probably aware,
    the concern over allegedly abortifacient contraception is the potential to
    prevent implantation, which would still constitute the ending of
    a human life, implanted or not. Presenting scientific evidence on whether or
    not some contraceptives prevent implantation is definitely helpful, but, respectfully, defining
    pregnancy as beginning at implantation and then stating "no contraceptive
    is abortifacient because it doesn't end pregnancy" is intentionally obscuring the issue at hand.

    Reply
  12. eroteme
    eroteme says:

    Perhaps pro-life propagandists should put photos of zygotes on their posters, and not so much of third trimester fetuses and stillbirths?

    Reply
  13. eroteme
    eroteme says:

    Uterine ablation. Anorexics. Female athletes. A medical procedure (I forget the name, LB knows) that cuts off blood supply to the uterine blood vessels…

    Any of the above could prevent a blastocyst from successfully implanting…should they be illegal? Or at least punished, if possible?

    Reply
  14. Blueberry
    Blueberry says:

    Generally when people say "fully formed" they mean that all of the "parts" are there, simply in a young state.

    But really, if "fully formed" means "done developing," we generally don't reach that point until we're in our 20's. After all, that's when our brains stop developing. So if we aren't full people until we're done developing, everyone below 22-ish is sub-human.

    Either way, viability isn't a good definition. Viability just means that the human being is slightly less limited than they were before in how they can obtain necessary nutrients, oxygen, etc. But many born humans have restrictions on how they can continue surviving and obtain necessary nutrients and such, but that doesn't matter one iota when it comes to their moral value. (For example some people are on respirators, and some are on feeding tubes. I'm more limited in how I can obtain necessary oxygen than someone who is acclimated to low oxygen environments, because they can climb high mountains and I have to stay below.)

    Plus, if viability is the diving line where the fetus becomes a baby, and if viability is getting earlier as medical technology advances, then is the age at which humans gain human rights getting earlier as time goes on? Is it at 24 weeks in the US, but 30 weeks in 3rd world countries? If we develop artificial wombs and viability is lowered to 10 weeks, will 10 week olds who are currently non-persons become people because of the new technology? All that sounds pretty nonsensical to me.

    Regarding "people think she is only an object meant to bring the fetus to term." With all due respect, that's a massive strawman.

    Say a woman is isolated with her newborn baby, and the only way to keep it alive is by breastfeeding. If you think that she has an obligation to feed her child, are you reducing her to just a pair of breasts, or a milk machine, or an "object meant to give sustenance to her offspring?" If you think a man should pay child support, are you reducing him to "just a wallet"?

    Of course not. The mother (and father) are valuable human beings, but they are also parents and have an obligation towards her child. And of course they don't have the right to kill their child. Recognizing that fact doesn't mean you're objectifying them.

    Reply
  15. eroteme
    eroteme says:

    If all of the parts are there, it should be viable.

    A newborn can survive independently precisely because all of it's organs are fully formed. A non-viable embryo, for example, needs to live inside a woman and rely on her organs 100% for it's survival, because it's organs are barely formed.

    Reply
  16. Blueberry
    Blueberry says:

    Intentionally taking something which has the inherent function and purpose of ending that life is different from many things you mentioned. Surgeries which have the risk of preventing implantation seem like a bit of a grey zone to me and I think it would depend on the specific nature, risks, and causes of the surgery…Perhaps women who have uterine ablation need to agree to take other precautions that prevent fertilization?

    Let's look at this with a born child. Feeding your toddler unhealthy, fried food puts them at higher risk for health problems and even death, and for long term habits that contribute to heart attack, etc. Should feeding your child this way be illegal? That's debatable. Letting your toddler stay home with the stove on? Definitely illegal. Have a mental illness (like anorexia is) that causes you to expose your children to certain risks? Probably shouldn't be punished for that; you're sick.

    If there were a form of birth control that allegedly carried a slight risk of causing developmental issues in the child, which would cause him/her to suddenly drop dead at 3 years old, how would you feel about that?

    Reply
  17. Blueberry
    Blueberry says:

    Since no zygotes are killed by abortion procedures whereas 10,000 or more late term abortions happen, (and there are scientific uncertainties when it comes to abortifacient contraceptives), that wouldn't make a whole lot of sense.

    Besides, many pictures used are from the 1st and 2nd trimester. (See: http://www.createdequal.net/resources/abortion-signs)

    And, as I said, people have a harder time relating emotionally to zygotes and early embryos, so pictures likely wouldn't do much. There is a strong intellectual, rational case for the value and rights of all of these humans, but people can emotionally realize the horror of a mid or late term abortion from the pictures. And let's be honest: most people, on most issues, form their opinions largely because of their emotions. When the group I'm in uses graphic images we hope to spark thoughtful dialogue and conversations with many people, but not everyone is going to stop and talk. But they will see the images.

    Anyway, you didn't answer my question. If level of development is irrelevant, why is the fetus or embryo less valuable?

    Reply
  18. eroteme
    eroteme says:

    Mental health problems aren't an excuse to kill your kids and walk away without punishment.

    Just look at Andrea Yates. Why should an anorexic or woman who has had a uterine ablation get to walk away after she has just had sex and god knows killed how many zygotes that were prevented from implanting?

    If there were a form of birth control that allegedly carried a slight risk of causing developmental issues in the child, which would cause him/her to suddenly drop dead at 3 years old, how would you feel about that?

    I believe that IUD's have the potential to cause birth defects.

    You do bring up an interesting question, however…

    There have been people who have purposely had children, because they have WANTED to pass along a gene for disability. Does that count as child abuse?

    There was a deaf lesbian couple who used the sperm of a donor who carried a gene for deafness, and the child was born deaf…if it would be illegal to stab your kids eardrums out in order to make them deaf, why is it not illegal to transmit a gene for deafness?

    Reply
  19. eroteme
    eroteme says:

    Since no zygotes are killed by abortion procedures whereas 10,000 or more late term abortions happen

    So it wouldn't be morally problematic to flush 100 zygotes down the toilet?

    Anyway, you didn't answer my question. If level of development is irrelevant, why is the fetus or embryo less valuable?

    Brain development.

    Reply
  20. Blueberry
    Blueberry says:

    I didn't say that the mentally person "killed her kids and walked away without punishment." Exposing your children to certain risks =/= killing them outright. Exposing your children to high risk =/= exposing them to low risk. Exposing to risk =/= exposing them to something expressly designed to harm them.

    Leaving your toddler home alone with the stove on, as well as teaching them unhealthy eating habits are both exposing them to risk. One should be illegal and punishable, and one probably shouldn't be. On the other hand, if someone had a mental illness that severely impaired their judgement, and left their toddler home alone with the stove on, I don't think they should be punished (depending on the severity of the risk and of their condition), since they were mentally ill.

    If IUDs cause birth defects, then I would say they are highly unethical.

    Having a child you know may be deaf isn't assault…Stabbing their eardrums is. Sorry but I'm failing to see how this is analogous to the situation we were discussing.

    And like I said, if a contraceptive had the off chance of causing the death of a toddler, how would you feel about them?

    Reply
  21. eroteme
    eroteme says:

    Exposing your children to certain risks =/= killing them outright.

    But if you are sick, and know that you will likely miscarry, but have sex regardless, how is that not criminal negligence?

    Like, if you have a booze problem, but go driving anyway, and kill someone, you are still liable for their death!

    Having a child you know may be deaf isn't assault

    Why not? Hitting your kid in the head, hoping that the child will develop deafness as a result…both = child abuse.

    And like I said, if a contraceptive had the off chance of causing the death of a toddler, how would you feel about them?

    Actually, that is analogous to my 'purposely trying to create a deaf/disabled' child scenario.

    If you reproduce, knowing that there is a chance that your genes for disability will be passed on, then how is that different from reproducing, knowing that your BC will lead to disability and/or death?

    Reply
  22. Blueberry
    Blueberry says:

    What did I say that implied that I thought flushing zygotes would be okay? The issue at hand is young humans being killed by abortion…If 10,000 late term humans were being killed by dog attacks, and no zygotes were, and I focused on the late term humans, it doesn't follow that zygotes dying in other ways is okay.

    The 55 year old has a brain FAR more developed than the newborn. Newborns are not self-aware, not capable of language, object permanence, or cause and effect, not capable of rational or abstract thought, etc. etc. They're too young. So, respectfully, that still doesn't show why the 55 year old and newborn are equal, but the fetus is inferior.

    Reply
  23. eroteme
    eroteme says:

    zygote=embryo=fetus-toddler=adult

    So, should flushing and freezing zygotes be a crime, just like abortion? 30 years to life for murder?

    Newborns are sentient. ZEF's not so much. ZEF's may in fact never develop the capacity for sentience.

    Reply
  24. Blueberry
    Blueberry says:

    It's not negligence because there's no way in which you could better provide for the child's needs. Knowing that there was a drug you could take to make you better and save the child, and not doing so, would be negligence. Giving the child the best chance you can, even if it's a small chance, is not negligence.

    With the child who is deaf, their unharmed state is being able to hear, and you are taking action which causes harm. Most deaf people would not rather be dead than deaf, so you can't argue that you harmed them by bringing them into existence. On the other and, nobody would rather be stabbed in the eardrum than have one which was intact.

    Respectfully you still didn't answer the question. Is taking a pill which can cause a toddler to drop dead (or, say, suddenly be unable to metabolize food) okay? If the zygote and toddler are morally unequal, this is the most accurate analogy.

    Reply
  25. eroteme
    eroteme says:

    It's not negligence because there's no way in which you could better provide for the child's needs.

    You could choose not to have sex.

    Or not to drink and drive.

    Or not to do drugs while operating on a patient.

    Doesn't matter if you're mentally ill, that's no defense, espcially if you KNOW that your illness will lead to harm.

    Most deaf people would not rather be dead than deaf, so you can't argue that you harmed them by bringing them into existence

    So it's ok to smoke and drink while pregnant, because it's better to be harmed and alive?

    Respectfully you still didn't answer the question. Is taking a pill which can cause a toddler to drop dead

    I believe that it is just as immoral as purposely bringing a genetically defective child into the world, because the child, once *born* will suffer.

    Here's the thing though, you are arguing that embryos and fetuses are already complete and fully formed humans. So, if they are…then causing *harm* to an embryo should be just as wrong as causing harm to a born child – existence might be great, but abuse is still abuse.

    If you have sex, and you create a zygote with a gene for deafness, this is no different than stabbing your kid in the eardrum. The only difference is LOCATION.

    Reply
  26. Blueberry
    Blueberry says:

    Yes, assuming the party who is doing the flushing is aware, or perhaps reasonably ought to be aware, that they're murdering. Otherwise, it would be negligent homicide or manslaughter or something.

    I'm sorry but could you clarify what you mean by sentient?

    If you mean conscious, older fetuses are certainly sentient.

    If you mean self-aware, newborns definitely are not.

    ZEF have an inherent nature for consciousness, rationality, etc. It's in their genetic makeup. True, they may not live to fully develop and express those abilities, but a newborn may not live to develop self-awareness or rational thought. I don't see that it really maters.

    Why should all humans who have attained sentience be on one side of the personhood line, and be equal to each other despite their differences, and all humans who haven't yet developed sentience be on the other side? Are all the other important mental capabilities irrelevant?

    Reply
  27. eroteme
    eroteme says:

    Otherwise, it would be negligent homicide or manslaughter or something.

    What if they are aware? 30 years to life?

    If you mean conscious, older fetuses are certainly sentient

    The capacity of consciousness, yes.

    ZEF have an inherent nature for consciousness, rationality, etc. It's in their genetic makeup

    Chickens have a gene for teeth. That doesn't mean that they are inherently toothy.

    I don't see that it really maters.

    Because potential is not actual. And just because something is in your genes does not meant that you possess it until you actually possess it. We don't treat someone who was born without arms as if they have arms because h.sapiens are inherently armed.

    and all humans who haven't yet developed sentience be on the other side

    Because, we value humanity for our minds. Mindless beating heart cadavers and brainlless anencephalic babies are NOT kept on life support or feeding tubes indefinitely – no mind = no person. Just because an embryo MIGHT develop a mind does not mean that we should treat it as if it's already sentient and sapient.

    Reply
  28. Blueberry
    Blueberry says:

    Mentally ill people who don't understand the consequences of their actions or are not thinking clearly should not be prosecuted like mentally healthy people.

    I think there are basically 3 scenarios we're looking at:

    Creating a child where there is some possibility-large or small-or having a genetic sickness, disability, or even dying.

    Creating a child who will be fine but taking a substance or exposing them to certain additional risks (which are not inherent just in their existence, like being deaf due to genetics) which might harm or kill them. Some of these risks are minimal, and some are not.

    Outright harming or killing the child.

    Does that sound right to you?

    Reply
  29. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    No, in fact it would NOT "constitute the ending of a human life" unless you mean by natural causes. It's never an abortion. It's a natural occurrence that happens to most blastocysts. They fail to implant. Too bad, so sad. There's no way of knowing about it when it does happen. And even worth less fretting about.

    Reply
  30. eroteme
    eroteme says:

    Mentally ill people who don't understand the consequences of their actions

    You assume that because someone is anorexic that she won't know that her uterine lining could prevent implantation.

    Anorexic doesn't = stupid, you know.

    Does that sound right to you?

    Yes.

    Reply
  31. Clinton
    Clinton says:

    No, that's not true. I'm using "abortifacient" as short-hand for "any procedure that prematurely and intentionally ends the life of a human embryo/fetus after it has begun." So while my language may not have been completely specific, most people, when they use the term "abortion" have the child in mind, not the pregnancy. Otherwise childbirth would be considered an abortion since it, too, ends the pregnancy.

    Reply
  32. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    Um. That's a load of crap, and you know it. Women who have uterine ablation don't "have to agree" to ANYTHING! It's not a "child" and it isn't being "fed." Pregnancy after this procedure is just not happening, and that's that. If a pregnancy were to occur (highly unlikely), it would be life-threatening and need to be aborted. And please… stop trotting out toddlers. this has nothing to do with toddlers.

    Reply
  33. Clinton
    Clinton says:

    I didn't say emotional ties matter. In fact, in my comment I specifically indicated that it doesn't. The reason we feel the death of an adult more than the death of a human embryo is because of emotional ties (an adult looks more like us than a human embryo does). What I said is that "looking like us" does not ground human value.

    Reply
  34. eroteme
    eroteme says:

    Yeah, so whether an abortion is late term or not is irrelevant. And freezing embryos where 50% die should carry the same penalty as shooting a 5 yo in the head, or perhaps a charge of mass murder since zygotes = multiple people yeah?

    Reply
  35. Clinton
    Clinton says:

    Sorry, that's incorrect. The fetus at nine months in utero can survive outside the womb, but it is not fully formed. Being viable has nothing to do with being "fully formed." In fact, we don't even reach our intellectual maturity until well into adulthood. Human life is marked by development that begins at fertilization and doesn't end until we are adults. No one in the literature on abortion defends viability as that which grounds human value because everyone recognizes it doesn't.

    Reply
  36. Clinton
    Clinton says:

    Additionally, it is not her choice to be able to kill her child. Our government has given her the choice but that doesn't mean she is right to make it, anymore than a husband is right to abuse his wife, even if he had the legal freedom to do so.

    Reply
  37. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    Well, then… may I use "murder" for anything that ends the life of another person before their time? NO I MAY NOT. Why? Because that isn't the definition of "murder." Words have meaning. You may not use words to mean whatever you like, and a blastocyst that doesn't implant isn't an abortion, it's not a miscarriage, it isn't anything at all but a natural occurrence resulting in a menstrual period.

    Reply
  38. eroteme
    eroteme says:

    Being viable has nothing to do with being "fully formed.

    A newborn has all of the organs and body parts that it will ever have.

    A zygote/embryo/fetus, not so much. They are incomplete and partially formed, and may NEVER be viable as autonomous individuals. A newborn has proven that it can survive as a separate individual.

    Reply
  39. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    Andrea Yates, in all fairness, was re-tried and found not guilty by reason of insanity. Andrea Yates is tragically mentally ill and will probably never be allowed to leave the mental hospital. She is also no danger to anyone but her own children, and perhaps, herself.

    Reply
  40. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    The problem is that no "human being" or "person" has any right to the body of another, including you and I. You cannot demand that another breathe for you, and process your wastes for you. Neediness doesn't create such a right.

    Reply
  41. eroteme
    eroteme says:

    They always talk about how the 'man' should be just as responsible for the 'situational dependency' that the ZEF is in, but it's nothing but bullshit. Women are blamed 100% for pregnancy and bad pregnancy outcomes.

    For example, women are pilloried for smoking and drinking during pregnancy. However, FAS can also be transmitted through bad sperm. Yet, men are not held responsible, at all. No one pointing at the alcoholic male saying 'your behaviour could harm your baby'

    Reply
  42. Blueberry
    Blueberry says:

    If someone is aware that they are murdering, yes, they should receive a long prison sentence.

    Older fetuses are presently conscious. They can even learn to recognize their mother's voice and differentiate it from the voices of other people. They react to touch, sounds, etc. It's not like the fetus is unconscious in the womb and suddenly walks up when its born. Have you ever seen a preemie in the NICU? They're obviously conscious, though not in as sophisticated a manner as older humans.

    The point is, there are clearly levels of conscious (it's not just an on/off switch) as well as many significant mental capabilities besides consciousness. Why should a newborn, who lacks awareness even of her own existence, be considered morally on par with an adult capable of rational thought, if not for the fact that she is a human being? Placing all the significance on consciousness (and a very precise level of consciousness, too, since some people are more conscious than others) but none on other factors is arbitrary.

    There's no consistent way to maintain human equality for humans after birth, while saying that those before birth are inferior.

    Also I would argue that the embryo isn't just potentially conscientious; she's conscious by her inherent nature. Just as the newborn is rational by nature. Think about it this way. You take an incredible, once in a lifetime photograph with an old Polaroid camera. You're really excited to see it develop, but before it can, I snatch it away and rip it to pieces. Are you angry? Why? What if I say "But it was only a potential picture! Why are you so upset, it was only brown smudges. I mean, it might not have even developed the image; something might have happened to it first!" That would be absurd. Everything about the photo was captured in an instant, and inherently a part of it. Just as the characteristics of a human being are present in it's DNA from the earliest stages. The photo simply hadn't had enough time to express certain of it's own inherently possessed characteristics. But it wouldn't make any sense to claim that makes it any less valuable.

    Reply
  43. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    What's "intentional" about it? A non-implanting blastocyst isn't an abortion, it isn't a miscarriage, it's a natural occurrence resulting in a menstrual period. That's how it works, with or without use of contraception.

    Reply
  44. eroteme
    eroteme says:

    If someone is aware that they are murdering, yes, they should receive a long prison sentence.

    Yeah, so if a woman is anorexic and has sex regardless, or a woman with a uterine ablation has sex knowing the embryo can't implant, they should both be charged with murder yeah?

    Older fetuses are presently conscious

    No, they are not. They have the capacity for sentience, but they aren't actually awake. Certain areas of the brain work, but this does not mean that they are awake like you and i are. This is why babies born within the amniotic sac are completely unaware that they are being born – without air in the lungs, they are in a sedated, anaesthetized state.

    Why should a newborn, who lacks awareness even of her own existence, be considered morally on par with an adult capable of rational thought, if not for the fact that she is a human being?

    Because, the newborn still meets certain other criteria for personhood. And there is no reason why newborns, just like certain animals, can't be a protected class. After all, they really have no other right than the right to 1) life 2) not to be abused – the same right that we extend to many animals.

    Also I would argue that the embryo isn't just potentially conscientious; she's conscious by her inherent nature

    Yeah, and chickens have teeth, and should be treated as if they have teeth, because they have the genes for teeth.

    Having something in your genes isn't proof of anything. Until those genes are EXPRESSED you are not in possession of a specific trait, PERiOD.

    Reply
  45. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    Eroteme is playing with you to expose your lack of knowledge. There. I went there. Just like the question about "humanizing" zygotes. Because zygote doesn't equal person. It doesn't even equal human. It's not my debating style because too often the point gets lost. But reading your answers is entertaining in a morbidly curious sort of way.

