Precision of Language, Please, New York Times
 |
| Above: the author’s son Noel, who died of natural causes in utero. |
[Today’s guest post by JoAnna Wahlund is part of our paid blogging program.]
I recently saw the movie “The Giver” (and loved it, just as I’ve loved the book since childhood). It’s still fairly fresh in my mind, so perhaps that’s why I kept hearing Jonas’ mother say “Precision of language, please!” while I read this New York Times article, “The Dawn of the Post-Clinic Abortion” by Emily Bazelon.
Aside from the article’s blasé and almost celebratory attitude toward illegal and unsafe abortion procedures (such as importing abortion-inducing pills from countries with no product testing or safety standards and handing them out like Halloween candy to anyone who wanted them, with no attempt to screen for people who were only posing as women in crisis pregnancies so they could slip them to girlfriends or abuse victims without their consent), what I found particularly disturbing was the author’s apparent inability to distinguish between elective abortion and miscarriage.
For example, in the very first paragraph (all italics are mine):
In June 2001, under a cloud-streaked sky, Rebecca Gomperts set out from the Dutch port of Scheveningen in a rented 110-foot ship bound for Ireland. Lashed to the deck was a shipping container, freshly painted light blue and stocked with packets of mifepristone (which used to be called RU-486) and misoprostol. The pills are given to women in the first trimester to induce a miscarriage. Medical abortion, as this procedure is called, had recently become available in the Netherlands. But use of misoprostol and mifepristone to end a pregnancy was illegal in Ireland, where abortion by any means remains against the law, with few exceptions.
Right off the bat Bazelon conflates miscarriage with medical abortion, when the two are not the same. The National Center for Biotechnology Information states: “A miscarriage may also be called a ‘spontaneous abortion.’ This refers to naturally occurring events, not medical abortions or surgical abortions” (emphasis mine).
One could perhaps give Bazelon (and the NYT editors) the benefit of the doubt—perhaps they didn’t catch the error because they were too entranced with the romantic image of sailing under a cloud-streaked sky off the misty coast of Ireland (albeit on a ship that should be called the Barge of the Dead)—but it doesn’t happen just once.
Later on in the article, she writes of how Gomperts encourages to lie to medical professionals and claim they’re experiencing a miscarriage instead of a medical abortion, should they need to seek help for complications. “Gomperts says there is no medical reason for women to tell anyone that they’ve used pills. Treatment, if needed, is the same as it would be for a spontaneous miscarriage.”
[Lying to your care providers about the drugs you’ve ingested is always a good idea, right? No one need worry about allergic reactions or potentially dangerous drug interactions. Gomperts obviously has only the purest of motives. It couldn’t possibly be that she wants women to lie so that she doesn’t get arrested, charged, and convicted of drug dealing.]
Ahem. Back to the story.
Further on in the article, Bazelon describes her experience at a training session for “abortion doulas.” “The training included a session on the basics of how misoprostol and mifepristone are administered in clinics and how to help ease the discomfort of miscarriage,” she writes.
Bazelon tells of abortionist Amy Hagstrom Miller, whose Texas clinic is facing closure due to Miller’s refusal to comply with new Texas safety regulations for abortion facilities: “Amy Hagstrom Miller, the founder of a network of clinics called Whole Woman’s Health, told me she has been thinking about what might be possible. Facing the closure of her 11-year-old Austin clinic, she was considering whether she might open some sort of ‘miscarriage management’ facility in the Rio Grande Valley.”
I am appalled that neither Bazelon nor her editors at the New York Times either didn’t notice or didn’t bother to correct this shoddy phrasing. As the definition from the National Center for Biotechnology Information clearly states, miscarriage is not the same as medical abortion, yet she uses the two terms interchangeably, as do her interviewees—not just once but multiple times.
Precision of language, please! Abortion and miscarriage are not the same. The biological processes facilitated by the pharmaceuticals may be similar, but they are wholly different in one very important aspect: an abortion is the intentional killing of an unborn child; a miscarriage is when an unborn child dies of natural causes. They are antonyms, not synonyms.
When people such as Emily Bazelon try to imply that my experiences with miscarriage (I’ve lost two children) are no different than those of women who have aborted, it is blatantly offensive. She has no right to lump together abortion and miscarriage because she is essentially equating deliberate murder with natural death. I wouldn’t walk up to someone whose grandmother passed away in her sleep and accuse him of murder any more than I would tell a person who smothered his elderly grandmother with a pillow that it was a good thing his grandma passed away naturally, and why don’t we go ahead and tell the government to subsidize him.
The callousness and insensitively of the false equivalence of abortion and miscarriage—on the part of Bazelon as well as her editors at the New York Times—is a stinging slap to the face of every women who has ever experienced an actual spontaneous miscarriage. It is a gut-wrenching, agonizing, utterly helpless feeling of terrifying impotence when you know that the baby in your womb is dead or dying and there is nothing you can do to save him or her, despite your willingness to do anything in your power to keep him or her alive.
Moreover, this unfortunate comparison has actually inhibited our ability to grieve for the children we have lost, because we’re inundated by abortion propaganda claiming that the children we lost were just insignificant masses of cells not worth caring about.
Blogger Becky Thompson explains this cognitive dissonance eloquently in her post “How Abortion Has Changed the Discussion of Miscarriage”:
It is hard for a society to mourn the loss of WANTED unborn life when it is busy calling it “tissue” and discrediting its personhood.
It is hard for a society to embrace a mourning mother for her loss of tissue when it is busy defending another mother’s right to dispose of it.
Bazelon and the NYT’s insiduous conflation of miscarriage and abortion is a prime example of this mentality. While women who are threatened with a miscarriage are desperately striving to preserve their child’s life, the women as portrayed by Bazelon are desperately trying to ensure their child’s death. Yet, she attempts to claim there is no difference between the two.
In contrast, blogger Krissi Danielsson at About.com acknowledges, “The elective ending of a pregnancy is a completely different situation than the loss of a wanted pregnancy, both medically and emotionally.” Why is this concept so hard to grasp for the Emily Bazelon and the New York Times?
Good points all around.
All they have to offer anymore is spin, propaganda, and obfuscation. Not surprised. Disgusted, but not surprised.
"It is hard for a society to mourn the loss of WANTED unborn life when it
is busy calling it “tissue” and discrediting its personhood."
This is because they are mourning the potential of what the "tissue" would have developed into. The would be parents are mourning the loss of something they wanted but never got the chance to have.
"It is hard for a society to embrace a mourning mother for her loss of
tissue when it is busy defending another mother’s right to dispose of
it."
1.Well if she is having an abortion she isn't a mother
2. A woman has every right to decide that she isn't allow her body to be used against her will to allow the developing ZEF to come to term.
Take a look at the ultrasound photo in the post. Does that look like a potential person or an actual person? To me, he (or she) was an actual person. That's why we buried him or her in an actual grave and had an actual funeral, as well — because s/he actually existed.
As for your other points:
1. Not true. Once a woman conceives, she is a mother, whether she acknowledges it or not.
2. Having the right to do a thing is not at all the same as being right in doing it. (HT: GK Chesterton.)
Honestly it doesn't look like a person to me. To me a person looks like, well a person. It doesn't look like a developing embryo/fetus.
1. Nope not true at all. A woman is not a mother unless she decides to give birth.
2. You do not get to decide what is right for me or my life. You live by your morality and I will live by mine.
Conflating abortion and miscarriage is pretty much the oldest trick in the book. It is saddening, but not surprising to see it continue to this day.
That looks like a person to you? Your friends must look like meat balls.
1. I don't understand how you get to decide this for the pregnant person.
2. Your opinion, which is not at all relevant to anyone else.
So are you saying that a baby born at 25 weeks gestation and a baby in utero at 25 weeks gestation are "look" different? One is a person and one is thing? One is alive and the other is….dead? Color me confused.