    Reply
  46. Blueberry
    Blueberry says:

    The primary issue of contention between the pro-life and pro-choice movement is whether the unborn human is a life, or a morally relevant one. So respectfully, "worry about your own life" (implying that the ZEF is not a life to be worried about, and I'm worried rather about controlling the mother's) is question begging.

    Reply
  47. Blueberry
    Blueberry says:

    I probably couldn't tell a pig heart from a human heart, either. I probably couldn't tell any number of unknown species apart; that doesn't mean they're the same. Are you claiming that embryos are actually not human organisms (that is, living members of our species)?

    Reply
  48. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    It's certainly not a life for YOU to be concerned with. The outcome of your neighbor's pregnancy or conception is frankly, none of your damn business. Somewhere, Ann Landers is spinning in her grave.

    Reply
  49. Blueberry
    Blueberry says:

    No, I don't think they should be charged with murder, any more than I think people who feed their kids a ton of unhealthy food should be charged with murder, or people who leave their toddlers home should go to jail for 30 years. Good grief.

    Considering that babies can respond to sound, and stimuli, and recognize their mother's voices and differentiate them from other voices…I'm going to need a source saying they're not conscious, period. Perhaps not as conscious as older humans, but that's not the same things as being wholly unaware.

    "The newborn still meets certain other criteria for personhood."

    Okay…like what? I mean they're conscious….Are all conscious beings people, morally on par with 55 year old humans?

    "Until those genes are expressed, you are not in possession of a specific trait, period."

    Following this logic with the photograph analogy, we would get "until those images are expressed the photo isn't in possession of a specific trait, period."

    Reply
  50. eroteme
    eroteme says:

    No, I don't think they should be charged with murder, any more than I think people who feed their kids a ton of unhealthy food

    Why not?

    If the woman, according to you, is responsible for creating the zygote, is it also not her responsibility to make sure that she won't put it into a dangerous situation that WILL DEFINITELY kill it? I mean, you can't throw your newborn into the pool and watch it drown,can you/ same thing!

    Considering that babies can respond to sound, and stimuli, and recognize
    their mother's voices and differentiate them from other voices.

    Babies can. Fetuses can't.

    And brainless anencephalic fetuses can respond to stimuli -it doesn't mean that they are conscious, they can't be, because they have no cerebral cortex – but it's possible to respond to stimuli with a primitive nervous system – brain stem and spinal reflex.

    .Are all conscious beings people, morally on par with 55 year old humans?

    No, but, they can suffer, and they should be protected from suffering at least. I spoke to a neuroscientist about this, and she explained that the sapient regions of a baby's brain are already active, just that they cannot express it because they do not yet know language etc. But they are already developing an understanding of concepts from birth. They can also feel emotion, unlike a brainless embryo.

    Following this logic with the photograph analogy, we would get "until
    those images are expressed the photo isn't in possession of a specific
    trait, period

    Chickens have the genes for teeth. Should we treat chickens as if they have teeth, simply because it's in their genetics?

    Reply
  51. Blueberry
    Blueberry says:

    A newborn, and all humans for that matter, can only survive in a location where he/she is able to get necessary nutrients and such to survive. There's much variation among born humans in how they can obtain these things, and how limited/independent they are. We recognize though that level of dependence/limitation doesn't effect one's moral value.

    All of the parts ARE there at 8 weeks, they're just undeveloped. They're not done developing until about 22, and the human (generally, though not always) becomes progressively less limited and dependent throughout that time.

    Besides, viability would still imply that human value hinges on available technology.

    Reply
  52. Blueberry
    Blueberry says:

    "No human being or person has any right to the body of another."

    Pardon me, but I think that's a huge overstatement.

    Don't children have a right to receive basic care from their parents? If, for whatever reason, a woman with a newborn baby could not pass care off to someone else, wouldn't she have a moral obligation to use her body, time, and money, in order to meet her child's basic, natural needs? (Nutrition, shelter from harm, etc.) If the baby had some strange illness and the only acceptable food was her mother's breast milk, wouldn't it be negligent homicide for her mother to say "my body, my choice. No one has a right to my body," and her her child starve to death?

    Reply
  53. eroteme
    eroteme says:

    A newborn, and all humans for that matter, can only survive in a
    location where he/she is able to get necessary nutrients and such to
    survive.

    Yeah, so that makes your anorexic guilty of murder, doesn't it?

    Denying the zygote the right to 'live' in her uterus by failing to provide the right environment necessary for it's survival!

    All of the parts ARE there at 8 weeks, they're just undeveloped

    Or they aren't there at all. Brainless, lungless and kidneyless fetuses can survive in utero because the woman's organs keep it alive – it literally uses her organs in lieu of it's own.

    It has no right to her organs, just as I have no right to yours, even if I can't survive without use of your kidneys.

    Besides, viability would still imply that human value hinges on available technology.

    Nope. Even if you put an unborn human in an artificial womb, it would still be non-viable until it can prove that it can survive as an independent entity.

    Reply
  54. eroteme
    eroteme says:

    Don't children have a right to receive basic care from their parents?

    Basic care doesn't includ literal use of their parent's organs, blood or tissue. Even if the kid will die without.

    Reply
  55. Blueberry
    Blueberry says:

    "Playing with you to expose your lack of knowledge."

    Yeah, no doubt it was all a clever ploy.

    I had never heard that of IUDs before, although I had heard that they could up the risk of miscarriage. I wasn't blindly accepting it, hence my "if." I just didn't see it as a point worth pursing at the moment. In any event, I don't think an IUD causing birth defects is particularly unreasonable thing to consider as possibly being true (though apparently it's not). (Like I said, they can cause miscarriage.)

    What do you mean by "it doesn't even equal human"? In a biological sense there's no doubt that the Z/E/F is an individual human being, a living organism and a member of our species. Any actions post-fertilization which cause the death of the Z/E/F constitute the killing of a human being. There's overwhelming scientific support for this.

    https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html

    http://clinicquotes.com/category/quotes/scientists-speak/

    I'd be happy to provide far more sources if you're interested.

    Reply
  56. Blueberry
    Blueberry says:

    If the outcome of my neighbor's pregnancy involves the killing of a human being, then yes, it is my business.

    The loss of a toddler's life, or a newborn's life, is my business. Negligent homicide where a parent refuses to meet their child's needs is my business. Why not an unborn human being?

    This isn't about judging women who are post-abortive, or oppressing women, or anything like that. Women who are post-abortive deserve compassion and, if necessary, counseling to help them. Women facing unplanned pregnancies deserve practical and emotional resources, support, etc. which many pro-lifers are dedicated to providing. But empathy for the mother, or a desire for women's welfare, does not mean we can just consign the helpless child within her to death.

    Reply
  57. Blueberry
    Blueberry says:

    Taking a pill which is abortifacient is intentional. The body flushing out an embryo on it's own isn't. But as far as I know there isn't scientific consensus on whether forms of BC *are* abortifacient. (Except IUDs, where it seems pretty clear they can cause miscarriage.)

    Reply
  58. Blueberry
    Blueberry says:

    ….If you were my dependent child, born or unborn, you would have some right to my body in that I would have a moral obligation to provide for basic, natural needs (food, shelter, etc.), even if doing so was tiring or painful, and would not be justified in abandoning you to die, or in killing you, even if that was the only way I could be rid of you

    Reply
  59. eroteme
    eroteme says:

    Actually, I am interested in following things through to their logical conclusion.

    If zygotes are moral beings with the exact same worth as any other human being, then what does that say about how we should treat them?

    What do you mean by "it doesn't even equal human"? In a biological sense there's no doubt that the Z/E/F is an individual human being, a living
    organism and a member of our species.

    so is a hydatidiform mole

    Reply
  60. eroteme
    eroteme says:

    If the outcome of my neighbor's pregnancy involves the killing of a human being, then yes, it is my business.

    Should your neighbour be arrested for child abuse if she doesn't get enough folic acid in her diet?

    Reply
  61. Blueberry
    Blueberry says:

    In the case of a fetus, it does. Until we develop artificial one's the mother's womb is the only way the fetus can get nutrition, shelter, etc.

    Besides, if a mother could not give her born child up for adoption immediately (any number of hypothetical scenarios might make this the case), she would have to use her body to care for her child. She would feel increased stress, her muscles would be tired, her back might hurt, her blood pressure might go up, she's exposed to all kinds of gross bodily fluids, she might be feeling depressed or lonely or even have, her breasts and nipples might hurt, if she had a c-section she'll certainly be feeling pain from that, depending on the situation her job or social life might be hindered, etc. Honestly, I'm betting a lot of people find parenting a born child more difficult and emotionally/physically demanding than parenting an unborn one.

    Killing the baby or committing negligent homicide would still not be justified.

    Not to mention, 99% of the time the baby's existence and condition of dependence was cause by the mother and father's own actions. Even ignoring the other arguments, bodily autonomy was waived by taking action which has the natural and foreseeable effect of putting a child in a state of dependence on you.

    Also, if the mother has no bodily obligations to her child, and only she has a say with regard to her body, then is it justifiable to take drugs known to cause birth defects? For example accutane?

    Reply
  62. Blueberry
    Blueberry says:

    Hydatidiform mole form when the ovum doesn't have it's DNA….so no. It's not inherently viable, rational, or anything else. It's not set on the path of development through all life stages, like a zygote is. I doubt you could even classify it as an organism at all. Clearly that's vastly different than a zygote which was conceived from two normal gametes, which even Planned Parenthood recognizes as an organism. http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-info/glossary (Unlike gametes, by the way.)

    Reply
  63. eroteme
    eroteme says:

    n the case of a fetus, it does.

    Full bodily donation is NEVER basic care.

    You are slipping into naturalistic fallacy territory.

    she would have to use her body to care for her child.

    Irrelevant. It would not be able to lay claim on her organs, blood or tissue.

    Not to mention, 99% of the time the baby's existence and condition of
    dependence was cause by the mother and father's own actions.

    So an exception should be made for rape?

    Also, if the mother has no bodily obligations to her child, and only she
    has a say with regard to her body, then is it justifiable to take drugs
    known to cause birth defects? For example accutane?

    I would say that parents have a moral obligation not to cause harm to a fetus IF that fetus will be brought to term, because the born child will then suffer. It's a commitment thing.

    Mere fertilization does not necessarily = automatic commitment. Sex itself is not a commitment to pregnancy or to parenting.

    Reply
  64. Blueberry
    Blueberry says:

    We're just going to have to disagree on the first point. Not all actions which cause, or carry the risk of potentially maybe causing, either death or injury or natural disability, are the same.

    Yes, they can. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23817883

    Whether they can suffer is significant, but it's not the issue at hand.

    You said "Why should emotional ties matter? Or even terms of development? Should the penalty for killing a 55yo be greater than for killing a newborn because one is further along?" That strongly implies that you consider 55 year olds and newborns to be morally equal.

    And you say that newborns meet the criteria for personhood.

    But you also deny that fetuses are persons, which would mean being human is not enough to make one a person, or to establish moral equality with other humans.

    I'm asking, what criteria for personhood do newborns meet, and what criteria do they meet which makes them equal to 55 year olds, if being human is not enough?

    And if it is merely being conscious, why aren't ALL conscious being persons, morally on par with newborns, 55 year olds, etc.?

    Teeth, like arms, have no relation to moral value, and there are clearly practical reasons why we don't treat them like they have teeth. They're also past the point of being able to develop teeth. Likewise arms have no relation to moral standing, or the value which we should place on another human being. Sorry but neither of those are accurate analogies.

    Reply
  65. Blueberry
    Blueberry says:

    Being human is not the same as being a human organism. That's a profound biological distinction, and it's why comments like "but I'm killing humans skin cells with human DNA when I scratch myself" are ridiculous.

    Reply
  66. Rev Donald Spitz
    Rev Donald Spitz says:

    Scott Roeder did the right thing. He stopped that babykilling abortionist George
    Tiller from murdering any more children. He deserves a medal for his heroic
    deed.

    Reply
  67. KB
    KB says:

    Blueberry, that's far to reasonable and rational a response for the lady to actually understand. She made an assertion, and because she asserted it, it's right in her mind. No matter what.

    Reply
  68. Blueberry
    Blueberry says:

    My point is that caring for a born child is still full bodily
    donation. It not like the mother's external body parts are caring for the newborn and she leaves all her internal organs behind. And as I said, her muscles may ache, her breasts may hurt, etc. and she may be far more
    emotionally and physically drained than in caring for a fetus. And it's not like there's a hierarchy of bodily autonomy, where you have more right to your blood than to your hands and breasts, or increasing autonomy over your body parts the closer they are to the center of you. The woman's body is the woman's body, but a child, born or unborn, has certain rights to it-as well as to the
    father's.

    I didn't say an exception
    should be made for rape, I was pointing out that that's another argument, which
    applies to most situations.

    Bodily autonomy assumes, for the sake of arguments, that the human in the womb is a person. Otherwise it
    wouldn't be worth bringing up. Saying that a woman is not justified in taking something like accutane basically means that bodily autonomy authorizes her to
    kill another person, but not to harm one. Which makes no sense, IMO.

    "Sex itself is not a commitment to pregnancy and parenting." It's a commitment to whatever minimum actions are necessary to fulfill the child's natural needs for things like food and shelter. If someone came across a big box labeled "baby making machine" where you could push a button in exchange for a pleasurable experience, with a 1/100 chance of making a baby, and they pushed the button, they're responsible for the baby if one comes out. Even if they
    didn't want one to, and even if they don't want to care for it. That's not the ONLY way someone could be responsible for the baby, but personally causing her
    existence and dependency is one reason which makes that person responsible for
    the baby's welfare. (Obviously this isn't analogous to pregnancy in all ways; my point is that the fact that the person having sex didn't actually intend to
    create a baby, and hoped one wouldn't result, and had sex purely for love or pleasure, doesn't change anything.)

    Reply
  69. Blueberry
    Blueberry says:

    Someone with anorexia obviously isn't stupid, but they're too ill to to stop their unhealthy eating habits even though they could kill *themselves,* I don't think they're in the right state of mind to consider the possible, unlikely effects on a not yet existing embryo. Besides, anorexia does not have the inherent purpose of starving the embryo, whereas an abortifacient arguably does. As I said before, there are subtle differences in all these situations. Parents should be charged with murder for stabbing their kid in the heart. They shouldn't be charged with murder for over feeding and teaching unhealthy habits which resulted in their 40 year old having a heart attack. They should be charged with assault if they bruise their child's legs, but not if they feed them too much and the child can't run very far. (Even though it's still wrong to not teach your child healthy habits.)

    Reply
  70. KB
    KB says:

    That, is frankly, a little disgusting to say. Nobody deserves condemnation and death without fair trial. And Roeder certainly didn't afford him that.

    And what did Roeder do for the pro-life movement? At best, nothing. At worst, rightfully disgusted moderate people, and since people can't seem to distinguish a radical from a moderate, thereby condemn the who pro-life movement. Tiller might have been doing a horrible, morally reprehensible thing. But he was doing a legal horrible, morally reprehensible thing. So you attack the political and legal system that lets his actions occur, not the person himself.

    Reply
  71. Blueberry
    Blueberry says:

    "That makes your anorexic guilty or murder, doesn't it?"

    I addressed this above.

    The fact that a slim minority of disabled embryos/fetuses are developing without certain organs is irrelevant to the discussion. All that was being discussed was the general meaning of the term "fully formed," which is probably best defined as either 8 weeks (everything is generally in place), or ~22 years (everything is done developing).

    The fetus gets nutrition, oxygen, etc. from the placenta. If it hasn't developed an organ yet, that's because it doesn't need it yet, in order to function as an organism.

    And biologically, the fetus is an independent entity. It's just not self-sufficient, but neither is someone who needs a feeding tube and respirator. Self-sufficiency isn't a requisite for personhood.

    A born child has a right to his mother's arms, legs, breasts, muscles, bones, etc. for being carried, fed, protected, etc. The woman's organs might be more taxed by caring for the child, she might get a headache, she might have stress which is bad for your heart….And like I said, the mother's right to bodily autonomy doesn't somehow apply only to her womb, but not to all the body parts necessary to care for the newborn. Bodily autonomy applies equally to whatever body parts the mother (or father, as the case may be) is using, but a child's has a right to the parents' bodies, not totally, but insofar as they're necessary to provide food, shelter, etc. It doesn't matter whether the child is born or not.

    Reply
  72. Blueberry
    Blueberry says:

    "You attack the political and legal system that lets his actions occur, not the person himself."

    Well said. Also the cultural ideas that some human beings are disposable, and that being pro-woman means supporting abortion rather than actually providing for women's needs.

    But I suspect that guy was a troll anyway.

    Reply
  73. eroteme
    eroteme says:

    My point is that caring for a born child is still full bodily
    donation.

    Unless it is directly hooked into your blood vessels, and you are literally breathing for it, eating for it and processing waste for it, no it isn't a full body donation.

    Bodily autonomy assumes, for the sake of arguments, that the human in the womb is a person.

    Bodily autonomy means that no person or thing has the right to use the body of another without explicit and ongoing consent.

    Such a right does NOT exist. And if anything or anyone invades your body without consent, you are within your rights to remove it, even IF it will die upon separation from your body. It's not your fault that it can't survive without access to your circulatory system, kidneys, live and lungs.

    It's a commitment to whatever minimum actions are necessary to fulfill
    the child's natural needs for things like food and shelter

    No, it isn't. Sex is consent to nothing more than sex. It isn't consent to what may or may not result. It's not consent to STD's, it's not consent to rape.

    When you get into your car, you don't consent to get into a car accident. And if you do injure someone in an accident, you certainly are not required to repair them with a 'fully bodily donation'.

    . If someone came across a big box labeled "baby making machine" where you could push a button in exchange for a pleasurable experience

    I have heard this one about a dozen times. It's completely irrelevant because it sidesteps the very important issue of bodily autonomy.

    Reply
  74. eroteme
    eroteme says:

    Someone with anorexia obviously isn't stupid, but they're too ill to to stop their unhealth

    Maybe they shouldn't have sex or, if they are an alcoholic, drive, ya know?

    Besides, anorexia does not have the inherent purpose of starving the embryo, whereas an abortifacient arguably does.

    The point of drunk driving isn't to kill. I spose we should let DUI's walk free then?

    They shouldn't be charged with murder for over feeding and teaching
    unhealthy habits which resulted in their 40 year old having a heart
    attack

    Why not? What if they slowly poison their kid to death over 40 years, is that ok, cuz it's slooow?

    Reply
  75. eroteme
    eroteme says:

    if zygotes = people, then they should be treated like people.

    you all are making loopholes for people who commit zygote abuse, something that you wouldn't let a person get away with if they did it to a toddler

    Reply
  76. eroteme
    eroteme says:

    Thank you for this post Rev Donald Spitz. Just the other day, SPL'ers were bragging that they've met a pro-lifer who thought murdering people was awesome.

    Reply
  77. eroteme
    eroteme says:

    A complete hydatidiform mole most often develops when either 1 or 2 sperm cells fertilize an egg cell that contains no nucleus or DNA (an “empty” egg cell). All the genetic material comes from the father's sperm cell. Therefore, there is no fetal tissue.

    Surgery can totally remove most complete moles, but as many as 1 in 5 women will have some persistent molar tissue (see below). Most often this is an invasive mole, but in rare cases it is a choriocarcinoma, a malignant (cancerous) form of GTD. In either case it will require further treatment.

    A partial hydatidiform mole develops when 2 sperm fertilize a normal egg. These tumors contain some fetal tissue, but this is often mixed in with the trophoblastic tissue. It is important to know that a viable (able to live) fetus is not being formed.

    ————-

    it's an organism, it's just disabled

    both still have the correct # of chromosomes

    you are hating on it because it's non-viable

    what if, through genetic engineering, a hydatidiform zygote could be saved?

    Reply
  78. eroteme
    eroteme says:

    Yes, they can.

    That's not the same as actually being conscious. It's sitll a reflex. Part of their brain can react, that doesn't mean they are AWAKE. It doesn't mean they are there in the womb, forming concepts.

    A baby born in the aminotic sac:

    http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/06/05/article-0-1A285066000005DC-569_634x431.jpg

    Didn't know it had been born. Your average baby knows it has been born, because it is violently squeezed through a tiny hole, and fluid is forced out of it's lungs, and air in. This is what wakes it up. Until it takes it's first breath it is unaware of the world around it. This baby in this photo was squeezed through that tiny hole, and it is, as you can see from the pic, not aware of anything.

    I'm asking, what criteria for personhood do newborns meet, and what
    criteria do they meet which makes them equal to 55 year olds, if being
    human is not enough?

    They might not yet exhibit rationality, but the parts of their brains that give rise to it DO EXIST, and as I said, babies are already learning concepts, they just can't talk about it, because they don't know the whole language thing. Even a very young newborn will learn to cry in order to get cuddled/food. It's not all reflexive.

    Sorry but neither of those are accurate analogies.

    It's completely relevant, and you are attempting to move the goalposts by saying that since h. sapiens is a species that is capable of rationality, that simply being a member of that species gives moral standing. No, it doesn't.

    Until the genes are expressed you can't pretend that they have been expressed.

    Would you treat a woman without arms as if she had them? I mean, being a human being, she is 'inherently armed', so why not treat her as if she has arms?

    Should we treat brainless anencehaplic babies as if they are rational? They don't develop brains, but, according to you, they are inherently rational because h.sapiens DNA.

    Reply
  79. eroteme
    eroteme says:

    Nothing to do with disposability.

    Albert Einstein wouldn't have a right to your body, or to my body, or to anyone's body, even if his very life depended on it.

    Reply
  80. eroteme
    eroteme says:

    I addressed this above.

    Yeah, and I rebutted it.

    How about women who keep doing IVF in hopes of getting pregnant, but their bodies keep rejecting perfectly healthy embryos? Are they not mass murderers?

    developing without certain organs is irrelevant to the discussion.

    It's completely relevant. They are incomplete and only partially formed, and they may NEVER become viable. Pretending as if they are viable before they can demonstrate that they are is dishonest.

    The fetus gets nutrition, oxygen, etc. from the placenta

    It doesn't get it from the placenta. It gets it all from the woman's organs, and the woman's organs are HERS, they do not belong to the fetus.

    And biologically, the fetus is an independent entity. It's just not
    self-sufficient, but neither is someone who needs a feeding tube and
    respirator.

    If it's an independent entity it can move out and grow on it's own without the use of another body to perform all of life's functions for it.

    A person who needs a feeding tube and respirator has already proven that they can survive independently. Illness happens.

    A born child has a right to his mother's arms, legs, breasts, muscles, bones, etc. for being carried, fed, protected, etc

    You need to give up while you're behind. Having to feed your kid out of a bottle and hold it in your arms is not the same as having it literally live inside your body

    Oh, and pregnancy maims and kills. How many toddlers cause their caretakers to bleed to death? How many toddlers give their caretakers diabetes? eclampsia? prolapsed uterus?

    Anyone can look after a born child. Only one person can gestate a pregnancy.

    Reply
  81. Blueberry
    Blueberry says:

    The purpose of an action is significant, but it's not the only significant factor. As I already stated. Nature of the risk, the degree of risk, intent, whether you're causing harm to someone who is otherwise okay, etc. So no, DIUs aren't okay. Do you actually think parents should be charged with murder if their 40 year old has a heart attack, because they taught him unhealthy eating habits as a child? I don't, and I think it's obvious that there's a difference. I also don't consider intentionally outright killing a zygote to be in the same category as an anorexic whose habits could possibly contribute to an embryo not implanting if one should be conceived, and I would put possibly abortifacient BC in between, though closer to the former. This conversation is going nowhere though, so, like I said before, let's just agree to disagree.

    Reply
  82. someone45
    someone45 says:

    Yes actually it is the woman's choice if the ZEF can use her body to come to term. Denying her that right is gestational slavery.

    Reply
  83. someone45
    someone45 says:

    Yes actually it is the woman's choice if the ZEF can use her body to
    come to term. Denying her that right is gestational slavery.

    Reply
  84. Guest
    Guest says:

    "Tiller himself admitted that this situation constituted only about eight percent of his abortions."

    Wow. Loose lips sink ships.

    I don't feel like duking it out with the Goldfish Poop Gang today.

    Reply
  85. Blueberry
    Blueberry says:

    And if you're breastfeeding a newborn by physically placing your breast in the babies mouth, you're literally ingesting food for it. That would especially be the case if the baby had a injury or condition that that made it difficult to swallow, and the mother had to drip pumped milk into his/her stomach with a tube.

    And yes, it's still full bodily donation, because you still have to use your whole body to walk around, carry the baby, etc. I could just as easily argue that pregnancy isn't "full bodily donation" because she's not using her arms and hands, or her head, to directly care for the baby.

    Certain body parts are used more directly depending on whether the woman is caring for a born or unborn baby, but clearly the level of autonomy she has over those body parts doesn't vary from part to part, or organ to organ, or based on whether it's close to the inside or outside of her body.

    I'm sorry, but I really don't think any of the distinctions you're making are meaningful. The mother's bodily autonomy is compromised by childcare either way, and the degree to which it's compromised may even be greater with a born child.

    99% of the time bodily autonomy is phrased as "even if the fetus is a person…" or "accepting for the sake of argument that the fetus is a person…" If the fetus isn't a person the bodily autonomy discussion is pointless and unnecessary, because it's obvious that abortion is permissible.

    "It's completely irrelevant because it sidesteps the very important issue of bodily autonomy."

    I know, that's why I said it wasn't a perfect analogy. The point of the analogy was to illustrate that, just because you didn't mean for something to happen, doesn't absolve you from the consequences of the actions.

    Regarding car accidents….If the biological purpose of driving cars was to hit people but people drove them for recreational or relational reasons as well, and if life threatening car accidents were as common as pregnancy (they're not even close) and over 6 million people a year found themselves in extreme danger of dying from them, and if they ONLY way those 6 million helpless people could be saved is if the driver who created the condition of dependency in the other person agreed to a temporary loss of certain aspects of bodily autonomy (say, a temporary kidney donation that had physical risks comparable to pregnancy, where they could have the kidney back in 9 months when the person's own kidneys healed)….I think there's a good chance we would change the law so that people were required to do so. And I'd be 100% fine with that.

    Reply
  86. eroteme
    eroteme says:

    Nurses are caretakers, their patients don't live inside them, and if they did, i think that the nurse would feel that the patient living inside their bodies is entirely different.

    Reply
  87. eroteme
    eroteme says:

    Do you actually think parents should be charged with murder if their 40
    year old has a heart attack, because they taught him unhealthy eating
    habits as a child?

    He is responsible for his own life by the time he hits 40. And this is so out there that it's completely irrelevant.

    I also don't consider intentionally outright killing a zygote to be in
    the same category as an anorexic whose habits could possibly contribute
    to an embryo not implanting if one should be conceived

    1) she knows she's anorexic

    2) she knows zygotes and embryos will miscarry due to her condition

    3) she has sex anyway
    ———-

    1) he knows he's a drunk

    2) he knows that he will most likely kill people if he gets in a car

    3) he drives regardless

    Reply
  88. Blueberry
    Blueberry says:

    No you didn't. As I said, anorexic people aren't even mentally capable of looking out for their own welfare.

    People who lose embryos repeatedly in IVF aren't mass murderers any more than people who have had children die of SIDs. I already said that giving your child the best chance you can, even if it's a small chance, isn't the same as killing it, injuring it, etc.

    I'm not responding to this discussion anymore. It's going round in circles.

    The fetus is an independent organism, biologically. The placenta could be hooked up to another source of nutrition and oxygen, if we had the technology for it. There's no inherent dependency on the mother that is part of the fetus's identity. A fetus could survive just fine in an artificial womb, just as a preemie can survive in a NICU incubator, or someone with breathing difficulties could survive on a respirator, or someone who couldn't feed themselves can survive with a feeding tube. The only difference is that we so happen to have the technology necessary for the last three scenarios, but not yet for the first.

    And no, it's not the same. There are differences, but those differences typically aren't morally relevant.

    It doesn't matter that the fetus is inside the mother. Bodily autonomy is not greater for the womb than it is for breasts, arms, legs, etc. You can't claim "but the woman's whole body isn't being used", because in the same sense the whole woman's body isn't being used in caring for a born child. The mother's body is still being sapped of nutrients, energy, etc. with a born child, just in a different way. And, like I said, caring for a born child can easily be more difficult, demanding, and taxing on one's body, and even impact her health.

    Most pregnancies don't severely effect the mother's health or threaten her life, but of course some do. Whether it permits abortion would depend on whether an analogous hypothetical scenario with a born child would justify abandoning or outright killing it. (To which the answer would usually be no.)

    "Anyone can look after a born child. Only one person can gestate a pregnancy."

    I think I mentioned before, that we have to consider the situation as if the mother could not immediately place the baby up for adoption or pass care to someone else. We're considering whether she would be justified in killing or neglecting the baby in a situation where she was the only one who could care for it.

    Reply
  89. eroteme
    eroteme says:

    She's mentally ill.

    Alcoholism is also a disease. Why does the anorexic get a jail out of free card for killing, but the drunk driver doesn't> Both are mentally ill, and both are well aware of what they are doing

    And there are also women who don't eat because they are models, or athletes who are on a high protein diet, which can and does lead to amenorrhea.

    This conversation is pointless.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwYX52BP2Sk

    Reply
  90. Blueberry
    Blueberry says:

    Do you actually have a scientific sources saying that a complete mole is an organism? That it's biologically like a zygote, except with lethal abnormalities? As far as I know it is actually just a blob of cells. Human DNA, yes, and maybe the right number of chromosomes, but still not an organism.

    It's removal is certainly not comparable, either biologically or ethically, to abortion.

    I don't know enough about it to be sure, but maaaaybe you could claim the partial mole is a human organism, who so happens to have absolutely lethal abnormalities. Maybe.

    Reply
  91. eroteme
    eroteme says:

    As I said, anorexic people aren't even mentally capable of looking out for their own welfare.

    Yeah? I've been on 400 calories a day since this April, and this past month I am down to 200 calories a day. You think that because I'm not eating that I am too mentally ill to know that amenorrhea might result in zygotes not being able to implant if I have sex?

    Thanks for the vote of confidence.

    Mental ill doesn't = stupid, fyi

    People who lose embryos repeatedly in IVF aren't mass murderers any more than people who have had children die of SIDs

    If you repeatedly implant embryos knowing that they will die because your body rejects them is kinda similar to constantly throwing your newborn in the pool to see if he/she will sink or swim.

    I already said that giving your child the best chance you can, even if
    it's a small chance, isn't the same as killing it, injuring it, etc.

    Aw, so it's morally acceptable to put a bunch of people in harm's way, killing them, on the off chance that one might live? That is highly immoral.

    The fetus is an independent organism, biologicall

    If it was independent, it could grow in a petri dish. In fact, it can't even develop properly without certain hormones that ONLY come from the woman. Without folic acid it won't even develop a neural tube and in the worst scenarios, a brain.

    We're considering whether she would be justified in killing or
    neglecting the baby in a situation where she was the only one who could
    care for it.

    Irrelevant, because bodily autonomy is not affected. Adoptive parents get rid of their kids all the time,there are yahoo groups devoted to it.

    Most pregnancies don't severely effect the mother's health or threaten her life, but of course some do

    All pregnancies are bad for a woman's health, however. Too many pregnancies and the woman's body will eventually wear out, killing her. Having one's immune system dampened and nutrients sucked from one's body isn't exactly a state of health. And birth itself is brutal on the body.

    And every pregnancy carries with it the risk of death, permanent disability and injury. We can't tell in advance which women will die. There is no way to accurate predict or prevent this outcome. In essence, by forcing all women to carry their pregnancies to term, you are denying women, as a whole, the right to life and health.

    Reply
  92. eroteme
    eroteme says:

    It's removal is certainly not comparable, either biologically or ethically, to abortion.

    Why not?

    And I would say that a partial mole counts as a human organism with a lethal disability yeah.

    Just because it's non-viable doesn't mean we should treat it like trash now, does it? It's just sicker, earlier. A tay sachs baby also has a lethal condition – doesn't mean we can kill it now does it?

    Reply
  93. Blueberry
    Blueberry says:

    …Not being aware of having been born doesn't equate to being aware of nothing. For birth to suddenly confer consciousness there would have to be some profound and rapid change in the brain at that point, and I'm pretty sure that doesn't happen. "Until it takes its first breath it's unaware of the world around it." You need to source that.

    Okay, so newborns are persons because the parts of their brain that give rise to rationality exist.

    The brain of a newborn is exactly like the brain of a fetus just before birth. The brain of a fetus just before birth is much like the brain of a fetus at 7 months, and the brain of a 7 month fetus much like the brain of a 6 month fetus. The structures you're referring to don't suddenly arise when the human is born.

    Actually the cerebral hemispheres appear at 5 weeks post conception. So the structures necessary for consciousness, as well as self-awareness and rationality, are present by that point. If that's the criteria for personhood, 5 week olds are firmly established as being people.

    "Functions eventually controlled by the cerebral hemispheres include thought, learning, memory, speech, vision, hearing, voluntary movement, and problem-solving." http://www.ehd.org/movies.php?mov_id=24

    "Unless the genes are expressed you can't pretend that they have been expressed."

    I'll go back to the photo analogy.

    You're claiming that the human doesn't have value until valuable trait "X" is actually being expressed, even though "X" is a part of it's genetic makeup.

    With the photo, this would be "the photo isn't valuable until valuable trait "X" (could be color, shape, hue, etc.) is actually being expressed, even though "X" is a part of it's natural makeup."

    Which would mean there is no difference in value between an undeveloped picture of mud, and an undeveloped picture of the sunset, and no reason not to throw the sunset picture away. Which is clearly ridiculous.

    I don't think we should treat anecephalic babies as rational in the sense that we should expect them to solve puzzles or learn to talk, but we should treat them as human beings, with compassion and respect. (Obviously the photo analogy fails here somewhat, because a photo that got messed up while developing wouldn't be something you wanted to keep. The difference is that humans are valuable by their human nature, whereas photos are only valuable insofar as we place value on them-not inherently.)

    There's no logically consistent way to argue that pre-born humans are inferior to born ones without completely undermining human equality. But even if you don't buy human equality, the nature of a thing is more important than what it can do at the moment, and the nature of a fetus also establishes it as a person.

    Reply
  94. Blueberry
    Blueberry says:

    Why not? Because a complete mole is not a human organism. It's not an individual, living thing. It has no capacity to develop through any stages of life. It doesn't function as a whole. It's not a member of our species, or of any species.

    And if the partial mole could be biologically classified as an organism (which is a scientific question, not one to be settled on a hunch), then no, we should treat it like trash. It should be treated like a human with a lethal abnormality.

    Reply
  95. eroteme
    eroteme says:

    .Not being aware of having been born doesn't equate to being aware of nothing.

    If it was conscious it would wake up from having it's head crushed like the babies that are NOT born within the amniotic sac.

    The structures you're referring to don't suddenly arise when the human is born.

    The fetus is incapable of sentience until at least 25 weeks-30 weeks, at which point the thalamacortical connections which give rise to upper brain function begin to form. However, it is still sedated and anaesthetized whilst in the womb. It doesn't sit there, thinking about life. Parts of it's brain may manage to process certain stimuli, but that does not mean that it is actively AWAKE.

    Obviously the photo analogy fails here somewhat, because a photo that got messed up while developing wouldn't be something you wanted to keep.

    Until the Kodak photo can function as a kodak photo you can't say you have a photo. If the chemicals don't mix properly and all you get is a black smear, you can't say that you have a photo – you just have a black smear. Treating it as if it's a photo is ludicrous.

    There's no logically consistent way to argue that pre-born humans are
    inferior to born ones without completely undermining human equality

    People have minds. Pre-viability non-sentient embryos, zygotes and fetuses do not. A beating heart cadaver can be unplugged from the feeding tube and left to die, and no one will say it's murder, because the mind is gone. It doesn't matter if the body is still alive, no mind = no person. A non-viable prenate doesn't have a mind, and it may never develop one, and until it does, we can't be treating it as if it already has a mind.

    But even if you don't buy human equality, the nature of a thing is more important than what it can do at the moment

    Then why aren't anencephalic babies and braindead yet still alive bodies often unplugged from their feeding tubes and left to die, or organs harvested?

    Reply
  96. eroteme
    eroteme says:

    It's not an individual, living thing

    1) it's living, just not the way you think it should, but it's definitely alive

    2) it sure is an individual, has the unique DNA and everything

    It has no capacity to develop through any stages of life.

    Neither does a doomed Tay Sachs baby. So it's ok to shoot a TS newborn in the head?

    It should be treated like a human with a lethal abnormality.

    Yes, and given every chance to develop instead of being cruelly aborted.

    Reply
  97. Blueberry
    Blueberry says:

    You cannot subsist on 400, or 200, calories a day. You're either lying, or trolling (the most probable option, I think, and all the more reason to stop discussing this particular issue with you), or in desperate need of help, in which case I sincerely urge you to care for yourself, to know that you are valuable, and to get help from a professional, and maybe contact this helpline: http://www.anad.org/eating-disorders-get-help/eating-disorders-helpline-email/

    "Irrelevent, because bodily autonomy is not affected."

    It is being affected. That's what we've been discussing. Bodily autonomy is affected whether the child is born or not, and being inside vs. outside isn't a morally relevant distinction.

    The VAST majority of abortions are not done to protect the woman from serious health risks, or from dying.

    "There is no accurate way to predict or prevent this outcome." There's no accurate way to predict whether driving your sick child to the doctor will result in a car crash that kills or maims you, but that doesn't mean you're justified in not taking them, even if it's rainy or icy or dark outside. Sorry but you can't just say "well there's an unpredictable risk" and figure that automatically negates the parent's obligations to their child.

    Abortion would only be permissible if the situation would somehow justify killing or fatally neglecting the born child in a hypothetical, analogous scenario.

    Reply
  98. eroteme
    eroteme says:

    You cannot subsist on 400, or 200, calories a day

    Yes you can, with a once a week refeed. I did paleo on the 400 and was very very weak, so I had to add more carbs for energy. I went up to 600 a day for the month of July, back to 400 a day for August, and the past two weeks has been 200 a day.

    You don't need 1200 calories a day to survive, and my BMR is somewhere around 800, so I can get by on half that, or less.

    It is being affected. That's what we've been discussing. Bodily autonomy is affected whether the child is born or no

    Nope. Your bodily autonomy/integrity is ONLY affected if someone or something else is literally occupying it.

    The VAST majority of abortions are not done to protect the woman from serious health risks, or from dying.

    The risks are always there, and which women will die from pregnancy cannot be predicted. If you force women to give birth, women are guaranteed to die, and you are essentially denying women the right to life.

    There's no accurate way to predict whether driving your sick child to
    the doctor will result in a car crash that kills or maims you

    We don't FORCE people to risk life and limb. Hang-gliding is safer than pregnancy, but someone can't throw you out of a plane based on mere percentages, even if a life will be saved if you are ejected from the plane. And I doubt that you would be mollified if you were told that only 800 people die per year from hang-gliding. I don't care if it's 1 in a million, no one is forcing me to sky dive or hang glide, even to save 1 life. I could be the 1 in a million that goes splat.

    Sorry but you can't just say "well there's an unpredictable risk"

    Yes, we can say that, because only the person whose life and health are at stake can decide whether or not they want to risk it all.

    Reply
  99. Blueberry
    Blueberry says:

    "It doesn't sit there, thinking about life." I never said it did. Newborns can't do that, either.

    Respectfully, you're not providing sources for any of your claims.

    "Treating it as if its a photo is ludicrous."

    Okay, so if I take your undeveloped once-in-a-lifetime, beautiful photo and rip it into pieces, you'd be okay with that? Because being upset would be ludicrous? Treating it as though it has value is ludicrous? You would only mind if I tore if up if I did so *after* it was fully developed?

    "People have minds."

    This is a massive, vague, over-simplification. Brain development, like development in general, is a continuum. Consciousness is a continuum. Picking a random spot and saying "there, now it's person, morally equal to all other humans" is arbitrary. The newborn isn't remotely the same, mentally, as an adult. There is NO reason why a newborn should be considered equal to an adult, save for it's nature, and being human.

    All structures that are necessary for consciousness and rationality are present at 5 weeks, the nature for rationality is present from conception, and the only thing that changes is level of development.

    Which you said many comments ago isn't relevant to determining how valuable someone is.

    "May never develop one."