Actually you "can't have one if you want" there are laws governing how abortion is administered. And this varies from state to state. For example, it is illegal in Arizona to have an abortion because you don't like the baby's gender.
So me having children means I am inferior? I'm worth less than a woman who has no children? Or perhaps a man? Way to set back the feminist movement if that's you're way of thinking.
And mine says that your choice ends when it violates someone else's. In other words it's the child that's the "slave" not the woman. If children are "owned" to be discarded at will that's slavery yes? A woman (in the vast majority of cases) ran a risk engaging in sex. It's like getting into a car. Do we sue the car if we are at fault for creating an accident? We knew the risk of driving. We know the risk of sex. Yet we are punishing someone else in both cases. Why? Why not own up to our responsibilities and deal with the risk instead of sweeping it under a rug?
So men don't make an appearance in "less poverty, less hate, and less terrorism" in your world view? Only women change the world for the better?
Stop bringing up post-viability fetuses because we both know MOST abortions do not happen at that time.
You are very wrong. I can and will have an abortion if needed and BTW a woman living in Arizona can easily lie about her reason.
I am assuming you wanted children. I however never want them so if I was forced to use my body to gestate the ZEF to term I would be nothing but an inferior incubator. My life would no longer mean anything.
Also not matter how hard you try to make it so consent to sex will NEVER equal consent to pregnancy.
I think you can say YOU believe its morally wrong. With embryos and fetuses, there is no absolute consensus in science or in societal opinion when that it becomes a "person". We all agree it is alive and has human DNA, but we as far as we can tell, it also has no emotions or will of its own, things that many people think are important criteria for being a person. I grant you it may be possible with advances in medicine and neuroscience, we discover traits of the fetus and embryo that make the case for personhood a lot more compelling, but as of now, I along with many others, do not believe a fetus or embryos are "people". Therefore, I think it would be wrong for you to impose your morality and your line in the sand upon the rest of society.
I was asking you to narrow down what you mean by a person being alive and born to look like a person. You still didn't narrow that down. The pre-born have organs. They have skin. They have fingers and toes with nails. Normal ultra-sounds do not give perfectly clear pictures. My own ultra sound much latter in my gestation from a bajillion years ago makes me appear as a blob. I wasn't a blob.
Arizona also stipulates how chemical abortions are to be performed. You can't just buy some random drug and take them legally. This has adverse affects to your body. But if you want to go ahead and run the risk of harming or killing yourself so you can get your abortion, I can't physically stop you. I think it's foolish, obviously.
You're life as no meaning once you become a parent? So my life is pointless? You should just shoot me? Come on now. We know people's lives have meaning regardless of whether they have children or not. And this holds true for you as well.
Yes, it does. Consenting to sex implicitly runs the risk of pregnancy. It is the same if you choose to drive a car. If you wear a seat belt, you up your chances of not dying in an accident. However having the use of a seat belt does not ensure an accident will not occur. That's why you also invest in car insurance. It is the same with sex. Every time you engage in sex you run the risk. If you don't want a baby, then don't have sex. If you don't want a car accident then don't drive a car. The problem because that people like those two things and so they try to bury the risk. They don't want to give them up but they don't want to take responsibility for the consequences either. This isn't adult thinking.
As a man, I think an increase of societal and economic mobility of women will force men to consider more than just their own world view. The closest person in their lives – their wives will have needs and ideas that differ from the husbands. If the man is in a situation where he must weigh her opinion equally to his, I think it changes society for the better. In so many poor societies overrun with religious fundamentalism, this is just not the case. I think women who are not owned by a man are an important factor to more enlightened societies.
Two things:
1) you equate upward mobility with a woman having abortions. Why not improve maternity care? Why not offer free child care? If it's truly about empowerment, why are we empowering women to not have well…more women?
2) Are you talking about world wide societies or just the US? Because in the US men are being less empowered. Fewer men are offered scholarships because they are male. The educational system is leaving boys behind rather than making attempts to encourage and foster what interests them particularly in literacy. Fewer men are going to college. Fewer men are working. To me I see that the problem in the US society is that women are stepping all over men. And btw I'm a woman.
RU-486 is by far much safer than child birth. I would much rather "risk" my life that way than to be forced to suffer in misery and risk my life in child birth.
MY life would have no meaning if I was a parent. I do not ever want kids so I would have nothing to live for if forced to become a parent.
I have a solution for you If you don't like abortion don't have one.
I was mainly talking about developing societies. Free childcare? In a society that has civil wars and famines? Yeah, right.
Women are stepping all over men in the US? Uh, excuse me, but WTF are you talking about… Have you gone to college or held a job in a technical or a field requiring an advanced degree? As a professional scientist, I notice a huge lack of women in my field, a huge lack of women in advanced math courses, a huge lack of women taking physics, engineering or computer sciences. These kinds of jobs are increasingly important in a modern, tech focused society like the US. Granted in the social sciences and biology, the numbers are not so skewed. But have you noticed the number of women CEOs out there?
Yay for unsafe medical practices that cause harm to women and children, and now accountability for unscrupulous medical professionals who take advantage of women in crisis pregnancies…? Seems like the opposite of feminism to me.
Appearance alone is an arbitrary criterion for what constitutes a person.
1. You don't get how I get to decide that murder is wrong? I don't understand why you think murder should be allowed.
2. Ditto.
1) So abortion stops war? Really now. Or as you say. Yeah right.
2) I have gone to college and attained a professional degree. Most of the people I encountered were indeed female. My husband works and has worked at a number of universities. He is a scientist. The vast majority of the people he sees seeking advanced degrees or any degree at all are overwhelming female. In fact they get more perks for being female. More support in their field. Instead of looking at his socio-economic background, he's written off because he is male. You didn't address the fact that scholarships are often are designated to women and not men. Isn't that sexist? And what does the number of CEOs have to do with the number of women working versus men? More women are working than men are. That's a statistical fact. I'm surprised that you're not outraged at how female teachers treat male students and devise the classroom curriculum to suit girls. http://www.guysread.com
If you don't want a child, or don't want to have to kill a child, then don't have sex (since no method of birth control is 100% effective). Problem solved, no one dies.
By the way, thanks for demonstrating my point by calling my dead child a "meatball."
1. I don't get how you get to decide terminating an early fetus or embryo constitutes murder.
2. Ditto, I agree. I'm not forcing you to get an abortion, and you shouldn't force someone NOT to get an abortion. Seems simple to me, no?
FWIW, I believe late term abortions are inherently wrong. However, I don't feel I have the authority to force this opinion on a woman considering it.
Very well then let's kill the disabled. They don't have the same emotions or will of their own. We'll all be like Hitler.
Also while we're at it why don't we kill anyone of color. They are inferior too aren't they. Not too long ago we had Jim Crow. Why not bring it back?
Let's just start making personhood based on our own emotions and personal morality. Okay then. I'll just kill my two year old. He doesn't do advanced mathematics yet so I think he should die. I mean it's my own moral compass right? What society has rationally concluded makes no difference yes? I'm not culpable?
I'm sorry but you have to derive your morality another way. For me it's obvious…it's alive. It has worth. It's a person. This doesn't hinge on a set of criteria that some person just decides or how it's mother feels about it. Otherwise we're just liable to slip down the slope and determine that certain people have no worth. It would be history repeating itself.
Wow… so in your world the only purpose of sex is for baby making.
Sorry but I happen to enjoy sex and I am not giving it up for life and I also don't consider abortion to be killing a child. I personally have no problem having one if it is needed.
I think JoAnna is saying what I've been saying. Don't have sex if you don't want the risk. Not having sex won't kill you. Be responsible. Otherwise you sound like a petulant child whose mother warned them if they kept hitting their toy on the floor it would eventually break. You are running the risk and if you do end up having an abortion you are ending life. You've been warned. But I can't make you behave like a grown up.
Giving up sex and being alone for life sounds like a horrible way to live.
I personally do not view abortion as murder and I do not feel I should have to give up sex for life to live by your morality.