    The vast majority will. All they need is nutrition, oxygen, etc. in order to keep growing, and they will naturally develop consciousness, rationality, etc. You could say "an infant may never develop rationality," so we shouldn't treat it like it already has. (After all, there could be un-diagnosed severe retardation, or they could hit their head and suffer brain damage.)

    The nature of an anecephalic baby (which is a whole human organism) is rational. Their genetic code gives them an inherently rational nature, even though they're prevented from expressing it.

    Someone who is braindead no longer has the ability to function as a whole living organism. (Unlike an embryo pre-brain development, who doesn't *need* a brain to function as an organism, an adult human does have that need.) They are, effectively, already dead. Furthermore they have lost all capacity to ever be consciousness, will not be conscious in the future, and are therefore not comparable to most fetuses. The best comparison to most pre-conscious fetuses would someone in a temporary coma, who will wake up in several months after their brain heals. It wouldn't be ethical to unplug or kill them.

    Also being allowed to die of natural causes when there is no chance of saving you is far different than being outright killed.

    Reply
  100. Blueberry
    Blueberry says:

    …I'm not sure how you're alive, and honestly that sounds unsustainable and unhealthy to me (no offense, could be wrong), but it also sounds like it's not anorexia. Which is actually a mental illness.

    "Your bodily autonomy is only affected if someone or something else is literally occupying it."

    That's absurd.

    Being forced to donate your kidney to a stranger (excepting the car-crashes-are-as-frequent-as-pregnancy-and-only-you-can-save-them scenario) is a violation of your bodily autonomy, even though no one is occupying it.

    If someone punches you, they are violating your bodily autonomy.

    If a man is raped, his bodily autonomy is being violated, even though he isn't being occupied.

    Women should not be "forced to give birth" in a situation where continuing the pregnancy will actually kill them (although if the baby is viable c-section or induced labor should be used, not abortion). Same as the parent of the born child shouldn't be forced to take their deathly sick child to the hospital if, for whatever reason, it's likely to just kill them both.

    If you can't require parents to take on a situation where there's ANY level of risk, then parents shouldn't have to drive their sick kids to the hospital on a rainy day. But clearly there are acceptable levels of risk, and just as clearly you can't just clear parents from caring for their children because of the possibility that a risk might arise. Most pregnancies are reasonably healthy. Until a health condition has *actually come about,* you can't determine whether it justifies ending the pregnancy.

    …Also if you brought your child on a plane knowing that they might fall out, and they did, and you were the only one who could jump out of the plane to save them because only you had a parachute, I'd push you right out, whether you wanted to go or not.

    Reply
  101. Blueberry
    Blueberry says:

    It's not an organism. If you're going to say it is, you need to provide a source. Having unique DNA, and being comprised of living cells, doesn't make something an individual organism. A tumor isn't an organism. A human being of roughly equal size is an organism.

    Death in Tay Sachs babies is usually by age four. Many of those babies experience years of life and love. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tay%E2%80%93Sachs_disease

    "So it's ok to shoot a TS newborn in the head?"
    I would only be implying anything even CLOSE to this if I had accepted that moles are like zygotes, which I haven't, since they aren't.

    The mole isn't an organism. The baby is. The baby is a human being who will unfortunately die sooner than others. The mole isn't alive. It's made of living cells, yes, but the mole itself isn't alive as an individual functioning entity with any capacity whatsoever.

    Reply
  102. Blueberry
    Blueberry says:

    ….There's not really a point in having the same discussion in two different places. Parents' have moral and legal obligations to meet their child's basic, natural needs, which I believe includes carrying to term.

    Reply
  103. Jose Chung
    Jose Chung says:

    If I were your neighbor, I can't help but wonder how you would make it
    your business to ferret out my private medical decisions. Tap my phone?
    Intercept any mail that appears to come from an insurance company or
    medical institution? Rummage through my garbage? Unless you violate my privacy, you'll be none the wiser about anything.

    Reply
  104. Blueberry
    Blueberry says:

    I don't consider an abortion to be a private medical decision. It's ending the life of another human being.

    "Unless you violate my privacy, you'll be none the wiser about anything."

    You could make the same argument about a newborn baby that you hid from the world and didn't tell anyone about. I might never know they had been killed unless I peeped through the window and saw the body.

    Respectfully…so what? What does that tell us about the justness of abortion?

    Reply
  105. eroteme
    eroteme says:

    Not necessarily. There are many pro-lifers who truly believe that people who perform abortions are psycho killers.

    Check his history, he sounds like a right-wing whackjob.

    Reply
  106. eroteme
    eroteme says:

    Basic needs don't = body parts or tissue

    The courts have decided in favour of parents who haven't wanted to donate their body parts/tissue to their children, even if the child will die without.

    Reply
  107. eroteme
    eroteme says:

    http://books.google.ca/books?id=Io6zV1GAjVAC&pg=PA47&lpg=PA47&dq=is+a+hydatidiform+mole+an+organism&source=bl&ots=pWyxgskDbx&sig=XJR0THeAfULsVtT_X7B2be5caNI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=M78HVIuIHImkigL3o4HICw&ved=0CCUQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=is%20a%20hydatidiform%20mole%20an%20organism&f=false

    The mole isn't an organism. The baby is.

    A lethal disability doesn't mean that someone or something isn't an organism.

    By that logic, as I stated, a doomed TS baby isn't an organism, because the disability is absolutely lethal.

    It's made of living cells, yes,

    That means it's alive.

    Reply
  108. Blueberry
    Blueberry says:

    Maybe I was wrong, sorry. But he is definitely not a representative of the attitudes of all, most, or even a significant minority of pro-lifers.

    Reply
  109. eroteme
    eroteme says:

    Respectfully, you're not providing sources for any of your claims.

    If fetuses are awake and conscious, then explain why being pushed through the vagina, and having your head crushed, doesn't wake those that are still in the amniotic sac?

    Okay, so if I take your undeveloped once-in-a-lifetime, beautiful photo and rip it into pieces

    I have no way of knowing if the photo would come out beautiful or not. It would suck that you were destroying my property, but until i can actually SEE the sunset, there is no proof that a beautiful photo is even there, or will EVER be there.

    The vast majority will. All they need is nutrition, oxygen, etc. in order to keep growing, and they will naturally develop

    They need a lot more than that. They literally build themselves out of the woman's body. And you seem to be arguing about percentages again..

    1) not enough women die or are disabled from pregnancy, therefore it's acceptable to force all women to give birth, knowing that some will die. Too bad so sad, eh?

    2) many zygotes end up being perfectly healthy, therefore we should treat ALL zygotes as if they will become healthy infants, and pretend that they are all rational, even the zygotes that are hydatidiform moles (see, there is no way of telling which zygotes have a lethal disability and which do not)

    The nature of an anecephalic baby (which is a whole human organism) is rational.

    Nope. Just because some h.sapiens are rational does not mean that all h.sapiens are rational.

    Someone who is braindead no longer has the ability to function as a whole living organism.

    Neither does an anencephalic baby, but if you're gonna treat it as a rational being due to species membership then you can do the same with the braindead corpse.

    Unlike an embryo pre-brain development, who doesn't *need* a brain to function as an organism, an adult human does have that need

    Of course it doesn't, because the woman's body does all the work for it.

    Furthermore they have lost all capacity to ever be consciousness, will
    not be conscious in the future, and are therefore not comparable to most
    fetuses

    So? There is no guarantee that every zygote will result in a rational human being.

    The best comparison to most pre-conscious fetuses would someone in a temporary coma

    Nope. Someone in a temporary coma has already achieved sentience and sapience, and the fact that they can recover and walk around and do what sapient humans do shows that they are nothing like a pre-sentient zef.

    Also being allowed to die of natural causes when there is no chance of saving you is far different than being outright killed.

    So it's morally acceptable to unhook a mindless body from life support?

    Well hey, a non-viable ZEF is a mindless body, and the woman is life support, and she can unhook it if she chooses, because it has no right to her body.

    Reply
  110. ChristinaDunigan
    ChristinaDunigan says:

    They also failed to mention that perinatal hospice is chosen by 75% of women who are offered that option. They failed to mention how often women are pressured by their doctors to schedule a hasty abortion before they even have a chance to process the news.

    Reply
  111. Blueberry
    Blueberry says:

    Your source supports my point. "There is good reason to think that a partial hydatidiform
    mole is an abnormal human embryo….there is also good reason to think that a
    complete hydatidiform mole is not an embryo.”

    "A lethal disability doesn't mean that someone or something isn't an organism."

    I never said it did. I never said nor implied that Tay Sachs babies could be aborted, and I clearly said that if partial moles were organisms, they should be treated as such, not just be treated as trash.

    Being made of living cells =/= being alive, in the sense of being an individual living entity or organism. Your spleen isn't an entity or organism. Tay Sachs babies are, based on this text it looks like partial moles likely are, and complete moles definitely are not.

    Reply
  112. eroteme
    eroteme says:

    Which is actually a mental illness.

    So?That still doesn't mean that they are so far gone that they don't know what they are doing. You are assuming that if someone has an eating disorder that they lose all sense and become stupid.

    Being forced to donate your kidney to a stranger (excepting the car-crashes-are-as-frequent-as-pregnancy-and-only-you-can-save-them
    scenario) is a violation of your bodily autonomy, even though no one is occupying it.

    If someone punches you, they are violating your bodily autonomy.

    If a man is raped, his bodily autonomy is being violated, even though he isn't being occupied.

    Poor choice of words on my part. Yeah, your bodily autonomy is affected if someone forcibly uses your body against your will.

    And if a man is raped, his body IS being occupied against his will.

    Women should not be "forced to give birth" in a situation where continuing the pregnancy will actually kill them

    It can't be predicted which women will die. What if she dies of post-partum hemorrhage? Too bad so sad lady?

    If it was possible to prevent every pregnancy related death (and permanent disability) women would still not die from pregnancy every year in the USA.

    But clearly there are acceptable levels of risk

    Sure there are, but a violation of bodily autonomy isn't one of them. The state can't even force you to donate blood to your child.

    Most pregnancies are reasonably healthy.

    Until she dies. A 'healthy' pregnancy can go from zero to bleeding out of every orifice overnight.

    A birth can go from normal to post parum hemorrhage.

    Again, some women will die from pregnancy. We don't know which women will die. By forcing all women to gestate and birth, you are denying all women the right to life.

    Reply
  113. eroteme
    eroteme says:

    No, it doesn't support your point.

    partial mole = abnormal embryo with a disability

    Being made of living cells =/= being alive, in the sense of being an individual living entity or organism

    A non-viable zef isn't alive in that in that sense either, since it is utterly incapable of functioning as an autonomous, fully formed individual.

    Reply
  114. noneimport
    noneimport says:

    eroteme do not waste anymore energy. these people like Lady Black are using irrational logic. think of the logic used to diminish the value of groups of undesired people or even animals seen as pests. They separate that undesired from their understanding of good (and note their understanding of good is based upon what they see as not harmful to them as the individual alone–think Plato's Republic). This helps them to reconcile their acceptance of murder and neglect in their world and in their mind. Many Americans, post civil war, saw those that were recently freed as being harmful to their livelihood and saw them as having just course for retaliation for their enslavement. So they formed negative images of them in their minds and in the public eye in order to justify their killing of them and the brow beating of their future. During Nazi control, the same was done of the Jews. The government, in this case, pushed the agenda of a 'white' only in-group and those that didn't fit, were seen as not worthy to live. They were less then animals, not even considered alive! Many people, at that time, walked through life their with blinders on making excuses for the actions of the government so they wouldn't have to face the atrocities that took place around them. Ignorance can be bliss…for a time.This is not about 'choice' and PPP is getting that right. It is about momentary self preservation and nihilism. When we have decided as an individual or community to see a life, despite the data or species, as bad and not beneficial or adding to our individual 'happiness' then no amount of logic can unravel the ideology that has taken hold within that mind. the only way that one can help those lost within irrational thought is the examples we set by our choices in our lives. Besides if Lady Black, and others like her, want to put their hope for the future in our children, raised with our values, why should we complain. I have no problem with those who are unable to feel compassion and love, in this case for what is a scientifically proven genetic individual, not successfully breeding ….just saying. Save your energy on those that don't troll

    Reply
  115. Jose Chung
    Jose Chung says:

    Practically speaking, whether or not it's legal, it is. I could hop the border to Canada, if need be. For the demographic of women who have plenty of resources, it will remain a private medical decision.

    I'm still curious how much snooping you'd be willing to do find out – and rat out – someone's private medical decision. That's the sort of thing will be necessary to effect women who can easily circumvent the law. What does that say about the justness of invading someone's privacy?

    Reply
  116. Ann
    Ann says:

    No baby "needs" to be aborted. If a pregnant mother is facing a truly life threatening illness and the baby's death is a highly probable result the choice the choice falls under double negative.

    Reply
  117. Blueberry
    Blueberry says:

    Yeah it does. I said complete moles weren't organisms, and partial moles possibly were. A Z/E/F is an organism even if it will die, just as a newborn is an organism even if he/she will die. Having a terminal illness or disability doesn't exclude one from being an organism, and there is no biological doubt whatsoever that humans are organisms even when they are in their mother's womb. Complete moles aren't organisms.

    Reply
  118. Blueberry
    Blueberry says:

    Regarding "…but that is so patently absurd."

    Sorry if that was rude. I mean, I do think it's absurd, and seriously doubt that you or anyone would actually respond that way, or not be miffed at the destruction of the undeveloped Polaroid, or consider it reasonable to just assume that it can't develop valuable traits, on the extremely slim chance that that's the case.

    But I shouldn't have said it rudely.

    Reply
  119. Blueberry
    Blueberry says:

    Like I said in another comment, you can't determine whether a course of action (ending the pregnancy) is justifiable until that situation arises. Just figuring that because there's a risk of health complications arising no women should be required to carry to term is like saying no women should have to take their sick children to the hospital, because they might crash on the way there. Nevermind if it's not sleeting outside now, it could start on the way there.

    And yes, women sadly die sometimes due to pregnancy complications, but none of those women didn't have the option of aborting. So we can assume that would stay the same even if abortion were legal. Were it generally illegal, pregnancy could still be justifiably ended if situations arose where her life was seriously threatened, NOT because such a scenario might possibly maybe happen to come about.

    And no, the state can't force you to donate blood to your child, because donating blood is not a form of meeting the child's basic, natural needs. It's a need brought about by severe illness or injury, not the natural needy state of the child. It's a medical procedure vs. the normal functioning of the body. (And no, I'm not saying that normal functioning of the body ALWAYS means that's how it should have to function, just pointing out a distinction between the situations.) Plus many people could donate to the child, not just the parent. Furthermore it's not reasonably foreseeable as the natural consequence of having sex.

    Although if someone caused their child to need a transfusion, knowing they were the only ones who would be able to donate, I would consider it absolutely justified to require them to do so.

    Reply
  120. Boommach
    Boommach says:

    I see you very proudly label yourself “Reverend”. I presume you’re an educated man and hold some degree in theology or divinity or something. I presume you want me to at least think you are ordained by some recognized and respected Christian organization. I have a question, how did you get to where you think you are not understanding the meaning of “Thou shall not murder” . What you proclaim is evil. You are either an impostor or incredibly deluded by your pride.

    Reply
  121. Ramanusia
    Ramanusia says:

    Wouldn't surgery to remove tissues such as an appendix or a tumor also constitute the ending of a human life? Do you oppose that as well?

    Respectfully, rejecting the actual definition of the start of a pregnancy that's agreed upon by the entire medical community is what's actually intentionally obscuring the issue at hand.

    Preventing implantation prevents pregnancy, since pregnancy REQUIRES implantation.

    Reply
  122. Ramanusia
    Ramanusia says:

    Thus, intentionally giving a cancer patient chemotherapy or removing an inflamed appendix or much of medical intervention is not justified, since the intentional death of human cells is not justified by the prevention of the "natural death". This is basically your point yes?

    Reply
  123. Ramanusia
    Ramanusia says:

    Taking a contraceptive is not an abortifacient, since you don't actually know what's causing the body to flush out an embryo which failed to implant, you're making a guess here. How can an IUD cause a spontaneous abortion? Do you understand the basics of how pregnancy work? It's clear your not at all clear on the pharmacology or the functioning of an IUD, but you seem lack basic comprehension here, which is why you're making up things like the definition of pregnancy rather arbitrarily and for political reasons.

    Reply
  124. Ramanusia
    Ramanusia says:

    Your analogy to a born child doesn't make any sense at all.

    Here is a more apt analogy, when a form of cancer treatment carries a slight risk of slight risk of causing cancer, we still use it. Why? The purpose of cancer treatment is to treat the cancer right now. The purpose of birth control is for someone who does not wish to pregnant, has no desire to gestate and will not produce a child, period. Thus, I'd be okay with it, since this imaginary child won't ever be born, no developmental issues will ensue and it will never be 3 years old.

    Reply
  125. Ramanusia
    Ramanusia says:

    No baby CAN be aborted, quite literally. A baby is what we call human offspring that is BORN. Um, what double negative are you speaking of, you're not using words in accordance with their meanings here in reality, would you care to try for coherence?

    Or have you pretty much just said that a pregnant woman facing a truly life threatening illness shouldn't have the choice to seek treatment, but should just die?

    Reply
  126. Ramanusia
    Ramanusia says:

    It equals human, the same way your skin cells equal human. It's just not a person, it's literally exactly like any other nucleated cell in the body, brimming with the possibility of development under the right conditions into a person.

    Reply
  127. Ramanusia
    Ramanusia says:

    Actually in a biological sense the ZEF is as much an "individual human" as the cells found in someone who is a mosaic, as all women are. Women's cells have two distinct DNA patterns based on Lyonization. A ZEF is no more a member of our species than a tumor is, given that it too meets your definition in a biological sense. Thus if what you say is true, then the excision of human tissue, chemo and resectioning of tumors is also the killing of a human being. There is overwhelming scientific support that proves you wrong, but your rather biased collection of out of context tidbits from your pointless links don't constitute actual science.

    Here's a hint: read past the first sentence of the first paragraph of the introduction to the books whose quotes were plucked out of context to understand why science does NOT support you.

    It's not necessary for you to mine the astroturf of the echo chamber, who about providing a source from the middle of all those embryo and development books that supports your theory?

    Or somewhere without a political bias? Can you do that?

    Reply
  128. Ramanusia
    Ramanusia says:

    So you choose to procreate with someone who is heterozygous for a severe illness, are you negligent, since you're not providing for your child's needs? You could have chosen to procreate with a homozygous dominant normal but you didn't , are you negligent? You're not giving your child the best chance you can after all.

    Um, what if your child is harmed due to a genetic disease, like Alports? The action you're taking that's causing harm is gestating this child. Actually most people who have Alports are in severe pain when their disease manifests, so who are you to speak for these people suffering from disease that you know nothing about? Perhaps they would choose not to be born if their life is going to be filled with nothing but pain and agony? I would argue that forcing the birth is harming them.

    Respectfully, why do you keep setting up these ridiculous hypothetical that don't seem to show much understanding of how medicine works?

    If you take a pill that is designed to prevent a toddler from existing, then why would it's effect on this future non-existent toddler matter at all? It's a ridiculous question.

    Reply
  129. Ramanusia
    Ramanusia says:

    Actually the primary issue of contention between the anti-choice and the pro-choice (which is very much pro-life) movements is the idea of who should make these rather complex decisions. One side insists that priests and politicians should make a one size fits all rule, no matter what the consequences based on bad science or no science. The other side thinks it's best that the patient and her doctor make these decisions, because, like all medical decisions, they're based on the unique presentation of the patient, with her history and her medical conditions taking priority over politics and freshly minted religious rhetoric conspicuously absent from the actual religious texts and history of the religion as a whole.

    You're setting up a convenient and incorrect dichotomy, it's morally repugnant for non-medical professionals to make medical decisions for patients they know nothing about. As a society we've agreed that trained and licensed doctors get to advise on medical matters and we jail those who don't have these qualifications, thus one cannot be morally relevant and acting immorally by pretending to have expertise in an area where one does not hold the requisite training.

    ZEF is not a life to be worried about, and it is immoral to violate the bodily autonomy of a mother simply because one has delusions about which cells matter and which don't.

    When one says "worry about your own life" it's simply saying you don't get to violate other people's autonomy, all you have a say in is your own. And ZEF don't have autonomy, in fact most children don't, their parents get to decide for them. Thus you have no leg to stand on.