I use BC but I am not going to be punished if it fails.
You agree that an embryo is alive yes? It is human too yes? I mean we're not talking about dogs. So what happens when deliberately end the life of a human? Is that not called murder?
For someone who has an advanced degree, your thought process doesn't seem very logical. As a man and as a person of color (Asian), I don't believe colored people are inherently worth less. I also don't feel a fetus or embryo in the early stages is quite a person. As you say you are a holder of an advanced degree, I don't see how you would immediately assume holding certain criteria for what you call a "person" would all of the sudden lead to genocide and Hitler. An embryo has never had a will of its own or a thought. Therefore I think it is quite different than a disabled person or someone in a coma. If it is extinguished, the embryo doesn't care. An embryo is neither guilty nor innocent. I simply find your line of reasoning a little unhinged.
As for the # of women CEOs, well, CEOs of large companies hold huge sway in national monetary and economic policies. No woman has ever been the head of the Fed. The fact that women on average earn less than men. These kinds of facts tend to make me highly doubt that women are stepping on men in this country. Also, when applying for research grants, sure being a woman or a minority sometimes helps. But in a field where 80% of the researchers are men… I don't see how this constitutes women stepping on men.
*sigh* I know a lot of people who don't have sex and they are not lonely. It just so happens that I'm their friend. I don't think they think of their life as being horrible. Unfortunately modern society would have you to believe that your worth is based on having sex. It's really quite disturbing.
It's equally disturbing that you view BC failure as punishment. BC isn't perfect. Do you really want to rely on some outside agent for your self-worth? Is a baby a punishment? Does having a baby really make you worthless?
I'm actually quite worried about you if that's your thinking. I understand that people have reasons for not having children, but to make it a part of your self-worth…well, I must say you sound really depressed.
I believe its killing, sure. But I don't think there is no conscious victim, I find it is nearly victimless. I am opposed to late term abortions though.
Sorry, didn't know it was a picture of your child, didn't read the caption.
However, you did ask whether it looked like a person, and quite frankly I don't think it does. At 7~8 weeks, I doubt many people will see that from a blurry ultrasound. Maybe with future imaging, but as of now…
1) Some people are born disabled to the point that they don't have a will either. At least by my rudementary understanding of what you mean. Yet we protect these people. If someone abuses them, we are outraged. Why not embryos? If that's you're logic it should apply equally yes? Or do you think age discrimination is okay for this situation?
2) Women choose the less paying jobs because they want to or they find it difficult to balance family with work. Hence the need for maternity leave and free chlldcare. Abortion restricts freedom to choose both.
3) As for grants, they should be awarded on the basis of merit of the project not gender. Otherwise its blatantly sexist.
Well I personally love my relationship with my boyfriend. I don't think he would take it very well if I told him we were never going to have sex again. I think most NORMAL people in a relationship want sex to be a part of it.
How is it disturbing that I would view it as a punishment if my BC failed and I was forced to have my life ruined by the misery of pregnancy? I did everything to avoid it and I shouldn't have to suffer in misery because I was unlucky.
To me YES a baby is a punishment, It would ruin my life and if I was forced to actually keep it I would never be happy again.
Murder always has a victim. Otherwise its not murder. Who would you be killing? Air? Nope you're depriving a person of life.
1. If you were born vegetative with no chance of recovery, I think respectfully putting them down is OK. I don't have a will (the document) yet, but I have told my wife and family if I ever turn into a vegatable, that I am to be unplugged. I don't want to be a financial burden, and do not wish to live in such a state anyway.
2. The statistic is controversial, but women supposedly earn 77 cents on the dollar for the same job in some fields. Granted, I do believe society SHOULD be such that affordable childcare, plentiful birth control etc. are available, but the reality is not always so. I think abortion is one of possible solution in allowing women to control their own destinies in a non-ideal world.
3. Grants SHOULD be awarded on merit. However, I think that certain amount of preferential awarding to underrepresented minority groups and to women should be used to even the playing field and get increased participation. Again, in a perfect society free of historical and current racism and sexism, grants and scholarships should be purely merit based. But it is not. My mom left a country where women were ACTIVELY DISCOURAGED from holding an academic research position. While the US is more socially forward thinking, I don't think equality has yet been attained.
*head desk* You obviously don't love every aspect of your relationship with him. You have a hidden fear of becoming pregnant with his child. I'm sorry but doesn't bode well. Especially if you are engaging in sex, which is a risky behavior.
You see here's the think. It isn't about being lucky. BC has a built in failure rate. It will fail someone at some point. You say it's a punishment if it fails. Who on earth is punishing you? Is the BC punishing you? You're boyfriend? Nope. The punishment is all in your head. There is no punishment for BC failure. Children aren't punishment. You were a child. You were not a punishment. If your life is ruined it would be in your head. You declare it ruined. You declare yourself never to be happy again. And that's why you sound depressed.
If I were to get into a car accident and forced to be in a wheelchair, some might say that my life is ruined, I no longer have worth, and I'm being punished. This is false. Noone is punishing me. And my life is still worthy. And it's not ruined. It's just different. It has changed.
Let me tell you something…the older you get, the more your life will change and be different. You're body will fall apart with age. You may loose your boyfriend. This doesn't mean you loose worth or are being punished. This is life.
You're depriving a clump of cells of life. != a person.
I don't want to be pregnant EVER. I do not want kids. I do not want to spent nine months in absolute misery for something neither of use want. We both want a child free life.
When unwanted a pregnancy would be a life destroying punishment. Thankfully I do not have to suffer that way and I can have an abortion.
I can make choices in my life that will decide what direction it goes and I can tell you one thing for sure. I will NEVER have it go in the direction of having kids.
1. I define murder as the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. A human being is an organism of the species homo sapiens. An embryo or fetus is an organism of the species homo sapiens. Ergo, an abortion deliberately kills an innocent human being.
2. I personally think that no one should be allowed to commit murder, regardless of the circumstances. I'm so sorry you do not.
You are reducing someone to their parts. By that logic I'm just a clump of cells. Let me ask you, what gives a person their worth? Is it their mother saying so? Is it their doctor? Who establishes that worth? Who gives that person dignity? Does not simply existing make a person worthy?
In my world, and in the world of reality, sex makes babies. That is its primary biological purpose. Biologically speaking, the pleasure derived from sex is impetus to cause humans to procreate. I love sex and find it very pleasurable, but I never lose sight of the fact that sex can cause pregnancy even if I take measures to avoid pregnancy. Thus, if I was convinced that I would "have" to kill any child I conceived, I would therefore avoid sex so I could be 100% sure that I wouldn't have to kill a child.
Just out of curiosity, which area of science are females the "vast majority" that your husband works in? Having been to professional conferences, interacting with researchers from many countries and institutions, reading journals mostly in physics, math, statistics and neuroscience, I have never been under the impression that women vastly outnumber men.
How are women "stepping all over men" in US society? What are you smoking?
Shocker: you can give up sex without being alone! My husband and I often need to abstain from sex for various reasons (the postpartum period, illness, etc). We love each other very much, and sex is not the sum total of our relationship. If your relationships are 100% on sex and nothing else, then they are very shallow and meaningless.
I don't get your logic. Do you force your opinion that pedophilia is wrong on pedophiles? Do you force your opinion that murder is wrong on a woman who kills her toddler? What's the difference?
Great for you that you can live by your own choices. Now please stay out of my life and my uterus and let me do the same.
It doesn't look like a person to me either.
Giving up sex for life though… that is not realistic. If it is for you I feel bad for you. Sex is not the only thing in our relationship but sex is important and to expect people to give it up for life is crazy.
There's no such thing as a child free life. People have children. If you go out in public, you will encounter them. What you mean to say is you don't want to have children.
Again this punishment is in your head. Can you at least acknowledge that you believe it to be a punishment and there does not exist some outside punishment? That life destroying stuff you keep saying is actually your opinion of a life change?