    Reply
  130. Ramanusia
    Ramanusia says:

    Then, by all means, intervene when your neighbor, whom you have forced to gestate, delivers against her will and is trying to kill the newborn by the methods used by women to get rid of unwanted pregnancies after the fact. None of us will do anything but applaud you.

    The loss of a sperm/ova/zygotes/embryos or fetuses are not your business. Choosing not to gestate or not conceive is not "negligent homicide', or does it have anything to do with a parent refusing to meet the needs of their children, since pregnancy doesn't involve actual children, merely potential ones.

    You're actually judging women who are post-abortive, and you are actually oppressing women by negating their basic human rights the moment a sperm and egg meet within her body. The people threatening, harassing and abusing women walking into clinics are not displaying compassion, nor are they counseling them as they hurl nasty words at them.

    Women facing unplanned pregnancies do indeed deserve all that you've said, but in order to get there, they have to pass you and your friends terrorizing them. Anti-choicers are not providing any of these supports, they lie to them, and call them names and say horrible things to them, the many videos out there show what you're actually all about.

    True empathy for the mother, and a true desire for the welfare of women means that you don't pretend that the fetus within her that might never achieve a viable birth is a "child". Childhood begins at birth, changing definitions to suit your politics and to excuse your venom and your violence doesn't really make your actions or your politics morally or ethically justifiable. The helpless women you torment don't deserve your brand of extremely damaging counseling.
    On the worst day of these women's lives, when they're the most frightened and the most vulnerable you're there screaming in her face, spittle flying, that she's a murderer. This is why we can't just excuse your dishonest excuses for your unjustifiable actions.

    Reply
  131. Ramanusia
    Ramanusia says:

    Well, it doesn't matter what you consider to be a private medical decision, since you don't get to determine these things. It's not actually ending the life of another human being, it's ending the life of a mass of cells that might someday be a human being.

    You cannot make the same arguments about a physiologically separate individual as you would about one that is literally dependent on the body of a woman to carry out its bodily processes. Your applications of argument are truly just wrong.

    Respectfully, if we do not consider your appendectomy to be a private medical decision, since it's ending the life of a "human being" (per your own definition that human cells are human beings), may we intervene and prevent you from receiving surgery. After all the living human cells you wish to murder must be protected from your selfish actions based convenience, right? And after all, according to you, we each get to decide what's a human being and what's a child and what constitutes private medical decisions. What happens when we do as you do, and make those decisions that affect your health, your life and your body?

    Reply
  132. Ramanusia
    Ramanusia says:

    You'd be pretty wrong about that, actually. Do you bother to do educate yourself on these positions you keep taking or do you just make it up as you go along?

    Reply
  133. Ramanusia
    Ramanusia says:

    So if your child is in need of a heart transplant and you're a match, that child would have the right to your heart? You admit to having a moral and legal obligation to provide for this rather basic and natural need?

    Reply
  134. Ramanusia
    Ramanusia says:

    Um, like the "logic" you're using to diminish the value of women, who apparently are seen as pests to you if they do not follow your rulings on their private medical decisions?

    Is this how you reconcile murder and neglect of women like Savita Halappanavar?

    Reply
  135. eroteme
    eroteme says:

    She also gets to decide what is an acceptable level of risk for strangers.

    I have decided that your diseased appendix should remain where it is, because your chances of death and disability are within acceptable levels for ME.

    Reply
  136. noneimport
    noneimport says:

    "UM" how can you be so obtuse? first, your response to the pest term used lends one to think that you have a deficit in your comprehension skills. Second, when you use the tragedy of one to excuse the termination of another, well… how can one respond? what logic pool do you work from? tell me? I really want to know. Besides my audience was to those that share my understanding of the world. so of course you cannot follow what was written. If you explain your world, perhaps I can explain it in your terms so you can at least understand who and to what I was speaking.

    Reply
  137. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    No it is NOT a huge overstatement. I don't want to go into hypothetical situations about breast milk, other than to say that no, an infant isn't entitled to the milk of it's mother. Some women cannot do that. Just for a few examples, Christina Applegate and Angelina Jolie. If there was some "strange illness" such a baby would be SOL, sorry to say. And no child is entitled to the BODY of it's parent, male or female. Support, feeding, etc. is not a bodily donation. Babies are dependent upon adults in general, but a fetus is dependent upon the body of a specific woman. Guess what? She doesn't have to fork over her body for the benefit of ANYONE.

    Reply
  138. Plum Dumpling
    Plum Dumpling says:

    I am pro life. I am pro birth for any woman who wants to give birth. I am pro abortion for any woman who wants an abortion. i trust women to run their own sexual/family lives without coercion.

    Reply
  139. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    Yes I am claiming that all embryos are not human. Anyone with minimal scientific knowledge knows this. ALL viviparous vertebrates carry embryos.

    Reply
  140. Plum Dumpling
    Plum Dumpling says:

    No thank you.
    I will have sex.
    I will contracept.
    If I become pregnant, I will give birth or abort as I see fit.
    Not as YOU see fit.

    Reply
  141. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    Pregnancy DOES begin at implantation. Without implantation, the result is a menstrual period. Now this is well-known science. We don't have some red light that flashes at fertilization. Frankly, if something does prevent implantation, then mission accomplished! You will not get pregnant. WHO CARES why not? Who cares why you didn't get pregnant if you were using nothing? Or using NFP? You're obscuring the issue at hand. That is that 50-75% of fertilizations ultimately fail. And you can't blame it on a pill or a device. It just doesn't happen. Too bad, so sad. Get over it. Furthermore it happens MORE when you don't use birth control.

    Reply
  142. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    No child is entitled to any part of it's parent's body. Not even so much as a unit of blood. Born OR unborn. Bodily donation isn't done without consent, PERIOD.

    Reply
  143. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    What "you consider" to be a private medical decision is irrelevant. Abortion is and will remain a private medical decision.

    Reply
  144. Ramanusia
    Ramanusia says:

    Who, other than yourself is being obtuse here? Your misuse of language and your apparent inability to use language with an sort of accuracy leas one to conclude that it is you that has comprehension issues.

    Second, are you seriously trying to argue that the "tragedy" of a woman's death due to severe infection from the breached amniotic sac of a 17 week pregnancy that HAD NO CHANCE OF A LIVE BIRTH, somehow relates to what you're saying? Yes, any sane, sentient, logical human being with any sort of value for human life would indeed say that terminating an fetus THAT HAD NO CHANCE AT LIFE to save the mother who had every chance at not acquiring a fatal infection, and becoming pregnant once again with a much wanted child is exactly what should be done, medically. ethically, morally, legally etc.
    Yes, how can one respond? Apparently in your case, it's let the woman die after all, it's better that she die rather than abort an pregnancy that has already been lost. How can one respond to this idiocy? This lack of human decency, this monstrousness? What are you? Callous and inhuman or just not bright enough to figure out what you're advocating, let the mother die so that you can "save" a SEVENTEEN week old fetus whose membranes had already ruptured. Are you a monster or an idiot? Which is it? I would truly like to know.

    What "logic" pool do you work from? How have you managed to remain this ignorant, did you have to try really hard to unlearn simple thinking or were your forced to poke things into your frontal lobe? I'd truly like to know how one manages to be this ignorant and yet still manage to type.

    Oh, you wished to speak to your echo chamber to your equally deluded and intellectually and ethically challenged devotees, not to anyone who might have enough intellect and reasoning power, or education to challenge you on your lack of understanding?

    No, I cannot follow your lack of logic or your word salad, and I cannot match the willful ignorance you and your fellow ignoramuses muster to maintain the cognitive dissonance you must to hold your pro-death views while also pretending to value life. I am not brain damaged. I am of sound mental health, thus it is difficullt for me to follow the "logic" of your shared thought disorder.

    I doubt you can "explain" in terms that I would understand, that level of higher functioning seems lost to you.

    Please correct your ignorance, AND find yourself a qualified medical professional and deal with the your axis 1 disorders, take your folly a deux friends with you.

    Reply
  145. eroteme
    eroteme says:

    Remember the asshat on The Atlantic who said,with a straight face, that women can 'feel' when implantation happens, and therefore, they can get immediate abortions!

    *facepalm*

    Reply
  146. eroteme
    eroteme says:

    It is impossible to predict which women will die from pregnancy.

    If you deny women the right to a safe, legal abortion, you deny women the right to life, as a group.

    Reply
  147. Ramanusia
    Ramanusia says:

    Yes. Funny how they're all screeching about the sanctity of life and the selfishness of those who seek the convenience of continuing to live without disease or disorder due to pregnancy for the sake of the life of a future person, but they make no attempt to practice what they preach. After all, given the organ and tissue shortage, should these life obsessed folks be flocking to donate their livers, skin, blood and spare kidneys to those actual persons who so desperately need them to live? A lot of them are children! Why it's like they don't care about real live children, or sacrificing their convenience or their health or risking their lives for the LIFE of those who may die without their tissues.

    Forcing a woman to loan her tissues and her organs to an embryo is fine, but when it comes to themselves. they will find a way to justify their "moral" abortion and keep their blood and other necessary tissues to themselves.

    Reply
  148. eroteme
    eroteme says:

    Yeah it does. I said complete moles weren't organisms, and partial moles possibly were

    They are BOTH hydatidiform moles, they are both human, and they are both alive. It backs up my point completely. Stop trying to argue by misquotation.

    Having a terminal illness or disability doesn't exclude one from being an organism

    Exactly. So it would be immoral to abort a partial mole would it not? Or how about a parasitic twin? The parasitic twin is 100% a human life, and as it can't consent to abortion, or to being removed form the healthy twin, then I guess everything possible should be done to protect it yeah? Parental obligations and all that.

    http://www.documentingreality.com/forum/attachments/f149/432516d1361960756-parasitic-twins-parasitic-20twin-2001.jpg

    Reply
  149. Ramanusia
    Ramanusia says:

    True, but what determines humanity is the number of chromosomes in our DNA. Thus all these people crying about the imaginary baybees should by definition also be crying about the skin cells and the tumor cells and pretty much every human cell that has a nucleus, since they're all, by their insistence "human beings". So when they skin knee or have an appendix or a tumor removed or take chemo, they're choosing to murder that which they consider to be cell persons on par with themselves.

    Reply
  150. eroteme
    eroteme says:

    Like I said in another comment, you can't determine whether a course of
    action (ending the pregnancy) is justifiable until that situation arises

    So women should just die? 800 of them a year? I guess death doesn't matter if only a *few* unlucky souls get whacked, eh?

    but none of those women didn't have the option of aborting

    Can't abort when you bleed out after birth, can you? I mean, by then it's already too late, isn't it?

    But hey, it's just a woman, her life doesn't count for anything, does it? But if even one valuable prenate dies it's the end of the world!

    And no, the state can't force you to donate blood to your child, because
    donating blood is not a form of meeting the child's basic, natural
    needs.

    So you'd throw a parent off a plane to save a child, but you wouldn't force them to give blood, because

    You'd force women to risk death and disability, because

    So basically, you are arguing that pregnancy, and forced pregnancy, and unpredictable death from pregnancy are totes ok because NATURE.

    Plus many people could donate to the child, not just the parent.

    You keep talking about the all important notion of parental responsibility yet you would expect someone else to risk their health to save YOUR child? That blood, or organs, or tissue, could save the life of another – another person who doesn't have parents who can donate. How selfish!

    Although if someone caused their child to need a transfusion, knowing
    they were the only ones who would be able to donate, I would consider it
    absolutely justified to require them to do so

    So having sex, with the possibility of conception (again, miscarriage happens about 70% of the time) = doing harm to your child.

    Bravo.

    Reply
  151. eroteme
    eroteme says:

    There are two species of deer that have the same # of chromosomes as humans. I haul that one out when ignoramuses start lecturing about 46 chromosomes.

    Reply
  152. Ramanusia
    Ramanusia says:

    How interesting. I'm afraid it was a rather well known and well qualified science prof (I forget if it was biochem or genetics) who made the 46 chromosome = human link in my head. Most likely he was one of the primate guys who didn't work with obscure Asian deer. Chromosome number is handy to differentiate between mouse, rat, various monkey species (the ones most research is done on.)

    Reply
  153. eroteme
    eroteme says:

    You are still correct, however.

    Every somatic cell in your body has:

    Human DNA
    46 chromosomes

    With SMNT that cell can be turned into an embryo..and potentially become a precious babyee

    So, if every conceptus has to be given a chance to implant on the uterine wall, what's wrong with giving every somatic cell a little xtra help as well?

    Reply
  154. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    If you mean the man's bodily autonomy, it's in the same place mine is. Neither one of us is EVER obligated to bodily donation for the benefit of another. EVER! Now please note that I used the word "obligated," because it doesn't imply that any given person would not donate body tissues for the benefit of another, whether a child or a stranger. Simply that consent is required for such a donation. A woman that isn't consenting to pregnancy should never be forced to remain pregnant.

    Reply
  155. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    That's too damn bad. The fetus is NOT entitled to the body of it's mother. There is no "parenting" involved with a fetus. If I don't want it, or can't carry it, it gets the keys to the street.

    Reply
  156. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    No, it doesn't "fall under double negative." That doesn't even make any sense. And neither do you. What PART of there isn't going to be any "babies" after a uterine ablation is confusing to you? This is not a procedure that leaves a woman capable of carrying a pregnancy afterward, which is why it's a treatment of last resort for endometriosis, done with the understanding that carrying a pregnancy to term will no longer be possible. That doesn't mean the woman's ovaries have stopped functioning, though. Conception can still take place. There just will never be gestation.

    Reply
  157. Plum Dumpling
    Plum Dumpling says:

    Arguendo:

    Anthropologically, Homo sapiens has three strategies
    for dealing with unwanted reproduction (births): contraception, abortion and infanticide. All three are practiced in every culture worldwide historically and currently.

    Those who restrict contraception and abortion make
    infanticide, child abandonment/abuse and maternal mortality inevitable. We have many in vitro examples of this but the one that troubles me the most at the moment is this example:
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new

    There is nothing moral about your position if your
    position is controlling women's reproductive choices by law. Illegal abortion and sepsis and hemorrhage in childbirth are the three leading causes of maternal death worldwide. Women have blood in the fertility game. Abortion and contraception are human rights. YOU do not occupy the moral high ground.

    Reply
  158. Plum Dumpling
    Plum Dumpling says:

    Argendo:

    There is nothing morally wrong with late term abortion. There will be a continuing need for late term abortions.

    The Talmud, which predates Jesus and informed Jesus' ethics, states the following:

    Jewish law not only permits, but in some circumstances requires abortion. Where the mother's life is in jeopardy because of the unborn child, abortion is mandatory.

    An unborn child has the status of "potential human life" until the majority of the body has emerged from the mother. Potential human life is valuable, and may not be terminated casually, but it does not have as much value as a life in existence. The Talmud makes no bones about this: it says quite bluntly that if the fetus threatens the life of the mother, you cut it up within her body and remove it limb by limb if necessary, because its life is not as valuable as hers. But once the greater part of the body has emerged, you cannot take its life to save the mother's, because you cannot choose between one human life and another. – Judaism 101

    Reply
  159. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    I don't care if 99.9% of women choose perinatal hospice. That does nothing for the 0.1% that do not wish to continue the pregnancy. I'm very happy that support is there for women who wish to go this route. I would not, for the simple reason that it endangers my health and there is no upside, IMHO. Some women may see an upside, and that is 100% their choice, and it deserves to be respected. Women, ALL women, deserve to have their choices respected.

    Reply
  160. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    That HAD to be a man. In three pregnancies, I have never "felt" implantation. I always knew I was pregnant from the fatigue. That's the only symptom I ever had, and I mean FATIGUE. I could sleep until ten, take a mid-afternoon nap and still be ready for bed by nine.

    Reply
  161. eroteme
    eroteme says:

    You are wrong about that. Pregnancy is a minor inconvenience and has zero side effects. In fact, its so healthy that all pregnant women can run marathons at 34 weeks ( I learned that here).

    Oh, and pregnancy is just like breathing.

    You silly billy you!

    Reply
  162. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    Godwin's law. You lose. You seriously have NO FREAKING IDEA what I think, and I'll thank you to stop playing psychic friends and trying to speak for me and what I think. There is not a damn thing wrong with my logic, and this is what I actually do think: I don't owe the use of my body to anyone. My consent is needed for that. It has nothing to do with your vile assertions about Nazis and slave owners. And don't you dare bring your children into this, and don't you dare bring MY children into this. That's right, I have children too. All of them were raised with my values, and all of them are pro-choice. You have no idea what I have personally gone through to bring my kids into the world, so you can just keep your vile tongue in your head. And the person you addressed this comment too is NOT on your side. That's how ridiculous you are, that you can't even see who you're talking to, or talking about. I spit on you. You get no vote in my life, EVER. You can't even master your own life.

    Reply
  163. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    Your "audience" (to whom your comment was directed) doesn't share your view, and frankly hates the very air you breathe. Thanks for showing everyone how dumb you really are. You don't even know when someone is mocking you.

    Reply
  164. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    Yes, let's be honest. No I do NOT make decisions based on emotionalism, and certainly not based upon what YOUR emotions are. Emotions tell me I didn't want anyone cutting my neck open. Actual science and knowledge tells me the surgery will relieve the severe pain I'm in and allow my life to get back to normal. Which one do you think I went with? Hmmm??? The same thing applies with a pregnancy. My mother had an abortion, of a wanted pregnancy that went terribly wrong. What was removed from her was NOT "a baby" and was never going to BE a baby. That long ago, I didn't truly understand the issues like I do now, but even at age ten, I knew there wasn't any "baby" and she would try again at another time. I'm sure she was disappointed. But what was done needed to be done. That's the way it goes sometimes. Anyone who makes medical decisions based on emotionalism is an idiot. You have to deal with things as they are, not what you wish were true, or what your fear tells you. That's what we have doctors for.

    Reply
  165. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    I would have absolutely NO PROBLEM allowing ten thousand embryos in a freezer die in a fire to save one 5 year old. Or 2 year old. Or newborn. Embryos simply don't have the same value because in order for them to have value, requires a very large investment of resources, starting with a woman to gestate each one of them. And even then… most of them won't make it. The 5 year old, 2 year old and newborn are already here. They have made it. Anyone can take care of them, it doesn't require a biological donation. I'm simply rejecting your notions of moral equivalence. It's a lot of nonsense.

    Reply
  166. Ramanusia
    Ramanusia says:

    Are you really that ignorant about what a diploid DNA content of a cell can accomplish?

    You really should remain silent, your lack of a basic understanding of science is showing and it basically exposes the general lack of coherence with your emotional arguments that seek to rationalize robbing women of their autonomy and conferring their basic rights as human beings to tissue with their body. All you keep saying is that cells that are fully human are human beings, thus by your own logic an appendix is quite a population of human beings.

    I'm sorry if you think your actual position is truly idiotic, but it's what you choose to keep saying, so yes, it is best that you just not say anymore asinine things. I encourage you to educate yourself, it might cause less embarrassment when you do choose to say things.

    Reply
  167. noneimport
    noneimport says:

    I see that I meant to refer to blueberry and not eroteme. my mistake. and I never stated that I knew your thoughts but rather I spoke to the strength of your argument. And to avoid any further misunderstanding I will state that clearly: I believe your logic to be too weak, naive (I would use another term but I fear you would only understand the vulgar, that means the common, definition, so I will use naive) and poorly researched to continue to a discussion.

    Reply
  168. noneimport
    noneimport says:

    do you understand what that article is explaining? I do not think you do. it is not saying that a somatic cell is an individual. they are talking about a cloning technique.

    Reply
  169. eroteme
    eroteme says:

    It has the *potential* to become an individual, just like the zygote. It just needs assistance to get there.

    The zygote also needs *help* to become an individual – a zygote is nothing more than a genetic blueprint- a tiny snippet of DNA surrounded by a cytoplasm.

    Reply
  170. noneimport
    noneimport says:

    not within the realm of evolution and NOT an individual only a clone. a clone is a replica not a new organism. The technique discussed is considered asexual reproduction, whereas, a zygote is the result of sexual reproduction. mammal offspring tend to be the result of sexual reproduction which utilizes germ cells that give rise to haploids. which, when combined, produce a genetically different organism.