You don't want it to happen. Fine. I get it. I don't want my hair to go grey. But we have to be responsible people and face the facts. If you engage in sex, you are taking a risk. And the older I get the more likely my hair will turn grey. Own up to your taking a risk.
You can't make decisions in life that will give definite results. That's an illusion. You could die tomorrow. You stomp your feet and say "I will never have kids. Ever." And then find out later that you've changed your mind. You may not want to have children at this moment. You may want your boyfriend forever. You may want the best job in the world. But you may end up having to care for someone else's child (like a relative). You may loose your boyfriend. You may never get your job. The only guarantee in life is that there are no guarantees.
And this is what disturbs me. You aren't acting very mature. You sound very selfish.
1. I believe an embryo or fetus lacking a working central nervous system is incapable of being innocent or guilty. It just is kind of doing its biochemical thing. Therefore I don't think there is a victim in aborting at such an early stage.
However, late term when fetuses actually begin to show responses to the mother or father, I feel that it is closer to a person. That is why I am opposed to this type. However, this is my opinion, and I think the pregnant person knows best.
How YOU define murder doesn't matter. Murder is a legal concept. Innocence of the victim is not required, and in any case, a fetus is not a moral agent capable of being either "innocent" or "guilty."
No. It's killing. Killing does NOT equal "murder."
Except we can't. We speak for the voiceless. Children want to be born. They don't want to be dead. All life has this innate will to live.
Then a lot of people must be crazy. Ghandi must be crazy. He gave up sex in his 40s.
What does a person look like? Do you have a list of accepted criteria? Can I kill anyone who does not fit that criteria?
No thanks. YOU be abstinent if you like. I will have sex.
You speak for yourself. And ONLY yourself.
1) Putting them down? Are we talking about a person or a dog here?
2) Yes, it's controversial. It is so because studies have taken into account where you live and how much time you are expected work and so forth. They show that such a gap doesn't exist. Making abortion a reasonable work-around is a cop out. It's equally sexist. I should be allowed a family life without it costing me upward mobility. It should be the same for men who actually are pressured more to stay away from home.
3) There you and I must disagree. What you're proposing is sexist and racist. Those things don't help anyone. All studies have shown that opportunity resides more on socio-economic background and not on gender and race. I can't speak for other societies, but as far as the US is concerned basing grants on gender is gender discrimination. Plain and simple.
Yes, you and I are a clump of cells. What gives a person their worth, is a very difficult to answer question, and really depends on your world view. I have a very materialistic view of life, and do not believe that life is inherently worth anything. Our value is something only we ourselves can discover and assign for ourselves, and that is why I believe the value of a fetus or embryo in its earliest stages can only be assigned by the mother carrying it.
You may have another world view that finds inherent value in life. I don't think one is objectively correct and another is objectively incorrect. That is why I am pro-choice. It says if you feel life is inherently valued, fine, value your own and your unborn child. If not, it is also your own choice to abort. Seems like the only reasonable position to take for me…
No I don't. I'm already alive and born. I have my rights. I have my freedoms. It's prosecutable murder if you kill me. Why do you think I'm speaking for only myself? What's in it for me? Honestly.
NO. I think she very clearly stated she doesn't want any children. WITH ANYBODY! She's allowed to not want any children, I'm allowed to not want any more than the three that I have. It isn't a matter of her relationship being faulty. Some women don't want children, or only want a specific number.
And welcome to the world of- my life hinges on sex. /sarcasm Seriously I don't care if you have sex. I don't care if you drive a car. I do however care if you neglect your car care and thus collide with my vehicle. I do care however if you make me pay for your abortion or attempt to silence my 1st Amendment (or in my case Canadian charter) rights. Deal with it.
All punishments are only punishments if YOU perceive them to be punishments. Therefore ALL punishment is "in your head." That's irrelevant. If one doesn't want children, one doesn't want children, And THAT is THAT!
Not true. If you are incarcerated for committing a crime, that's a punishment not inside your head.
I don't know what's in it for you. I only know that you do not speak for ANYONE but yourself, and that "the unborn" do not have thoughts to give voice to. Knock it off. You speak for nobody but yourself.
I'm more than happy to as long as you're not killing innocent children.
Murder is both a legal and moral/ethical concept. If it wasn't a moral one, it would not therefore be a legal one.
"*head desk* You obviously don't love every aspect of your relationship
with him. You have a hidden fear of becoming pregnant with his child"
This idea that not wanting to have kids, or even just wanting to plan kids and therefore using BC, means you don't love your partner really needs to die. It's not based on reality; it's just a way for anti-BC people to convince themselves that their choice makes them and their relationships better than everyone else.
I don't care if you're happy about it. You hold no sway in my life, and you do not run it. Go run your own life, and leave me to run mine.
The unborn do have brain waves. There's been studies. I speak for them. Otherwise what's the point in arguing. It's a waste of time. You must have some thought for why I engage in such a conversation. I'm curious. Why would I be motivated to speak out against this "right" that you think you have over someone else?
My guess would be that you're someone with boundary issues.
Again, I'm more than happy to, but at the same time I speak out against injustice.
But you're world view leads to all sorts of genocide. All it takes is for a person or group of persons to say that others have no worth and thus need to be eliminated. I mean just look at what's happening with ISIS. They've decided that others have no worth so they are beheading them. Ultimately what makes one have worth is the fact that they are alive. That's it. Otherwise you fall into the trap of deeming anyone (and in your case that's the unborn or disabled) as being worthless and discardable.
Well now, that would still depend. If you are incarcerated, you have a warm place to sleep, three meals a day and medical care. That's more than some people get being "free." Society calls it a punishment. Obviously to some, it isn't a punishment at all.
Brain waves are not the same as conscious thought. These are most likely global patterning activity that allows pruning of synaptic connectivity in the network.
"Injustice" is you pretending to speak for me, and you believing that what you think should be made into laws to rule my life. You are NOT "all that."
Why dont you cet youre tubes tied? Or you would love to have blood on youre hands?
I didn't say that the vast majority were female in his field. I said that those entering his field are largely female. This generation has a largely female dominating class. The previous ones do have more men. So currently there is diversity, but it won't be that way in a number of years. Not with the current education system we have in place. And not when we keep giving people scholarships based on birth rather than circumstance or grant-worthiness. My husband is constantly being discriminated against at conferences. They recently excluded him because he's not of color, female, or married to someone inside the field. This is totally wrong. He's the first in his family and the only one to have gotten a Phd. His parents worked blue collar jobs and his father was in a factory. He didn't get any handouts. He didn't get any help. He did it all himself despite the special help given to women born into wealthier families.
Now you're just getting off the beaten track. Reducing someone's freedom of mobility is a means of punishment. They may not believe so, but what else would you call it.
I don't see how this sort of world view is shared by the ISIS or leads to genocide. Establishing a certain empirical criteria for personhood doesn't naturally lead to sudden devaluation of all other living people. I keep stating that if new scientific evidence suggests that embryos and early fetuses are actually conscious and show rudimentary neural activity, I would be willing to change where I draw the line in the sand.
Your line of reasoning seems similar to opponents of marriage equality who state that allowing gays to marry will automatically lead to people marrying their goats.
Given that there are people who have considered committing crimes (and some who have actually done so) so that they can receive needed medical treatment, I would say that I'm not too far off "the beaten track." That doesn't say a whole lot good about our society, does it? Of what value is "freedom" to someone who has nothing to eat, no place to sleep and no access to medical care?
*eye roll* So premature newborns should be killed because they haven't achieved the required level of thought? Seriously, why do I even try to reason with someone who wants to make their own arbitrary reasoning for a person's self-worth. You might as well murder me. I probably will never live up to what is worthy in your eyes.
I imagine if she's much older than you that she did indeed speak for you. I mean would you condone you're mother aborting you? It's her choice. You don't have a say. We're just ruling your mother's life and you're life before your birth is meaningless. Is that how you really think?