    Reply
  171. eroteme
    eroteme says:

    a clone is a replica not a new organism.

    So if a single zygote splits into multiple zygotes the multiples are mere replicas and thus worthless?

    Often, in IVF, a single zygote is purposely split, and clones ARE created, in the hope that one will implant. But I guess it would be acceptable to throw them all in the garbage because they are clones right?

    Heck, for that matter, according to you, twin newborns can be killed because they are clones of one another eh?

    Reply
  172. noneimport
    noneimport says:

    To the twins: no, it would be suicide and in many states that is illegal.

    in IVF, for now, they do not clone one zygote they fertilize several eggs. and each has DNA that is significantly different than the other. what you are speaking of is not currently used with human IVF, to the best of my knowledge, there is some work being done on food cattle for improved meat production and I think I had heard something about rhesus monkeys, but I am not aware of human use as of yet.

    Reply
  173. eroteme
    eroteme says:

    no, it would be suicide and in many states that is illegal.

    That wasn't the question, would it be morally permissible to kill twins because they are biological clones of one another?

    in IVF, for now, they do not clone one zygote they fertilize several eggs

    They do that, and they ALSO force some blastocysts to split, and they implant those. They implant the twins inside the woman, or quints, or what have you.

    Reply
  174. noneimport
    noneimport says:

    I was being light on the response about the twins. My answer is no, not permissible. I could expound, but why. you are not looking to for a change of thought.
    do you seek approval from pro-lifers? if you are not seeking our approval why are you here on this site? Do you think you can convince those of us that believe a child is a child, no matter their stage of development, that we should see them as anything else? do you expect to be convinced that your thoughts on the subject are wrong? Are you reaching out or are you just being a bully? picking on those that you see as different from you?
    I am really asking. I do not know your intentions and would like them to be clarified. What is your purpose here…on a pro-life site?
    Also, Can you cite some references on the embryonic splitting? As I said, I am not aware of human use of the procedure.

    Reply
  175. Blueberry
    Blueberry says:

    If I thought there were a logically consistent or compelling argument for unborn humans not having human rights, and if I didn't think that declaring unborn humans to be inferior completely and utterly destroys any foundation for human equality, I'd be on board with you. As it is, I don't "trust women" to make their own decisions about whether to abort an unborn human being anymore than I "trust women" to make their own decisions about whether to care for, kill, or abandon their newborn. That's why I support laws that don't allow women to do either of the last two things.

    Reply
  176. Blueberry
    Blueberry says:

    Missed this one.

    "Support, feeding, etc. is not bodily donation."

    Of course it is. YOUR body is being used for the benefit of someone else. It is being used for them, and their welfare. You're not actually taking a body part out of you and placing it in another, but that's not the case in pregnancy either. It's not like women somehow have greater autonomy over their womb than over other body parts, or greater autonomy over body parts closer to the center of their body, than to their hands, feet, muscles, breasts, etc.

    "Some women cannot do that."

    The point of the analogy was to assume that she could, and that no other way existed for the baby to survive. Obviously if she couldn't breastfeed the baby would die, but that would only be analogous to the mother's womb not being capable of carrying the baby.

    "Babies are dependent upon adults in general, but a fetus is dependent upon the body of a specific woman."

    Again, the point of the analogy is to assume that ONLY the mother can care for the newborn in this particular situation.

    In which case the law currently would require that she care for the baby, regardless of how that infringed on her bodily autonomy.

    Honestly, even if she could place the baby up for adoption, even requiring her to do that is STILL acknowledging that she has bodily obligations to the child, since she has to drive around, carry the kid, signs forms, etc.

    The only conclusion of the child having no rights to the parent's body is that a parent can rightfully dump their child on the ground and walk away.

    Reply
  177. Blueberry
    Blueberry says:

    …Which, like the blood donation due to a car accident scenario, is not at all analogous to pregnancy.

    Like I said, if cars were inherently designed to hit people but also used recreationally, and if 6,000,000 people a year required life saving transfusions because of being hit by cars (the real number isn't even close), and if they only person who could donate was the driver, we would likely change our policy, and I would be completely fine with requiring the donations. Just replace blood with liver lobe or something, and pretend they can have it back in 9 months.

    Reply
  178. Plum Dumpling
    Plum Dumpling says:

    You probably should not have an abortion.
    Abortion does not involve newborns.
    I think you are nuts. Can I get a witness?

    Reply
  179. Blueberry
    Blueberry says:

    "So women should just die?"

    Yeah, I've explained why this doesn't make sense already. You could as easily say, of requiring women to drive their sick children to the hospital, "Oh, so women should just die? Because some of them will, undoubtedly." The possibility of a risk maybe arising in the future is not the same as a risk being present now.

    Women who are already dying are women who chose not to abort, so abortion becoming illegal wouldn't have prevented their deaths.

    And if the parent were the ONLY person who could donate blood, and had personally caused the child's need for it, yes I would require them to donate. I wasn't saying that meeting basic natural needs is the ONLY time in which donations could be required.

    And no, I didn't say I would force a stranger to donate blood in a real-life blood transfusion scenario. Your entire comment is full of numerous strawman arguments.

    The point is that a child who needs a blood transfusion does NOT, in real life, specifically need their parent's blood, because there is a ton of other blood available, because people already do frequently donate. There are blood banks full of blood that could be used. A real life blood transfusion situation is not analogous to pregnancy for numerous reasons, which is why I made an analogy to make it more similar.

    And for the umteenth time, giving a child a chance at life, even if it's a small chance, is not the same as killing or harming them.

    Say you had a cloning machine which brought people into existence as toddlers, but there was a 50% chance of death.

    This is NOT the same as if you had 4 toddlers, and shot 2 of them.

    Reply
  180. Blueberry
    Blueberry says:

    Yeah well, hundreds of subsets of the human population have been declared morally inferior over the years. The people who stood up and claimed that they had rights too were often looked at as radical or crazy. So I guess I'm in good company.

    As a side note, EVERY other time, in the long course of human history, where we've decided that certain human beings were inferior, we've been wrong. The odds aren't exactly in favor of pro-choicers being right now.

    Reply
  181. Plum Dumpling
    Plum Dumpling says:

    Oh and that logically compelling argument? No problem. I hate it when I agree with Ayn Rand. And then there is the argument in the Talmud I already posted.

    "An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn).

    Abortion is a moral right—which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body?“Of Living Death”
    The Voice of Reason, 58–59

    Never mind the vicious nonsense of claiming that an embryo has a “right to life.” A piece of protoplasm has no rights—and no life in the human sense of the term. One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months. To equate apotential with an actual, is vicious; to advocate the sacrifice of the latter to the former, is unspeakable. . . . Observe that by ascribing rights to the unborn, i.e., the nonliving, the anti-abortionists obliterate the rights of the living: the right of young people to set the course of their own lives. The task of raising a child is a tremendous, lifelong responsibility, which no one should undertake unwittingly or unwillingly. Procreation is not a duty: human beings are not stock-farm animals. For conscientious persons, an unwanted pregnancy is a disaster; to oppose its termination is to advocate sacrifice, not for the sake of anyone’s benefit, but for the sake of misery qua misery, for the sake of forbidding happiness and fulfillment to living human beings.“A Last Survey”
    The Ayn Rand Letter, IV, 2, 3

    Reply
  182. Blueberry
    Blueberry says:

    To declare the embryo or fetus "not yet living" is, frankly, biologically ignorant. There is universal acknowledgement that the fetus or embryo is an individual, living human organism. It's a member of our species. To say that it is not alive until it's born is sheer madness; even a minimal understanding of embryology or a glance at a fetus moving around and sucking its thumb on the ultrasound shows that.

    And no, procreation is not a duty. Ensuring that your offspring get adequate food, nutrition, etc. AFTER you have procreated (conceived) is a duty.

    Reply
  183. Plum Dumpling
    Plum Dumpling says:

    A fetus is not 'living' until it survives to and through birth. Until then, the host Mother lives for the fetus. I have now, with the below, given you TWO logical arguments for abortion.

    And then for argument 2, we have the argument from the Talmud. Jesus never mentioned abortion because these are rules Jesus followed. The passages about the Sotah in Numbers tell us about abortion as a trial by ordeal for adultery, proof being the/a miscarried fetus.

    "Jewish law not only permits, but in some circumstances requires abortion. Where the mother's life is in jeopardy because of the unborn child, abortion is mandatory.

    An unborn child has the status of "potential human life" until the majority of the body has emerged from the mother. Potential human life is valuable, and may not be terminated casually, but it does not have as much value as a life in existence. The Talmud makes no bones about this: it says quite bluntly that if the fetus threatens the life of the mother, you cut it up within her body and remove it limb by limb if necessary, because its life is not as valuable as hers. But once the greater part of the body has emerged, you cannot take its life to save the mother's, because you cannot choose between one human life and another." – Judaism 101.

    Reply
  184. Plum Dumpling
    Plum Dumpling says:

    Americans support Roe v. Wade at more than 50% steadily for more than 40 years.
    http://www.pewforum.org/2008/09/16/a-slight-but-steady-majority-favors-keeping-abortion-legal/

    A fetus is not a human being. A fetus does not meet the requirements for 'human being' or 'legal person' until it survives to and through birth.
    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/badcatholic/2013/01/catholic-hospital-claims-fetus-is-not-a-person.html

    A fetus is human, it is alive, it may be unwanted. Women will abort said unwanted fetus whether abortion is legal or illegal.

    Reply
  185. Blueberry
    Blueberry says:

    "A fetus is not living until it survives to and through birth."

    I'm sorry but…every single biology and embryology textbook disagrees with you. Seriously, if you have a credible scientific source saying that a fetus is not a living human organism prior to birth, I'll eat my hat. The biological humanity, and status as a living organism, of the fetus is virtually universally accepted.

    Even Planned Parenthood admits that zygotes and embryos are human organisms, not just tissue or a random cell. http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-info/glossary#alpha_e

    A few of many, many sources.

    https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html

    http://clinicquotes.com/category/quotes/scientists-speak/

    http://bdfund.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/wi_whitepaper_life_print.pdf

    A fetus, like all living things, needs to be in an environment where it can get adequate nutrition, oxygen, etc. It just so happens that the only way a fetus prior to ~24 weeks can get those things is through the placenta, and that, presently, the only thing a placenta can really attach to is the womb. If we make artificial wombs, fetuses won't suddenly go from non-living to living. Getting nutrition and oxygen through the umbilical cord rather than the esophagus and lungs doesn't disqualify the fetus from being a living thing.

    Jesus never mentioned kitten killing either. That doesn't mean I should infer that it's okay.

    I don't subscribe to the rules that current Jewish leaders have set up, and I think there are numerous places both in the new and old testaments that show the value of unborn human beings.

    Also saying that it's okay to remove the fetus if the mother's life is threatened doesn't mean that the fetus is inferior. If the fetus can't survive without the mother, and she dies, they'll both be dead. One death is preferable to two.

    Reply
  186. Blueberry
    Blueberry says:

    Pardon my French but most Americans don't know shit about Roe vs. Wade. They know "it made abortion legal," and since they don't think ALL abortion should be legal all the time, and overturning Supreme Court decisions sounds radical and extreme and scary, they go with it.

    Roe vs. Wade and Doe vs. Bolton made purely elective abortion legal extremely late into pregnancy. But most Americans oppose abortion either all or most of the time: http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2014/03/10/cnn-poll-58-percent-of-americans-oppose-abortion-in-all-or-most-circumstances-n1806283

    The criteria for personhood have been debated for centuries, frequently with the intention of deliberately excluding an inconvenient, different, or easily exploitable group.

    Also whether the fetus meets the criteria for "legal person" has nothing to do with whether it is actually a person. Blacks at one point did not meet the criteria for legal personhood, but they were still people, with human rights.

    What criteria do you think a newborn meets for moral personhood, if being a human being isn't enough to secure personhood/human rights?

    Making abortion illegal will very likely drop the abortion rate (I've heard from quite a few women who openly said that wouldn't have done it if it were illegal, or essentially figured it must be moral because it was legally allowed), but no, it won't stop all abortions. No law stops any action 100%. That doesn't mean there shouldn't be laws. Besides, the goal is also to provide better for women and children (something many pro-lifers are dedicated to), promote adoption, and influence public awareness so that people better understand the horror of abortion and why it is wrong. (After all, a lot of crime is prevented by people's own consciences, not by the law. I'm sure more people would abuse their animals than at present if they had no moral objections, even if it was still illegal.)

    Reply
  187. Plum Dumpling
    Plum Dumpling says:

    Roe v. Wade came into existence to regulate abortion because of religious protest by clergy and popular protest by Americans of laws making abortion illegal.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Collective
    http://womenshistory.about.com/od/abortionus/p/clergy_abortion.htm

    Effectively, there is now no regulation of any kind on abortion in America and YOU and your pals did it. And you stupids are proud of yourselves. LMAO.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/03/back-alley-abortions_n_5065301.html

    Now the maiming and the deaths and the fetuses in school bathrooms begins in earnest. They will all be reported in minute detail. Folks will be horrified again. A new law will be passed and abortion will never be illegal in the US again ever.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2740707/Fetus-trash-Texas-high-school-bathroom-Police-believe-student-gave-birth-class-time.html

    http://www.care2.com/causes/13-year-old-performs-abortion-at-home-time-to-rethink-parental-notification-laws.html

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/09/12/1130718/-Finally-a-Limit-Is-Reached-Ninth-Circuit-Rules-McCormack-Can-t-Be-Prosecuted-For-Her-Abortion

    Reply
  188. Plum Dumpling
    Plum Dumpling says:

    Arguendo:

    My body and its contents belongs to (pick one):
    1. You.
    2. the State.
    3. Me and my family.

    My children belong with and to:
    1. You.
    2. the State.
    3. Me and my family.

    Reply
  189. Plum Dumpling
    Plum Dumpling says:

    Also whether the fetus meets the criteria for "legal person" has nothing to do with whether it is actually a person. Blacks at one point did not meet the criteria for legal personhood, but they were still people, with human rights.

    ………….
    Were Slaves attached to the Master by umbilical cord and battening on the Master's flesh and blood? What a crappy analogy.

    Reply
  190. William Cable
    William Cable says:

    False Dichotomies all – Your body belongs to you, but just because it belongs to you doesn't mean you can do whatever you want with it. As the saying goes your right to choose ends were your fist meets someone else's face. Your child does not 'belong' to anyone, they belong to themselves. As their parent you have certain prerogatives over how they are raised educated etc. but you also have a duty of care towards them.

    Reply
  191. Plum Dumpling
    Plum Dumpling says:

    'Your body belongs to you, but just because it belongs to you doesn't mean you can do whatever you want with it.'
    ……………
    A dichotomy is a choice among two alternatives. I gave you three alternatives. You refuse to answer and make shyte up. Typical cultist behavior.

    I have encountered this argument before. I actually wrote a long essay in response. You may read it here. Or not. What one 'can do' has no relationship to what one may actually do.
    http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-practical-limitations-of-government.html

    'Your child does not 'belong' to anyone, they belong to themselves.'

    ………..
    Disingenuous silly argument. There is more than one meaning for 'belong.' And the sense in which I am using 'belong' is made more than clear by my language and the sequence of the questions.

    You either have reading comprehension issues or you are dishonest in the service of your forced birth cult. I vote for the latter. Not one of you forced birth cultists is sane or ethical/truthful.

    Reply
  192. Plum Dumpling
    Plum Dumpling says:

    I gave you more than two choices. I gave you the entire universe of choices.
    When you are willing to honestly answer the question(s), get back to me.

    Reply
  193. Plum Dumpling
    Plum Dumpling says:

    Laughing at you. You think you can baffle me with BS and sheer number of words. How much of that crap did you cut and paste? You have not made a germane response yet.

    Reply
  194. Plum Dumpling
    Plum Dumpling says:

    I did not give you a dichotomy of choices. That would be two choices only. I gave you the universe of choices. There are no other choices. You are either dishonest or you do not understand the questions. Maybe both.

    Reply
  195. Blueberry
    Blueberry says:

    Hur, hur. You're the one throwing out pointless insults and name calling. Sorry for taking your arguments seriously and trying to give thorough and thoughtful replies. (Or rebuttals, since several of the points you mentioned are demonstrably false.) I just thought maybe you were interested in an actual reasonable discussion. If not, then good bye, and have a nice day.

    Reply
  196. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    Yes there is a definite duty of care to children. CHILDREN. Not zygotes, embryos or fetuses. There is no duty of care toward them.

    Reply
  197. eroteme
    eroteme says:

    Let's review shall we.

    She says that caretaking = full body donation
    She opposes forced blood transfusions – even though that is a body part donation
    She is in favour of forced breastfeeding – which removes milk, which belongs to the woman, and give it to someone else(which is why she is against forced blood transfusions)
    If full bodily donation is morally acceptable, then what is wrong with slavery and rape?

    I am sure that you can see the contradictions and inconsistencies here.

    She keeps bringing up the responsibility objection, yet she would force a rape victim to gestate. She said that shed throw a parent out of a plane to save a child if that parent was the only one with a parachute. But, since she is for forced gestation in the case of rape, then she would be morally obligated to throw everyone out of the plane who has a parachute.

    She doesn't think that abortion is justified because not nearly enough women die from pregnancy. Do you think that she would still want abortion to be illegal if *only* 800 prenates were aborted per yeaer?

    Most offensive of all, she believes that anorexics are so mentally incompetent that they can't make decisions – such as the decision to have sex

    Reply
  198. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    No we would NOT likely change our policy, dear. It isn't about numbers of people in need. It's about our bodily autonomy. You cannot strap me down and force me to give of my blood or any other tissues even if someone, or a whole lot of some ones will die without it. You are the one pretending, with your existential angst that a fetus has rights that you and I do not have, or that parents have some innate duty toward unborn children that they do not have toward born children. Pregnancy is totally NOT anything like changing diapers and giving a bottle of formula. The main difference being that anyone can change that diaper or give that formula. It doesn't require the 24/7 presence of a specific person. Subsequent to giving birth, we don't force people to parent. The parents don't even have to take the infant home from the hospital. If they do take the infant home, they have assumed a duty to care for it. If not, it becomes a ward of the state, and will be relinquished for adoption. One cannot drop an embryo off at the hospital and walk away. And you cannot force women to care for a prenate any more than you can force her to care for a newborn.

    Reply
  199. eroteme
    eroteme says:

    On a side note, I'm not arguing that "abortion should be illegal because
    the Bible says it's wrong." I'm just replying to your comments

    Numbers 5, abortion totes acceptable if a woman is accused of adultery.

    Biologically, the fetus is a living human being, whether it's born or not.

    So is a partial mole, a braindead yet still living cadaver, and a parastic twin.

    Respectfully, you haven't given any scientific source saying that the
    fetus is not a living human organism, a biological entity who is a member of our species

    Doesn't automatically follow that it's a person, though. That's your problem.

    Basically, the idea that outlawing abortion will result in all these
    dead and maimed women who got back alley abortions just doesn't seem to
    be at all supported by the facts.

    Meh, if only a few hundred women die from unsafe/illegal abortion, and from all those forced births, it doesn't really matter, because dead women = a mere statistic, and women, as a group, according to you do not have the inalienable right to life, freedom or privacy

    And, respectfully, I don't consider it convincing. Like I said, allowing the fetus to be removed if the alternative is the mother dying (and consequently likely the fetus too) doesn't mean the fetus is considered
    inferior.

    She put it there by having sex, why should it pay with it's life in order to save hers. By removing it, you are essentially saying that the woman is more valuable, yes. At least the RCC is consistent and wants them both to die.

    Reply
  200. eroteme
    eroteme says:

    Yeah, I've explained why this doesn't make sense already.

    It does make sense. People have the *inalienable* right to life, freedom and liberty. Murder and slavery would STILL be wrong if only ONE person was affected.

    You seem to believe that life and other 'rights' should only be granted based on statistics.

    Would you still oppose abortion if there was a chance that only 1,000 fetuses were killed per year? Would you just chalk it down to a 'minor risk' and leave it at that?

    Women who are already dying are women who chose not to abort, so abortion becoming illegal wouldn't have prevented their deaths.

    If you force every woman to gestate, more women will die, That is a fact. But again, they are just statistics, right, so their lives don't matter?

    There are blood banks full of blood that could be used

    Again, you are basing your morality on statistics. And no, blood doesn't exist in an infinite supply. You keep talking about parental responsibility, yet you draw the line where it might be an inconvenience to certain people. Are you one of those people who would rather use someone else's blood than donate your own? Giving blood is way safer than pregnancy.

    And for the umteenth time, giving a child a chance at life, even if it's
    a small chance, is not the same as killing or harming them

    Nope. If the woman's womb is an unsafe place, and innocent embryos are continually implanted in the hope that one will survive, and 90% die, then that is no different than throwing a bunch of babies in the pool to drown and hoping that one might figure out how to swim.

    Reply
  201. eroteme
    eroteme says:

    Also whether the fetus meets the criteria for "legal person" has nothing
    to do with whether it is actually a person. Blacks at one point did not
    meet the criteria for legal personhood, but they were still people,
    with human rights.

    Blacks have *always* met the criteria. Only, their humanity – sentience – sapience, thoughts feelings empathy etc was denied.

    What is the difference between a walking, talking feeling, suffering black person and a zygote/ Can you tell the class?

    Reply
  202. eroteme
    eroteme says:

    Of course it is. YOUR body is being used for the benefit of someone else

    Well if it's bodily donation, then surely nurses can be conscripted to literally breathe for their patients yeah? Just hook the nurse up to a patient who doesn't have functioning lungs, and the nurse can breathe for them?

    Heck, i suppose you could also do the same with kidneys…liver…spleen…anything the patient can't do, just hook the nurse up and force the nurse's body to perform all of the metabolic functions for the patient yeah?

    You're not actually taking a body part out of you and placing it in another, but that's not the case in pregnancy either

    So rape is ok, because the rapist isn't removing the woman's vagina?

    Reply
  203. eroteme
    eroteme says:

    Again, you are arguing based on

    1) statistics

    2) naturalistic fallacies

    You are religious, aren't you? I guess that's why all the 'natural law' bullshit keeps seeping in.

    Also, I would like for you to explain how forcing people to donate body parts after a car crash would be implemented. Details, please. Organ matches, age of the 'offender', blood matches, what if the offender is in multiple accidents, do we just slowly remove all their organs until they die?

    Reply
  204. Bert_1
    Bert_1 says:

    The Talmud states no such thing. The closest the Torah comes to mentioning abortion is in the case of a man hitting a pregnant woman causing her to miscarry. That's it. However, the way it is worded ( When two men fight, and one of them pushes a pregnant woman so that her fruit be expelled, but no harm (ason) befall (her), then shall he be fined as her husband shall assess, and the matter placed before the judges. But if harm (ason) befall (her), then shall you give life for life) Strongly suggests that the ancient Jews considered the mother and child to be completely separate lives, not one.

    Reply
  205. Bert_1
    Bert_1 says:

    But, what percentage of those pro-lifers who truly believe that abortionists are psycho killers (I have no idea what percentage of pro-lifers that would be. I assume low. Most believe that they are killers but not necessarily psycho) would agree that killing abortionists is an acceptable solution?

    Reply
  206. Bert_1
    Bert_1 says:

    "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations." Jeremiah 1:5

    Reply
  207. Plum Dumpling
    Plum Dumpling says:

    Jehovah is a proabort.
    Hosea 13:16
    The word of the Lord …
    The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open."

    Reply
  208. Bert_1
    Bert_1 says:

    You call that "pro-abort"? It is stated as a punishment – that people will die, including the pre-born. That shows that God considers the pre-born to be every bit as sacred as the born. All are human beings.

    Reply
  209. Plum Dumpling
    Plum Dumpling says:

    Nope. Shows the Bible god cared nothing for fetuses. As do the Sotah passages in Numbers. It is blasphemy IMO to teach the Bible when you know nothing at all about it.

    Reply
  210. Bert_1
    Bert_1 says:

    If God truly doesn't care about pre-born children, why mention it? If He doesn't care then there is no difference between a pregnant woman dying and a non-pregnant woman dying. The mere fact that the women's pregnancy was mentioned at all tells us that there is some degree of significance to that fact.

    Reply
  211. Bert_1
    Bert_1 says:

    Which is true. Nowhere does the Talmud state the things you claim it states. Abortion is not supported or condoned anywhere in the Talmud or the Bible.

    Reply
  212. Plum Dumpling
    Plum Dumpling says:

    I proved that is a lie. You failed to read the proof. You like lies. I hate a liar worse than a thief. A thief steals things. A liar tries to steal the truth.

    Reply
  213. Bert_1
    Bert_1 says:

    I haven't seen any proof from you. For that matter, all I have seen is proof by others that what you said was wrong.

    Regardless, the rejection of an argument does not make the response a lie. I have only seen your comments on two articles so far and it appears that when you have nothing to support your position, you resort to name calling and insults. I have lied about nothing. I may disagree with you but I haven't lied.

    Reply
  214. eroteme
    eroteme says:

    If your imaginary skydaddy truly cared about unborn humans, he wouldn't force approximately 70% to spontanously abort or fail to implant.

    Reply
  215. eroteme
    eroteme says:

    Ok, so not psycho killers, just cold hearted killers

    i assume that you also agree that killing a woman who wants to abort is also an acceptable solution? The murderous bitch!

    Reply
  216. eroteme
    eroteme says:

    Abortion is not unjust killing. Women have the right to protect their bodily autonomy from unwanted persons and things – that includes rapists, embryos and parasites.

    Reply
  217. Bert_1
    Bert_1 says:

    It doesn't say that she us pregnant. It describes a test for adultery. If she fails, she may die or become barren. Some translations do say "miscarry" but that us generally considered to be an inaccurate translation.

    Reply
  218. Bert_1
    Bert_1 says:

    Parasites aren't't human so no contest. Rapists are committing a violent crime that may very well end the woman's life so homicide may be justifiable. Pregnancy is neither of those. Why should anyone have the right to kill another human being just because s/he is inconvenient?

    Reply
  219. eroteme
    eroteme says:

    It doesn't have to say that she is pregnant.

    The point of the test is to discover if she has been sleeping around – and if she has, it empties her womb *(abortion) and renders her infertile *(simply rendering her infertile will result in an abortion)

    Try to keep up.

    Reply
  220. eroteme
    eroteme says:

    Oh, so being HUMAN gives someone the right to occupy the body of another human.

    Ok, I need to occupy your body, without your consent, for 9 months to save my life. In fact, this should be government mandated. And if it kills or harms you, too bad so sad, but my right to use your body for life support overrides your right to your body.

    You would find that acceptable?

    Reply
  221. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    How so? Are you immortal? If you are not immortal, you have no "right to life." And what you CERTAINLY don't have is the right to use the body of another to sustain your life. The fetal "you" had no such right, either.

    Reply
  222. eroteme
    eroteme says:

    Naturalistic fallacy.

    1) rape is natural

    2) a parasitic worm living inside of you is also natural, in fact, they co-evolved to live in our guts

    Reply
  223. eroteme
    eroteme says:

    I would think death trumps inconvenience.

    yeah? So my right to life overrides your right to be inconvenienced by the list above?

    Do you think you'd find permanent diabetes to be a mere inconveninience?

    How about having to wear a colostomy bag for the rest of your life? Also a tiny inconvenience?

    Bleeding gums?

    Anemia?

    Hypertension?

    Constant and unending vomiting and nausea for 9 months?

    Should you be FORCED to undergo any of those to save a life because diabetes = minorly inconvenient?

    Reply
  224. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    Contradictory fiddle-faddle. I have news for you, sweetie. If someone is aiming to harm me, I'll kill him and sleep like a baby. YOU can just get over it.

    Reply
  225. Bert_1
    Bert_1 says:

    1 And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 12 “Speak to the people of Israel, If any man's wife goes astray and breaks faith with him, 13 if a man lies with her sexually, and it is hidden from the eyes of her husband, and she is undetected though she has defiled herself, and there is no witness against her, since she was not taken in the act, 14 and if the spirit of jealousy comes over him and he is jealous of his wife who has defiled herself, or if the spirit of jealousy comes over him and he is jealous of his wife, though she has not defiled herself, 15 then the man shall bring his wife to the priest and bring the offering required of her, a tenth of an ephah[c] of barley flour. He shall pour no oil on it and put no frankincense on it, for it is a grain offering of jealousy, a grain offering of remembrance, bringing iniquity to remembrance.

    16 “And the priest shall bring her near and set her before the Lord. 17 And the priest shall take holy water in an earthenware vessel and take some of the dust that is on the floor of the tabernacle and put it into the water. 18 And the priest shall set the woman before the Lord and unbind the hair of the woman's head and place in her hands the grain offering of remembrance, which is the grain offering of jealousy. And in his hand the priest shall have the water of bitterness that brings the curse. 19 Then the priest shall make her take an oath, saying, ‘If no man has lain with you, and if you have not turned aside to uncleanness while you were under your husband's authority, be free from this water of bitterness that brings the curse. 20 But if you have gone astray, though you are under your husband's authority, and if you have defiled yourself, and some man other than your husband has lain with you, 21 then’ (let the priest make the woman take the oath of the curse, and say to the woman) ‘the Lord make you a curse and an oath among your people, when the Lord makes your thigh fall away and your body swell.22 May this water that brings the curse pass into your bowels and make your womb swell and your thigh fall away.’ And the woman shall say, ‘Amen, Amen.’

    No mention of pregnancy, miscarriage or abortion.

    Reply
  226. Bert_1
    Bert_1 says:

    You state that if God cared about pre-born children, He would cause 70% of them to abort.

    I asked why.

    You answered because He doesn't care. Doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

    Reply
  227. eroteme
    eroteme says:

    wife to the priest and bring the offering required of her, a tenth of an ephah[c] of barley flour.

    Rotting grain from the temple floor. It is an abortifacient.

    ‘If no man has lain with you, and if you have not turned aside to
    uncleanness while you were under your husband's authority, be free from
    this water of bitterness that brings the curse.

    Yeah, if she's been fucking another guy, her husband's worry is that she's having someone else's children, and this is a big no no no because INHERITANCES only went to sons, and if she has a son with another man…bad news.

    makes your thigh fall away and your body swell.22 May this water that
    brings the curse pass into your bowels and make your womb swell and your
    thigh fall away

    And 'thigh' is a euphemism for miscarriage. Her vagina will empty, including all of it's contents, and she will be rendered infertile

    Reply
  228. Bert_1
    Bert_1 says:

    Virtually every country has a constitution that has, as one of its first rights, if not THE first right, the right to life. That right extends until our death and specifies that no one has the right to prematurely terminate our life without due cause.

    Reply
  229. eroteme
    eroteme says:

    Yep, rape is natural. Rape is a reproductive strategy which enables men to spread their genes without having to put forth any of their resources.

    It doesn't matter if the parasite is human or not, you are arguing that prengancy is wonderful because it's natural and what uteruses were made for – well, parasites evolved to live inside our guts, and it's completely natural…

    Read this

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/helminthic-therapy-mucus/

    Reply
  230. Bert_1
    Bert_1 says:

    Rape is an unnatural implementation of a natural act.

    Killing a parasite is not the same as killing a human. Especially if the parasite is potentially fatal for the host, which many are.

    Reply
  231. eroteme
    eroteme says:

    Nope.

    Rape is an evolutionary reproductive strategy. 100pct natural

    http://courses.washington.edu/evpsych/rape.pdf

    Killing a parasite is not the same as killing a human

    Stop moving the fucking goalposts. You stated that natural = good. Clearly, natural is NOT good, and just because something *evolved* to use one of your body parts does not mean that it has a right to it.

    Reply
  232. Bert_1
    Bert_1 says:

    You are trying to take things in isolation and defining whether they are good or bad. Parasites can be good – as in the article you provided a link to. Parasites can also be fatal. Just like bacteria. Certain bacteria in your gut in necessary for a properly functioning gut. Other bacteria in the same place can kill you. Both are natural but both are not good. Plus, parasites, not being human, do not have the right to life.

    Rape is a violent act and, therefore, is not acceptable. Yes, the sex part is natural but the implementation is, as I have said, not.

    Breathing is natural but it will kill you underwater or in the presence of certain gases.

    And I am not moving the goal posts. I called pregnancy natural in comparison to you occupying my body. It was a ridiculous comparison to begin with but the natural aspect of a pregnancy is not the only criteria for supporting it.

    Reply
  233. eroteme
    eroteme says:

    You are trying to take things in isolation and defining whether they are good or bad.

    I'm not taking anything in isolation. You are stating that pregnancy is intriniscally good, no matter the pain and suffering it causes the woman, because it's 'a natural process'

    Is pregnancy also 'good' because it can 'naturally 'kill the woman? Maim her? Cause her lots of pain and suffering?

    Rape is a violent act and, therefore, is not acceptable

    Some rapes can cause less damage to a woman's body than a pregnancy. Birth is especially violent – 6-72 hours of *intense* pain followed by a large object being shoved out a tiny hole. If such assaults were induced by a means other than pregnancy, it would be considered TORTURE.

    Yes, the sex part is natural but the implementation is, as I have said, not.

    The implemention is completely natural, it's an evolutionary adaptation. Deal with it. Nature is NEVER fair. Did you know that ducks mate exclusively by raping females?

    And I am not moving the goal posts

    Yes you are. I pointed out the flaw with your naturalistic fallacy, and you fall back on 'but it's human'. Yeah well, rapists are human, I'm human too – and rapists have no more of a right to your body than I have to your body – even if our very lives depend upon it.

    Reply
  234. Bert_1
    Bert_1 says:

    The grain referred to in the passage is to be provided by the husband, not scraped up off the floor.

    The Commandment being addressed deals with adultery, not inheritance.

    Do yo have any references for your claim that "thigh" means "miscarriage"? I have never seen that in any discussion of that passage.

    Reply
  235. eroteme
    eroteme says:

    Nope, the grain is taken from the temple floor.

    The Commandment being addressed deals with adultery, not inheritance.

    No shit, Sherlock. And people back then were OBSESSED with adultery and it was a VERY VERY VERY serious crime because a man had to MAKE SURE that his inheritance when to HIS KID and not some dude his wife was FUCKING ON THE SIDE.

    http://www.keithhunt.com/Sex1.html

    In the Bible, euphemisms for the sexual organs include such terms as "secrets" (Deuteronomy 25:11), "stones" (Deuteronomy
    23:1), "loins" (Genesis 46:26), "thigh" (Genesis 24:2), "privy member" (Deuteronomy 23:1), "fountain" (Leviticus 20:18), and "the place of the breaking forth of children" (Hosea 13:13).

    Reply
  236. Bert_1
    Bert_1 says:

    Yes, pregnancy is a natural process and I have heard that a few women have even survived the ordeal over the years.

    So, are you suggesting that it is OK for me to assault you as long as I don't inflict any permanent damage to you?

    Rape is violent and wrong. You cannot justify it by how much damage the rape does to the woman. Even if it does no damage at all, it is still rape and it is still wrong. Unless you are a duck, I guess.

    Rape is not natural. It is a violent crime and you cannot justify it by how much damage is done to the victim or if some animals engage in something similar.

    Reply
  237. Bert_1
    Bert_1 says:

    "then the man shall bring his wife to the priest and bring the offering required of her, a tenth of an ephah[c] of barley flour"

    The man provides it.

    The people were concerned about adultery because it violated one of the Commandments. It had nothing to do with inheritance.

    Reply
  238. eroteme
    eroteme says:

    Yes, pregnancy is a natural process and I have heard that a few women have even survived the ordeal over the years.

    Yes, cancer is a natural process and I have heard that a few women have even survived the ordeal over the years.

    So, are you suggesting that it is OK for me to assault you as long as I don't inflict any permanent damage to you?

    That's your argument.

    Rape is violent and wrong. You cannot justify it by how much damage the
    rape does to the woman. Even if it does no damage at all, it is still
    rape and it is still wrong.

    Why, it's natural?

    Rape is not natural.

    You keep saying that, but you can't back it up, either logically or with science.

    Do some reading:

    http://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&lr=&id=a2TTPKFUXgkC&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=rape+evolutionary+adaptation&ots=noFDKnvcnM&sig=cBH-JH4kOyO4-7_ZsFJdeX9ytrg#v=onepage&q=rape%20evolutionary%20adaptation&f=false

    http://www.mta.ca/~ogould/FLIPS/Flips5McKibbin.pdf

    http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/features/why-men-want-to-rape/150003.article

    ——–

    Rape is an evolutionary mating strategy.

    There are two types of mating strategies in nature – tournament and pair bonding. Ducks = tournament. Humans = right in the middle, pair bonding and tournament.

    Tournament mating = trying to trick the opposite sex into making a bigger investment into propagating your genes than you do. Rape is the strategy used by males to propagate their genes without the material investment. Rape lots of women, if some kids survive, your genes have been propagated. This is operating at the genetic level – selfish genes exist to replicate themselves.
    Females try to get the upper hand by cuckolding – by sleeping with men who are not their pair bond, and then tricking their pair bond mate into putting all of his resources into raising the other man's child.

    Your welcome.

    Reply
  239. eroteme
    eroteme says:

    Yeah, he brings an offering, and it goes on the floor, and the grains from the floor + other materials create the abortifiacient

    Reply
  240. Bert_1
    Bert_1 says:

    Irrelevant. You asked why the women suffers as a result of the procedure outlined. It states that it was a curse. Whether you believe it or not does not change what it says.

    Reply
  241. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    No sweetie. There is no "right to life" in the U.S. Constitution. What the Constitution says is that no person may be deprived of life, property or liberty without due process. That doesn't translate to a "right to life." One thing in particular that the Constitution doesn't guarantee is the right to use anyone else's body to sustain your life. I get the feeling you have never even READ the Constitution, because you have ignorantly misquoted the first amendment. And the words "right to life" don't appear in any part of the Bill of Rights or any subsequent amendments either. "Due process" refers to actions by the government and does not mean and is not synonymous with "due cause." Many forms of killing are considered justified, and any form of denying another person a bodily donation isn't considered "killing them" in any way, shape or form. Example: You and I share a rare blood type. I need blood or I will die, and you are the only person immediately available with the type of blood I need. You may decide to give me some of your blood and save my life, or maybe you don't agree to do so. No law can compel you, even if it means I die. In similar fashion, woman are not compelled to bodily donation for a fetus, which actually involves all of her vital organs, i.e. her entire body. Not for nine months. Not for nine minutes.

    Reply
  242. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    I'm not your logic tutor. I charge $20 an hour for tutoring. Look up that fallacy, which comes into play when someone asserts that because something is "natural" it is therefore good, right, justified, and safe. It's called a fallacy because it's a disingenuous and illogical argument. Pregnancy might be "natural" but it is not always good, not always right and definitely not always safe.

    Reply
  243. Arekushieru
    Arekushieru says:

    Well, Canada must be an outlier, then. Considering that it's the only NATION where abortion is decriminalized. And, lo and behold, abortion rates, here, are slightly lower than those in the States.

    Reply
  244. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    Well, in all fairness, abortion isn't criminalized in the U.S.A. either. Some people would very much like it to be, but Roe and Doe are still good law here.

    Reply
  245. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    No. Let me explain something to you. A person doesn't abort out of "convenience." Having an abortion is decidedly inconvenient. It's expensive. It's unpleasant. So is pregnancy. Someone who can't afford another child, who is at risk of job loss, who is experiencing health problems is not acting out of "convenience." They are operating out of self-preservation and the preservation of the family they are already responsible for. In many states, a woman can be penalized in public assistance funds for having too many children. In ALL states, a woman can be fired from her job for taking too much time off. If she isn't full-time and been employed at her present employer for a year, she's entitled to NO time off under FMLA, even that is unpaid. Certain people think it's perfectly fine for her employer to deny her coverage for contraception, too. You can't have it all ways, kiddo. You want to decrease abortion? Here's how: Make sure contraception is free of burdensome costs because it's covered by insurance and I mean ALL types. Don't vote for politicians that refuse to expand Medicaid. Don't vote for politicians that want to cut funds for SNAP and WIC. Write your representatives and request that they support job protections for pregnant women. Ask that they subsidize day care for low income working moms. In other words, start treating women decently so that they won't believe they have no other viable choice.