Now you're really going out there. What does having nothing to eat have to do with abortion? Furthermore, I think you are thinking of US prisons. In N. Korea, they are starved. The US has a plethora of programs to ensure good nutrition including SNAP, WIC, free lunch program, food banks, etc. These things don't exactly exist in Canada. But there are ways of getting help even here.
Wait, your husband is discriminated against at conferences because he is not MARRIED to someone in the field. Pardon me, but REALLY??? I have never heard of this happening. Now I'm even more curious. Which field is your husband in? It is true that there is affirmative action in grad school admission and certain funding opportunities, but when it comes to publishing work or presenting at conferences, IT IS PURELY MERIT BASED. Being a woman won't get junk science published or a crappy conference submission accepted. I've never encountered any situation where the position of your spouse is asked. "Your wife works on neutrino detection? Wrong answer, now if she only worked on superconductivity."
So what field does your husband work in? If I can verify what you'd say, I'd be willing to help you lodge a complaint.
no, injustice is you believing that it's okay to kill an innocent human being under any circumstances, just because they aren't born yet.
Well it's been lovely. But I'm neglecting my household duties. I wish you all well. I hope the discussion was fruitful for you. All the best!
RU-486 is pretty safe from what I gather.
http://abortionpillrisks.org/
I see a lot of these propaganda sites, but what about published case studies? What does the FDA, the NIH have to say about RU-486?
from the link I posted: "Information referenced in this site is derived from the United States Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) website, U.S. Government publications, reproductive health resources, medical abortion provider publications, and international medical and research journals."
regardless, making it "safer" for women to kill children does not mean that it's therefore right to kill children.
http://abortionpillrisks.org
even states in one of their references (ref. 5) that
"Both
methods of abortion are generally safe, but medical termination is
associated with a higher incidence of adverse events. These observations
are relevant when counseling women seeking early abortion."
So are you concurring with what I've stated, that RU-486 is generally safe?
You were the one accusing the good Dutch doctor of harming women by prescribing unsafe pills…
>> Ergo, an abortion deliberately kills an innocent human being.
Innocent. I can't really call an early fetus innocent or guilty. Its just… a clump of cells.
>> 2. I personally think that no one should be allowed to commit murder, regardless of the circumstances. I'm so sorry you do not.
Well, I don't feel sorry for using my reasoning and trying to think of a reasonable empirical criteria for what makes an embryo a "person". BTW, under no circumstances would you find it allowable to abort. Do you feel the same way in cases of rape pregnancies and incest? How about if the girl were 12?
Do you think that importing pills from foreign countries with no safety standards is safe? Forcing women to go it alone while not under a doctor's care or supervision? Or telling women to lie about ingesting the pills if they do seek medical help for complications? All are recommended in the article. None of those options sound "safe."
innocent = has done nothing to warrant or deserve execution or death.
You are also a clump of cells, just a more developed one. So?
Do you think it's right to execute a child for the crime of its biological father, in the case of rape pregnancies? Are there any other situations in which you favor executing a child due to the crime of his or her parent?
No, I don't favor encouraging 12-year-olds to kill children, either. Medical complications can be managed. The child can be delivered early if necessary. If a woman's life is at risk, indirect abortion is ethically acceptable (google "principle of double effect).
How YOU define murder doesn't matter either. A toddler isn't a moral agent yet it's illegal to kill them.
RU-486 was developed in a European country (not sure which) which probably has a system of clinical trials in drug development in place.
Given that some of those women might have tried something close to a coat-hangar abortion, what the good doctor did was most likely safer. That's just what I gathered from the article, from the example of a little girl raising her siblings because her mother died in a botched illegal abortion.
It IS ok. No one will force you to participate. Your appeal to emotion is duly noted and rejected. My mother had an abortion. The circumstances are none of your business. If she were still alive and you called her a killer, I would knock all your teeth out.
I personally think it's preferable to offer women in crisis pregnancies solutions to the actual crisis as opposed to killing the child.
Thanks, and the reference states abortion pills are slightly riskier than surgical abortions, but are generally quite safe.
Yet it's okay for commenters on this site to call my miscarried child a "meatball"? Funny logic you have there.
I would never call your mother, or any woman, a killer if we were having a conversation. That does not change the objective fact that abortion kills an unborn child.
But what if the woman just doesn't want the child? And are you trying to deflect your original point that abortion pills are dangerous?
If the woman doesn't want the child, she can give the child to someone who does. I know many such women.
If medical abortions were 100% safe, it would not change the fact that abortion is wrong. However, as the evidence I provided states, they are not 100% risk free.
YOU brought up prison. I said that a punishment is only a punishment if the person being "punished" perceives it as punishment. I'm pretty sure in Canada, people do not have to resort to committing a crime to get the healthcare they need, and they do not starve prisoners there. This isn't North Korea. I don't live in North Korea, and would consider living there punishment enough, so let's not appeal to the lowest common denominator, shall we? A woman who doesn't want to be pregnant doesn't NEED "help." She needs not to be pregnant. That may come as a shock to you, but not everyone wants children. Mom always said those who don't want children should do the world a favor and not have them. Mom was wise. There are things much worse than death or non-existence.
Yes I do condone the idea that my mother could have aborted me. It WAS her choice. My mother DID have an abortion. Existential angst is sort of cute in children. In adults, it's an incredible turn-off. If I had been aborted I wouldn't know the difference, would I? And the world would go on just fine without me.
BTW, I apologized for my callousness, but I didn't know it was your ultrasound of your miscarried child. I thought it was just some random ultrasound that was picked up off the web somewhere. So I apologize again, but please note it was not directed at you personally or your misfortune.
BTW, my mom also had an abortion too. I don't think she is a murderer, and her acts of compassion in her life speak volumes for her character. If you called her a killer, she would try to understand where you are coming from, but I believe she would disagree.
Nothing in life is 100% risk free. Breathing air, you might pick up airborne anthrax and die.
And furthermore, the person I was addressing is NOT older than me, and I probably have children older than she is. She's not smart enough to rule my life, nor to speak for me.
YOU should probably never have an abortion.
What I find most disturbing is that you think it's acceptable to call anyone's child a "meatball" — especially anyone's miscarried child. But again, you proved my point in the article. My miscarriage was in 2006 but what if it had been recent? Your comment would probably have hurt a hell of a lot more than it did. Whenever women lose children they're faced with people like you who don't think twice about calling their unborn child vile names.
I don't think it's ever acceptable to call any post-abortive woman a killer or a murderer or any other inflammatory name. Abortion objectively kills a child, yes. But calling women names does nothing to stop the killing or help them. It just makes the person doing the name-calling an asshole. I generally favor treating everyone with respect and dignity, regardless of who they are or what they do. I don't always live up to that myself as I'm a fallible human, but I generally try.
Some women find it more traumatic to give birth and give away the child. The family may also be far away from extended family, as in another continent and too poor to easily go back, so the older sibling is quite lonely, and is dying to have a younger sibling. For that older sibling, having a new brother or sister only to have it taken away may be quiet devastating.
The above is the reason my mom had an abortion. She wanted more kids, but also was a pioneer in her field, and she was from a developing country where women with advanced degrees had no prospects of careers as they were told to get married and stop taking jobs from men. Her overwhelming goal in life was to succeed and be a role model for girls in her country, and she just could not have another child. She agonized over the decision, but it turned out to be the right one.
I wouldn't say anything about a woman's miscarried fetus, while if I were shown an ultrasound from a pregnant friend, I don't think saying it looks like a meat ball is particularly offensive. Some parents call their little ones things like "little monkey", I don't think calling one "little meatball" would be considered particularly offensive…
>> No, I don't favor encouraging 12-year-olds to kill children, either.
Medical complications can be managed. The child can be delivered early
if necessary. If a woman's life is at risk, indirect abortion is
ethically acceptable (google "principle of double effect).
The above case, a 12-year old getting raped by incest and becoming pregnant does happen, even if rare. I think the fact that you would be willing to force such a child to give birth speaks volumes about your views.
>> innocent = has done nothing to warrant or deserve execution or death.
Sure, but an embryo or fetus also doesn't care whether it is aborted. Who is the victim in this situation?
Just quickly….it was a conference workshop on having problems in the field. They sent out a letter stating it was only for women, people of color, or married couples in the same field. They didn't specify anything about socio-economic background, which is actually the largest problem in getting a higher education. They also didn't include anyone coming who might find the discussion interesting or helpful and thus would pass it onto their students. It was completely exclusionary. My husband was annoyed. He mentioned that it was racist and sexist to his female college who suggested e-mailing them. In the end he didn't. He's not one for battles.
He's in planetary science. I can't remember which conference it was, what the workshop title was, or what the date was. It was probably last year. The e-mail was sent to their e-mail subscriber list. I doubt you could find it online. And I doubt he saved it.
As for affirmative action, yes I think it should be done away with. Don't Obama's daughters have a better chance at a college education than say a white boy whose parents work on a factory assembly line and goes to public school? I mean they are of color and they are female. That automatically guarantees more opportunities than the poor factory worker's son. Obama can afford to send his daughters to school. Factory worker family have to work and most likely will end up choosing a technical or junior college because of costs.
OK, so it was a session in the conference dedicated to problems minority groups were having in the field of Planetary Science? While I don't think it should have been closed to white males like your husband, it is not a session in which he was to present research results, ie. the part of the conference that matters professionally. Yet you are making it sound as your husband is being professionally discriminated against regularly in the ACADEMIC parts of conferences. I find that a little bit disingenuous on your part.
Further, you claim that female graduate students entering your husband's field are outnumbering men. I'm assuming that Astronomy Departments would be similar to where your husband is. I took a look at graduate student directories at Boston University, UC Berkeley and Yale and counted the F/M ratio. They are 14/36, 12/32 and 11/30 respectively. As for the mathematics department at UC Berkeley, I'm eyeballing the ratio (too many students to count) to be around 20% F / 80% M. This appears to be counter to your claim that women graduate students are over running your husbands field. As for the number of African Americans in these programs: 0 (or maybe there was 1 or 2), as far as I can tell. No matter, miniscule. Maybe your husband's university is an exception and is hyper-affirmative action, but from what I can tell, your perception does not mesh well with reality.
Further, if you consider the history of discrimination against African Americans and women in the US (stories about Rosalind Franklin and her role in discovering the double helical structure of DNA etc., CalTech admitting first women undergraduates in 1970, and until recently segregation), I think temporary affirmative action is a good way to boost participation of minority groups. Just having them there can change the culture of field, and enrich the communities that were denied equality for so long.
I mean would you condone you're mother aborting you?
Most people outgrown this kind of nonsensical, existential angst at puberty.
One day, an anti-choicer will posit a concept that is *not* an asinine straw man. On that occasion, I shall alert the media.
If you know of anyone killing children, alert your local law enforcement agency.
In my world, and in the world of reality, sex makes babies. That is its primary biological purpose.
Actually, in H. sapiens, it is *not.* Otherwise, women would go into estrus cycles and only be receptive during those times.
Thus, if I was convinced that I would "have" to kill any child I
conceived, I would therefore avoid sex so I could be 100% sure that I
wouldn't have to kill a child.
My wanted pregnancy nearly killed me, and I will NOT gestate another one. Nor will I remain celibate on the off-chance that my tubal ligation might fail (they can, and do). Should that occur, there will be an abortion scheduled the minute the stick turns blue.
You are welcome to remain celibate if that's what floats your boat. The rest of us do not have to do so.
Why are the anti-choice so illiterate? This is a constant puzzle to me.
I don't think you understand what "childfree" means in terms of family planning. It is also not even *remotely* selfish to thoughtfully consider whether or not one wants to have children.
What *is* selfish is to demand that others gestate in order to satisfy your sad feelies about embryos.
All they have to offer anymore is spin, propaganda, and obfuscation.
What an apt description of every anti-choicer I've ever encountered!
I truly am sorry that you missed the day in school when it was explained that personhood is a legal status that attaches at birth.
An embryo is not a person, no matter how much you want to pretend otherwise.
The pregnant woman, however — whom you seem awfully eager to erase from the picture — *is* a person.
If you don't want a child, or don't want to have to kill a child, then don't have sex
There it is, right on cue: the *real* point of the anti-choice position. Women should just "keep their legs closed" if they don't want babies.
You can be celibate. I will save France.
I have. Unfortunately, it's currently legal to kill unborn children in this country. It's a travesty, I know. That's why Secular Pro-Life et al are working to change that.
I do care however if you make me pay for your abortion
Somehow, I don't think you're being made to pay for anyone's abortion. Exaggerate much?
Actually, no. You're free to have lots of sex, or a little sex, or no sex. That is your free choice. Our point is that children shouldn't have to die if they are conceived as a consequence of your choices.
There is no such thing as an "unborn child." In case you missed this day in biology class, allow me to outline the developmental stages of viviparous vertebrates:
In utero:
zygote
embryo
fetus
Ex utero:
Infant
child <– see that? *Ex utero.* All children anywhere are born.
pre-pubescent
adolescent/juvenile
adult
I'm glad that I could help with this unfortunate gap in your education.
I speak out against injustice.
Do you? Are you speaking out against child and adult hunger in the US? The increasing maternal mortality rate (the US is #60 in the world, and getting worse)? Abuse of actual born children?
Or are all of your sad fee-fees saved for the tabula rasa embryos onto which you can project anything you so desire whilst you ignore the far more complicated realities of born, sapient, sentient persons?
Our point is that children shouldn't have to die if they are conceived as a consequence of your choices.
You *really* need to learn the difference between an embryo (the stage at which the majority of abortions occur) and a child.
Reducing someone's freedom of mobility is a means of punishment.
Ironic, given that you are here advocating that women should lose their right to bodily autonomy the moment they have a positive pregnancy test …
Actually, child is a colloquial term for any child. My mother still calls me her child, even though I am 33.
Yes, I do. It's both/and, not either/or. You can be against abortion and all other injustice, too.
You need to read the dictionary. See definition #4. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/child?s=t
It saddens me people can think like you do, what you are saying equates sex to pleasure and not intimacy. Do you not understand you were made for more? To not be a slave to your desires? Choosing a life of responsibility instead of using "preventative" measures to justify your reasoning dehumanizes you! You have a mind and a body that if you really think about it you would understand that there are risks. Choosing to honor the value human life does not mean sacrificing the joys of sex to become completely chaste, it means practicing self contorol every what? Third week of the month? By being on the demand ready for sex in your relationship you help stimulate the objectification of women. You are not a play thing, you should think more highly of yourself.
Uh, have you never met an infertile couple. I have. I think when she refers to "child free", she is not talking about a universe that is child free, just no child in her immediate family.
No offense but there aren't scholarships solely designated for white men. There are scholarships for women, people of color, and to a lesser extend those who come from lower socio-economic classes. If there were scholarships or grants offered to white men, than I'd say it's fine to have ones for women or minorities regardless of actual income or background. As it stands, not having ones for white men exclusively is a form of discrimination. I'm a woman who comes from a higher income bracket than my husband yet I can receive special scholarships over and above my husband who comes from a lower background. That's sexist. How is giving me a scholarship actually elevating a person out of poverty and giving them more opportunities? All it's doing is encouraging more women to go into the field who may have otherwise choosen to study something else. The point of a scholarship is to help a person get an education and the point of an education is to get a job. I really don't get the elitist attitude people have in the field of science. What makes a scientist a person of more worth than say a plumber? But I digress.
Planetary science is not astronomy. Sometimes it's part of the astronomy department, or geology, or physics. And in some cases it's it's own department. It really all depends on what exactly the person is doing in that particular field. Currently my husband is located in the geophysics department. So you're statistics using UC Berkley (which isn't a planetary science beacon) or Yale is a bit skewed.
Again studies have shown that socio-economic background is the number one player in determining academic success. Race and gender have little to do with it. We are way past the time when people are barred from entering Universities based on gender or race. In fact, if you look at the statistics more women are going to college than men. I'm not sure how being a person of color has anything to do with good science. It should be based on the merit of one's work not based on making a University more diverse. It's the ideas that carry not whether one prefers Italian or Mexican food. Those ideas can come from anyone.
I've heard of the term "child free life." It's a misnomer. No one has a child free life. We encounter children all the time. We were once children. I prefer the term childless. It sounds to propaganda to me to reinvent the wheel with child free life.
I know people who choose not to have children or choose not to have more children. When they explain the reason, they don't say things like having children would make them worthless. They usually say things like it would be too stressful or they have health concerns or religious reasons. My deep concern is that she is suffering from some sort of form of depression or anxiety. In other words, she's afraid. I can't say for certain that the fear stems from her relationship or from herself, but it's not coming from a place of rationality. Since it takes two to make a baby, then it's safe to say she's afraid to have a baby with her boyfriend. She may also be afraid to have a baby with someone else on the side or someone in the future. I don't know. You should be concerned for her welfare as well. I think you would agree with me that her self worth isn't based on having children or not having children.
Whether affirmative action is good or not is a difficult sociological question. So I will skip that.
I didn't know what Planetary Sciences was, so I assumed you meant Astronomy. My bad. Now, a quick look at Planetary Science graduate programs at
U Texas, U Tennessee and UC Davis shows a F/M ratio of
2/6, 22/27, and 24/23 respectively. Where I a picture of the grad student was not provided, I automatically counted that student as FEMALE to be as conservative as possible. Still, I do not see evidence that females are overrunning your husband's field. Maybe your husband's university is an exception.
However, your assertion that he was discriminated against at a conference still sounds like BS to me, sorry. He was not invited to attend a NON-ACADEMIC SATELLITE session discussing minority issues in the field. Sorry, doesn't sound like systematic discrimination against white males to me. It sounds to me like you are trying to make it sound like white males are discriminated against in this country, and empowerment of women and minorities is a waste of money, resources and is misguided.
First things first, we're talking about another person's body. Abortion is getting rid of another person's body. So I'm not sure what right to body autonomy you think a woman is being deprived of.
There are choices to consequences. If a woman deliberately hit me with her fist, does she not have to deal with the consequences of her actions? She could say "well, it's my body. I can do with it what I want to." Or does her violating my personal autonomy not have any consequences? Cannot I not than sue her or have her sent to jail for the assault on my person? Would it make a difference if she hit me and I was in a vegetative state? What if I was on life support?
How did I say sex is not for intimacy? I just said it as purposes besides baby making
NFP is the most laughable form of "BC" there is. Only a fool would use that and only that.
I guess you've never been to any planetary science conferences. Usually the conference itself takes place during the week. On the weekends leading and ending the conferences, people are invited to take part in various workshops related to the field. The workshops are all academic based. That's the point. You learn something about studying lunar rocks or what NASA is up to and so forth. The session was based on what they felt was discrimination in the academic area. My husband told me it was a teaching workshop. It's totally related to academia. It wouldn't have really mattered, but they specified who could attend and who could not. To my knowledge such workshops are supposed to be open to everyone.
I asked my husband said the conference was LPSC.
You can refuse to believe me if you want.
I'm sorry if you don't find it systematic that scholarships are awarded to women and minorities who can afford school. I'm sorry you believe that Obama's daughters have a right to an Ivy league scholarship that some poor white male factory worker's son won't receive. Again it's not race or gender. It's about money. It's a disservice to minorities and women to offer them to people who can afford college rather than stipulate that the scholarship is for someone who is poor. How exactly is Obama's daughters receiving a scholarship because they've gone to private school not taking away from a Latina from the ghetto who didn't receive a great education? If you want to elevate people, then stop giving money to people who don't need it in order to go to college.
I don't consider abortion to be murder and if my BC fails I have no problem having one.
Well sorry but if I get pregnant I can and will have an abortion. You will have to get over that.
What straw man? I don't think you're reading the whole dialogue.
They have no wants. The have no thoughts or desires. They know nothing at all.
Nope sorry but my life is child free and it always will be.
I will never have kids of my own and I am so grateful about that. This is something I will NEVER change my mind about. I would also not care for a relatives child because
1. No close relatives of mine have kids
2. There would be much better options besides me
No, I don't go to Planetary Science conferences because I work in Neuroscience. When i say "ACADEMIC", I mean is it a session where people present their research? From what you described, it seemed to be something else, where people discuss issues they're having in their fields. That is not academic. Your husband was not denied an opportunity to present research, rather he was denied an opportunity to sit in a workshop where minority issues in the field were discussed. Not attending this workshop wouldn't really hurt him, as far as I could tell.
Also, its not that I don't believe you, but from my quick data gathering, what you say does not seem to hold water. Do the figures I gave you about graduate student ratios in the 3 schools seem accurate to you? Or did I just choose the 3 schools where women happen to be in the minority?
Here is what you said:
>> I didn't say that the vast majority were female in his field. I said
that those entering his field are largely female. This generation has a
largely female dominating class.
My informal search of grad student web pages don't seem to back this up.
And I wasn't aware Obama's daughters were getting scholarships. I somehow don't think Obama's daughters are representative of the colored women getting scholarships.
Look we can beat around the bush about what you consider to be academic. Or whatever.
You still haven't addressed how offering a scholarship based on birth is somehow helping people particularly those who don't really need it. But fine.
This blog is about abortion not academia. We can disagree about how we want to help people. You can choose to promote abortion as a means to help women elevate themselves and I'll choose scholarships based on economic need, childcare, and maternity leave. I'm not too happy that you think that women (and men) have to choose their career over their family, but whatever. I'm done here. I made my point. You are free to ignore it.
I wasn't speaking in a biological sense, as I've already made clear. I was speaking in a colloquial sense. Context matters. My children were and are my children regardless of their age, size, location, or stage of development.
And we are doing everything in our power to change the laws of our country to preserve the lives of innocent human beings in the womb. You will have to get over that.
Good luck with that. Let me know how that works out in 10,20,30, etc years.
Abortion is just an induced miscarriage.
https://www.womenonweb.org
Is also great.
Safer than pregnancy. Pregnancy that you want to force all women to undergo if they have the sex.
And if you get your wish an abortion is illegal women will STILL do whatever they can to abort.
You don't give a shit about women's health.
Pregnancy maims and kills.
Rape and forced pregnancy are an integral part of war in the world today.
Little 12 year olds, forced to give birth.
Normally I agree with many things you say, but I think you're over exaggerating here, and I think you know it.
Aw cool. A friend of mine is a neuroscientist. She taught me all about sentience and how it arises and can be measured.
Potential.
Abortion is self defense.
Yeah, it occupies the woman's body. It tortures her with birth. It has ZERO right to her organs.
It is SOMETIMES self defense. I think absolute statements about exaggerations are dangerous 🙂
If your toddler tries to kill you, do you have to sit back and let it happen?
How about a disabled 40yo with the mind of a toddler who asaults you?
Clumps of sentient, sapient cells. We are not mindless animal organisms like embryos.
Yup, cool stuff 🙂 I think a greater understanding of neuroscience in the years to come will alter how we view ourselves as a species. If it turns out that embryo and fetuses possess what we term sentience, I might alter my view on early abortion, but from what we now know, I have got to support choice!
No, it doesn't lead to genocide, because the mindless don't qualify as people.
The disabled aren't mindless. FFS.
Lol.
Abstinent only = a joke.
Doesn't work in the real world.
She is RCC.
Sex = social bonding
You want to enslave women to clumps of DNA.
Stop ragging on Slurpy. You set this up so that you could play the martyr.
It looks like a meatball.
Yep. Abort me and flush me down a toilet. Big whoop.
Mindless me would not have missed non existence.
Sex and intimacy = social bonding.
Don't need to get pregnant every time you do it.
When I am typing on my phone I have to be brief (as in the other statement, which I will reply to in a minute) Also, this blog freezes on my phone..very annoying.
I am on my pc now, and let me expand a bit…
Yes, abortion IS self-defense. We just don't think of it that way because
1) pregnancy is what women do/ are for
2) it's like, natural
3) babies are cute
But, let's look at what an unborn human does
It occupies your body – a very intimate occupation. if you do not want it there, it is a violation. A rapist can do less damage to your body than a pregnancy – yet you would be within your rights to kill a rapist if that was the ONLY means of escape. Rape is clearly assault, but, by Pl standards, unless the woman is on literally death's door, the presence of the zef is not 'harming' her.
Let's look at what a zef does to a woman, as a normal part of pregnancy
Drills into a blood vessel
injects her body with hormones that enable it to take as much sugar (can lead to permanent diabetes) iron (anemia) and calcium (dental and bone loss) as possible. It is genetically programmed to do this, through something called genomic imprinting.
http://edge.org/conversation/genomic-imprinting
It dampens her immune system, making her more susceptible to illness.
It infuses her body with feel good hormones that, after birth, can cause her to rebound, resulting in PPD and PPP. Depression and psyhosis, yum.
It can't process it's own wastes, so all of those toxic biowastes end up in her blood.
Lastly, at the end of 9 months, it causes her intense pains for 6-72 hours and the woman has to deal with a large object being painfully shoved through a tiny hole.
If ANY of the above were perpetrated by one person upon another it would be considered ASSAULT and in some cases TORTURE. We don't think of it that way, because 'nature' and 'babies cute' and 'this is what women were made for'
Any government that forces women to gestate at risk to their health, life and wellbeing is essentially endorsing rape, slavery and torture.
See my other comment.
Yeah, pregnancy ALWAYS has the potential to maim and kill. We don't know WHICH women will become injured, suffer permanent disability, or death from pregnancy.
To force all women of reproductive age to complete a pregnancy is to deny their right to life and health.
Oh, I left a couple of things off of the last comment, will add here:
1) the rebound from the dampening of the immune system can result in MS and other auto-immune diseases
2) PTSD from birth is a real thing
http://www.birthtraumaassociation.org.uk/
PS: you always know who I am. I knew you were smart 🙂
>> To me I see that the problem in the US society is that women are stepping all over men.
To me, statements like this seem to argue in favor of limiting or trying to roll back the progress that women have made in society. Many of the top flite US universities became co-ed in the late 60s and early 70s. That's not very long ago. Before then, women like Rosalind Franklin (double helix) and Lise Meitner (nuclear fission) were denied the full recognition for the work they did in scientific collaboration. This was in the 40s and 50s. Women have not had as long a history of predecessors upon which to draw inspiration as men, and were long told to stay at home, cook, have kids and shut up. That is what my mom was told by her university. If you believe that all the roadblocks affecting women and people of color have now been completely removed, and they do not present additional obstacles for the professional development as compared to the white male, I think you're blind to reality.
It is true that women are both blessed and burdened with the ability to conceive. Unfortunately, having children and caring for them can negatively impact her career. For these women, leaving the option of abortion is an important equalizer.
You're so sexy when you're angry.
Which is like, alll the time, right?
Actually, a more appropriate phrase is 'abortion is not unjust killing'
Yeah.
Balderdash. It is possible to have a loving relationship and not want children.
First things first, we're talking about another person's body. Abortion is getting rid of another person's body
A mindless body that does not have the *right* to occupy the woman's body and claim her organs for it's own use. Such a right does not exist. For anyone.
Looks like I missed all the fun today.
Not all doctors will perform a tubal ligation especially if the woman is under 30 and doesn't have 3 kids already.
And before that he had mistresess galore.
I am abstinent, but I realize, that in the real world, people like to fuck, and as far as I am concerned they can fuck their brains out. More power to them.
Around the time that extreme neonates can survive outside the uterus the thalamcortical connections that give rise to sentience have already began to form.
Really the last 40 years has seen a decrease in poverty, hate an terrorism? I find it has seen an increase due to an obvious lack of respect for human life. I don't think terminating a life particularly empowering for anyone.
Slurpy is correct, actually
Steven Pinker writes about it in his new book. People have become less violent overall in the last 100 years.
It just appears that we are more violent because TV and hyperbolic news make the violence sound like it's right up in your face constantly.
http://stevenpinker.com/publications/better-angels-our-nature
Ooo name change again? Do you have personality disorder or are you just trying to make it look like more people have your opinions?
Can you do anything other than troll?
And I have been changing nyms regularly since my early days on IRC.
It's like changing shoes, I like to have fun. I love nyms, and I love shoes. Got a problem with that?
Fundamentalist Islamic countries which not only don't allow abortion, but believe in honor rape and killing raped girls.
Actually, Islamic countries allow limited abortion and contraception…the deal is, however that the *man* decides how many children a woman will have.
Women have zero reproductive freedom in these societies and if the man decides he wants 20 kids, she will be forced to have them until she dies.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/01/health/multiple-pregnancies-mother/
If you look deeply at the anti-abortionists in the western world, it comes down, in the end, to controlling sexuality, specifically, female sexuality. As soon as women can get out from under the yoke of forced pregnancy, they can have some modicum of control over their lives. And fundies HATE that idea.
I agree it can be self-defense if the woman wants it to be. But there does seem to be some scientific evidence pointing to better health later in life for women who have given birth. Whether that is due to actually giving birth or better mental health from joy, I don't know.
Did not know that, was all my preconception about Fundamentalist Islam. But I still believe that controlling women's reproductive destiny controls her, and that always leads to bad sh*t.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/01/health/multiple-pregnancies-mother/
http://www.skepticalob.com/2009/08/inherent-risks-of-childbirth.html
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2010/dec/10/torn-apart-by-childbirth
The health benefits of fetal stem cells is an oft repeated claim from anti-abortionists. That ‘baby ‘gives back’. Unfortunately for the woman, fetal stem cell transfer is a double edged sword. From the JulyAugust 2014 issue of Discover magazine p.12 (typed out by hand):
FETAL ATTRACTION: Mothers to be may have their babies to blame for a poorly understood medical condition.
Fresh from prenatal yoga, a woman walks into her 35 week OB appointment glowing. But the doc frowns as she watches the woman’s normally low blood pressure soar past 140. Then a routine test shows protein in her urine. Diagnosis: preeclampsia. These few symptoms are often the only indications of the condition; the mom to be feels fine, but until she has her baby, she will likely be put on bed rest and monitored closely, as preeclampsia can quickly escalate to severe swelling, seizures and even coma or death.
As many as 8 percent of pregnant women worldwide are diagnosed with preeclampsia, and while the condition is on the rise in the USA, no one knows exactly what causes it. Some researchers have suspected fetal DNA or pieces of the placenta – long known to circulate in the bodies of pregnant women – could kick off an inflammatory immune response intended to kill and clean up the intruders. Hilary Gammill, an OBGYN at the university of Washington, has spent years looking at fetal cells in particular. In a recent study, she and colleagues compared blood samples from 46 pregnant women diagnosed with preeclamspia with samples from 47 women with uncomplicated pregancies. The researchees found that the women with preeclampsia were more likely to have in fact fetal cells in their bloodstream, and many more of them.
While carrying more fetal cells seems to protect against breast cancer, women with severe preeclamspia have up to an eightfold risk of cardiovascular disease later in life. Such outcomes may be linked to an immune response similar to that of preeclamspia. “It’s sort of a double edged word,” Gammill says.
She aims to learn more about these stowaway cells so she can figure out what triggers preeclampsia and tailor treatments for her patients, who may experience its effects long after pregnancy. – Cameron Walker
————————–
Do the long-term risks