    Reply
  246. Guest
    Guest says:

    No, lying is intentionally making a false statement. For example, I would be lying if I said that abortion rates are the highest in the Bible Belt because I know that to be false. Providing a source (that I admit to be questionable) for a quote after you ask for it is not lying. It's not a quote I would personally use, since I try not to make any claims that I can't back up with good sources. But if the quote is real, it would be pretty damaging to the narrative given in After Tiller. So I stand by my original post.

    But I digress. I'm engaging the Goldfish Poop Gang after I said I wasn't going to. I need to stop.

    Reply
  247. thisispainful
    thisispainful says:

    I am 1000 times stupider from having read Blueberry's replies. What is the point in trying to have a discussion with someone who can't even comprehend the very simple meaning of bodily autonomy, or refuses to acknowledge the actual meaning of the term? You can't just make it mean what you want it to mean, Blueberry, and you're being wilfully ignorant. Your posts are filled with inconsistencies. If you want to be against abortion, go ahead but just say that you think right to life trumps bodily autonomy. And if you want to be consistent, wear the consequences of that statement, with all the horrible things that implies, or just acknowledge that your ideology is inconsistent. Honestly, admitting to inconsistencies will be less embarrassing than you having to struggle through this debate, where you are quite clearly out of your depth.

    Reply
  248. Plum Dumpling
    Plum Dumpling says:

    What child? There is no child until I make it out of my flesh and blood and successfully push it out of my body. i will decide when and if to do that. Not YOU.

    Reply
  249. Plum Dumpling
    Plum Dumpling says:

    Stick 'natural' up your cloaca.

    Childbirth is the leading cause of death for young women 15-19 in developing countries where all is 'natural.'

    This is the argument used to prevent pain relief for laboring women. Childbirth from sepsis and hemorrhage are two of the leading causes of maternal death worldwide. The third is illegal abortion.

    Reply
  250. Plum Dumpling
    Plum Dumpling says:

    Vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan says that he personally believes that rape is just another “method of conception” and not an excuse to allow abortions.

    Reply
  251. Plum Dumpling
    Plum Dumpling says:

    I want to let everybody know that the downvote button still works. You can purchase a program that will show you how many downvotes a poster has gotten.
    Downvote this sucker. Speaking as a disqus moderator, I can see how many downvotes a person has gotten, their overall reputation, and their email.

    Reply
  252. Plum Dumpling
    Plum Dumpling says:

    It is not the only direct quote from the Torah that mentions miscarriage/abortion. There are the passages about the Sotah in Numbers. Abortion as a tool of civil law.
    STOP TEACHING THE BIBLE when you know nothing about it. THAT IS BLASPHEMY.

    Reply
  253. Russell Crawford
    Russell Crawford says:

    There are more important things that are being hid from the public. For example there are 1.8 born babies, children and adults, 1.4 induced abortions and 10 miscarriages dying each —- second—-. Pro lifers have a choice, they may save one of the 1.8 innocent babies dying each second or they can let them die and attempt to force the birth of a fetus instead. If they attempt to save the fetus, the 1.8 born babies die. They may also choose between saving the 10 wanted fetuses that die each second or the 1.4 unwanted fetuses that die. Of course their choice is to let the 10 fetuses die and attempt to save the unwanted fetus.

    What we have here is a failure to communicate. Pro lifers communicate that they are "saving" life when in fact they make the intentional choice to let innocent babies die, that is eugenics, that is not saving life.

    Reply
  254. Russell Crawford
    Russell Crawford says:

    The zygote is in fact a fused egg and sperm. So you are equating an egg and sperm to a baby. Which is fine if you really mean to do that. But for the sake of accuracy you should not leave out the most important stage of human development. The gamete stage is the first stage in which there is a changed DNA code from that of the mother and father. In fact the DNA of the gametes makes the sperm and oocyte fully functional human life a their respective stage.
    If the zygote is similar to a human baby in all respects, then the gametes are likewise a human baby at an even earlier stage. Just at the zygotes must have the uterus to become a baby, the sperm must have the egg. Without help neither the sperm and egg nor the zygote will become a born human.

    Reply
  255. eroteme
    eroteme says:

    Refusing to acknowledge the meaning of the term is a common tactic. Yet they seem to know what it means if you demand their kidney.

    Reply
  256. Boommach
    Boommach says:

    Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson label themselves as reverend. I have never heard of any Christian testimony from these men. I hear peripheral references to scriptures laughably taken out of context. Spitz is no different than any of us. We are all free to choose whichever path to Hell we are most comfortable with. Fortunately, there is One Alternative Avenue.

    Reply
  257. thisispainful
    thisispainful says:

    "The mole isn't alive. It's made of living cells, yes, but the mole itself isn't alive as an individual functioning entity with any capacity whatsoever."

    But neither is a bloody blastocyst, by your own definition! You can't base something's right to life on its potential to become something with a right to life.

    Reply
  258. Bert_1
    Bert_1 says:

    It doesn't matter what a curse is. You asked what that passage in the Bible says is the reason for the woman's reaction. The answer is a curse. Whether you believe that or not is completely irrelevant. That's what it says.

    Reply
  259. eroteme
    eroteme says:

    In the real world, we look at real causes, and the rotting grain + temple dust = an abortifacient

    And regardless,if your 'curse' was real, the point would STILL be to cause an abortion

    Reply
  260. Russell Crawford
    Russell Crawford says:

    There are several problems for the pro life movement that will be widely known in the near future. For example, before Roe when abortion was illegal and birth control was legal, there was a drop of millions of babies born. And after abortion became legal there was an increase of millions of babies being born. So the old saw that 50+ million babies were lost to abortion is simply backwards. Abortion has lead to an increase of millions of babies.

    And in the next few years it will become common knowledge that pro lifers have a choice to save or let die innocent born babies or fetuses and that their intentional choice is to let babies die. For example there are 1.8 born babies, children and adults, 1.4 induced abortions and 10 natural abortions dying —each second—. There are more people dying than can be saved. So every person that claims to save life must choose which they will save. They may save innocent born babies or they may let them die and save a fetus instead. If they spend one second saving a fetus, then in that second 1.8 babies die. And if they choose to save an unwanted fetus then they have chosen not to save a wanted fetus and 10 wanted fetuses die each second. So pro lifers are never "saving life" they are simply choosing to let babies and wanted fetuses die in an effort to force an unwanted fetus to be born.

    But that is still not the end of the problem for pro lifers. They also must contend with the fact that every scientist agrees that until the DNA of the genotype expresses the correct phenotype, there is no human life. And the point at which everyone agrees there is human life is usually at birth. Why? Because at birth several processes occur that make it clear that the fetus is alive and human. The fetal heart must transform into the human heart, the fetal digestive system, the fetal respiratory system and the fetal brain must all transform into their human counterparts. Until these changes at birth occur there is no proof the fetus has the human phenotype that will allow it to live as a human. This is something that every scientist can agree upon and it upsets the religious idea that there is human life at conception.

    Reply
  261. Ann Morgan
    Ann Morgan says:

    **What we are not told is that one percent = approximately 10,000 babies in the U.S. per year.**

    And what the pro-lifers do not mention are the reasons WHY this is done? Because the mother wants to go party, as they continually imply? Or are there medical reasons?

    Reply
  262. Keatsandshelley
    Keatsandshelley says:

    Well, you can keep talking to yourself from now on. I was reading some of your posts and you and a couple others are what we in the education field call bullies. You bully other readers instead of engaging with them in dialogue. Worst of all you gang up and bully anyone who has a different viewpoint than yours instead of conceding that perhaps, just perhaps, the opinion of others is just as valuable as yours. You are a bully and you take pleasure in bullying. I will not answer you again. I do not engage people who decide to bully others. Good day.

    Reply
  263. eroteme
    eroteme says:

    Yet you want to bully women into gestational slavery.

    And Plum is correct, you do not think.

    What if the woman's death can't be predicted? What if she bleeds to death during birth?

    And since when are rights granted based on statistical probabilities? I bet you'd still oppose abortion if "only" 800 prenates were "murdered" per year. I bet you would oppose murder if YOU were the ONLY victim.

    Reply
  264. Russell Crawford
    Russell Crawford says:

    It is amazing how well the Jewish account comports to scientific fact. The fetus cannot be proved to be human until it is born because several changes occur that transform the fetus into a baby.
    And most of those changes begin to occur at the exit of the fetus from the womb.

    Reply
  265. Plum Dumpling
    Plum Dumpling says:

    Ancient people were not dumb. Russell, will you do us a service and list those changes.
    I ask because this site, while full of arrogant moral posturing, is really light on science and medicine.

    Reply
  266. Suba gunawardana
    Suba gunawardana says:

    Pretty much all articles on SPL operate under the pre-conceived notion that "abortion is wrong" without having provided a clear justification for this concept. As does this one.

    Think about it… If abortion is not wrong, none of the "omissions" mentioned in the article matter at all. If abortion IS actually wrong, these omissions are the least of the problem.

    Focusing on all kinds of irrelevant yet emotionally charged stuff while implying abortion is wrong, without actually showing it's wrong, is a transparent attempt at manipulation.

    Reply
  267. Shan
    Shan says:

    I think I see what you mean. If one trying to make the point that all abortion is wrong all the time, it doesn't matter WHEN the abortion is taking place or for what reason so this whole article is a big red herring. If that's the right term.

    Reply
  268. Shan
    Shan says:

    I don't think anybody can "prove" that it's wrong, only offer their opinion as to why think THINK it's wrong. Anybody can have as many reasons as they DO have for why, and they're perfectly valid reasons as far as I'm concerned. Because, while I might be intellectually curious, I don't really care what their opinions are because they don't have anything to do with me or anything I'm concerned about.

    Now, if they're promoting and argument as to why they think abortion should be ILLEGAL, then I'm definitely interested in hearing thoughts on that.

    Reply
  269. eroteme
    eroteme says:

    Yep
    I always ask, if zygotes are rational, then why the obsessive focus on the mythical blood soaked satanic 35wk abortion?!

    It should NOT matter.

    Reply
  270. Russell Crawford
    Russell Crawford says:

    My rant follows:
    Your analysis is correct. I think the reason that they "assume" facts that have no evidence is because there is no evidence that abortion is wrong. The evidence that does exist shows that abortion and a woman's choice to abort are selfless acts that lead to an increase in life. For example after abortion became legal, there was an increase in life that continues to this day. Before abortion was legal there was a decrease in life that continued until abortion became legal. And they have nothing that can refute that. When a woman has autonomy, it leads to more births and fewer deaths in addition to fewer unwanted babies. Abortion has not been proved to be harmful in any way. It has in fact been proved to be the safe and logical choice that builds a strong family and strong economy.
    The purpose of anti abortion laws is to enslave women. There is no other answer. If women are forced to conceive and forced to give birth by limiting birth control and abortion, then the workforce will be populated by only men. In such a situation woman will be forced to depend on men for their needs and will become de facto slaves. Only by taking away the right to autonomy can men be successful in holding women down. By brainwashing techniques, intelligent men are able to control weak minded men and women. There are a large number of women that cannot be brainwashed and cannot be fooled by the pro life line. Those women along with the pro choice men are struck with the duty to expose these frauds. Only through brainwashing of low IQ men and women can a large base of pro life voters be constructed. The recent evidence that I see is that pro lifers are failing to brainwash enough men and women to con their way into a takeover of women's rights. With women leading the way, pro choice men will follow and we will defeat these anti rights pro lifers. —–end of rant.

    Reply
  271. eroteme
    eroteme says:

    Nope.

    It's tough shall not murder

    Amalekite genocide
    Midianite genocude
    Animal sacrifice…

    There is a lot of killing in the bible, all condoned by god

    Reply
  272. Shan
    Shan says:

    I'm not a scholar by any means but I know there are plenty of places in the Bible where God demands the taking of human life, like eroteme pointed out.

    For instance NUMBERS 31:17-18 "God commanded Moses to kill all of the male Midianite
    children and "kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for
    yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man." Sounds to me like that's a command to kill every woman who *might* be pregnant.

    I don't think there's anywhere where God ever said "It's a sin for women themselves to prevent birth either by contraception or abortion" though. Sounds like only warring men are allowed to do birth control and that in order to prevent the births of their enemies by killing all the already-born children and also the women who might give birth to any. Kind of a twofer thing, right?

    Reply
  273. Suba gunawardana
    Suba gunawardana says:

    -Considering that your very life depends on killing, that's obviously a rule no one is expected to keep.
    -Since your god kills every living being without exception, what right does he have to tell anyone else not to kill?

    Reply
  274. Bert_1
    Bert_1 says:

    The difference is that it is God's decision to take the lives you are referring to, not the people's. I don't have the right to decide when you die and it would be a sin for me to make that decision. God, on the other hand, does have that right. When He decides that your time is up, it's up.
    With abortion, you have an individual human being deciding when the life of another individual human being should end. That is just as wrong as if I decided to end your life.

    Reply
  275. Shan
    Shan says:

    Ah, but that philosophy is based on YOUR religion. Our country (presuming you live in the USA) has this thing called the First Amendment. If you want to make laws for everyone based on your religion, you have to get past the First Amendment, well, first.

    If my religion (or the religion I don't have) doesn't subscribe to the same philosophy, then were do we stand as far as reasons as to why abortion should or should not be legal for EVERYONE?

    Reply
  276. Bert_1
    Bert_1 says:

    Well, we could have a discussion about what the First Amendment does or does not say, but this is strictly about abortion and your question dealt with abortion within the context of the Bible. It makes no difference what religion you are, the Bible says what it says.
    Regardless, if you wish to discuss abortion within the context of the Constitution, you should remember that one of the very first rights listed in the American Constitution (and the Constitutions of virtually every civilized country) is the right to life. Abortion kills a human being. That violates the law of the Bible and the Constitution.

    Reply
  277. Shan
    Shan says:

    I'm interested in a legal discussion. The Bible isn't what we base our laws on and the Constitution doesn't flat-out guarantee anybody the right to life, so you've got a swing and miss on both those counts.

    Reply
  278. Suba gunawardana
    Suba gunawardana says:

    -Every human life requires killing millions of animals and plants. Human civilization is based on killing thousands (millions?) of humans for various reasons. All these killings are legal, acceptable, and in most cases necessary.

    -Neither our law, nor your god, claims abortion is wrong. So what's your basis for opposing abortion?

    -As you well know, everyone doesn't believe in your god. Why should they care what your god thinks anyway?

    Reply
  279. Bert_1
    Bert_1 says:

    Sorry, Shan but you are mistaken on both counts. Virtually all of our legal structure is based upon our Christian roots. That is where what we now call "the West" came from.
    And, yes, the Constitution does guarantee everyone the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" as listed n the United States Declaration of Independence.

    Reply
  280. Bert_1
    Bert_1 says:

    -The Commandment refers to human victims, not non-human.
    -Abortion kills a human being. The Bible says that killing humans is a sin.
    -You don't have to nor am I trying to force you to. The question was in regards to abortion in the context of the Bible. That's what I answered. You can believe in God or not as you see fit but your belief does not change what is written in the Bible.

    Reply
  281. Suba gunawardana
    Suba gunawardana says:

    So is your ONLY opposition to abortion that "the bible says thou shalt not kill"? If so, that rule should only apply to practicing Christians, and has no place in law.

    Reply
  282. Bert_1
    Bert_1 says:

    No, that just happened to be the topic being discussed. Personally, I tend to stay away from religion based arguments for or against something because there are far too many religious bigots in the world who render such arguments frustrating. However, it was asked if God permitted abortions and I answered based upon my limited knowledge of the Bible.

    Reply
  283. Shan
    Shan says:

    The Constitution also has thing thing called the Fourth Amendment which involves Due Process, without which those rights you mentioned may not be abridged. What fourth amendment rights do you think embryos should have that legally supersede the fourth amendment rights of all women?

    Reply
  284. Bert_1
    Bert_1 says:

    You asked what right of a pre-born child is being violated by abortion. I answered: Life. That is the inalienable right being denied that child.

    Reply
  285. Bert_1
    Bert_1 says:

    What you seem to keep missing is the simple fact that God, and God alone, has the right to decide when someone's life is to end. If God takes someone's life, that is correct. If a human being decides to take another human being's life, that is wrong.

    Reply
  286. eroteme
    eroteme says:

    A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. (Leviticus 21:9 NAB)

    Reply
  287. eroteme
    eroteme says:

    But if this charge is true (that she wasn't a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst. (Deuteronomy 22:20-21 NAB)

    From there Elisha went up to Bethel. While he was on his way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him. "Go up baldhead," they shouted, "go up baldhead!" The prophet turned and saw them, and he cursed them in the name of the Lord. Then two shebears came out of the woods and tore forty two of the children to pieces. (2 Kings 2:23-24 NAB

    Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword. Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes. For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off. The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows. They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children. (Isaiah 13:15-18 NLT
    My angel will go before you and bring you to the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Canaanites, Hivites, and Jebusites; and I will wipe them out. (Exodus 23:23 NAB)

    When the people heard the sound of the horns, they shouted as loud as they could. Suddenly, the walls of Jericho collapsed, and the Israelites charged straight into the city from every side and captured it. They completely destroyed everything in it – men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep, donkeys – everything. (Joshua 6:20-21 NLT)

    Then, with Micah's idols and his priest, the men of Dan came to the town of Laish, whose people were peaceful and secure. They attacked and killed all the people and burned the town to the ground. There was no one to rescue the residents of the town, for they lived a great distance from Sidon and had no allies nearby. This happened in the valley near Beth-rehob.Then the people of the tribe of Dan rebuilt the town and lived there. They renamed the town Dan after their ancestor, Israel's son, but it had originally been called Laish. (Judges 18:27-29 NLT) (Note that God approves of this slaughter in verse 6.)

    Reply
  288. eroteme
    eroteme says:

    Nope. People made the decision to kill, and it just happens to be convenient that "god" condoned it.

    I guess you would find it acceptable if a Christian person today committed genocide of non believers based on the bible? Just following gods law, after all…

    Reply
  289. eroteme
    eroteme says:

    The lord did not command all of the above killing – it was condoned by him however.

    If killing is good if commanded by god, then it should be legal to stone gays to death and burn non virgins?

    Reply
  290. eroteme
    eroteme says:

    Why not? Its gods law..

    Kill non believers
    Kill slutty women
    Kill brats
    Kill people who work on the sabbath

    The above killing honors god

    Reply
  291. Shan
    Shan says:

    No, Bert, that's not what I asked at all. Not even remotely. I asked who you think should have the stronger legal access to the 4th Amendment right of Due Process leading to the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" that you seem to hold so dear: women or embryos. More importantly? Why.

    Reply
  292. Bert_1
    Bert_1 says:

    It depends on your religion. If you are a Muslim and live under Sharia it is already legal to stone gays and adulterers to death. Christians, on the other hand, take a different approach and do not kill such people.

    Reply
  293. Bert_1
    Bert_1 says:

    No, it doesn't. In the OT, Jews were directed by God to mete out harsh punishment, including death, for many crimes. Christians are not directed to do such things. So, I guess it depends on your religious beliefs.

    Reply
  294. eroteme
    eroteme says:

    Christians are directed to do such things. The bible commands it. God = objective morality
    A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. (Leviticus 20:27 NAB)

    It should be legal to kill the Long Island Medium based on the bible

    Reply
  295. Bert_1
    Bert_1 says:

    Actually, I think it is the 14th Amendment that you are referring to.

    In any event, the Amendment states " and thus the due process clause acts as a safeguard from arbitrary denial of life, liberty, or property by the Government outside the sanction of law". So, the due process clause protects from the arbitrary denial of life. That is what is being denied the pre-born child.

    Reply
  296. Bert_1
    Bert_1 says:

    I didn't say that I wanted to live under any. But, in a democracy, every person has the right to vote. That vote is secret and I do not have to disclose either what my vote is or my justification for my vote. Therefore, if I wish to vote a certain way on a particular issue because of my religious leanings, I have every right to do that. And, if the majority of people (or at least the majority of those who voted) agree with me, then that becomes law – unless, of course, it violates some other law.

    Reply
  297. eroteme
    eroteme says:

    Abortion is not unjust killing. The prenate has no right to occupy the woman's body. In fact, occupation of the bodies of others is not listed as an inalienable right.

    And the prenate dies because it loses access to the woman's organs. Blame evolution, not her, for that

    Reply
  298. eroteme
    eroteme says: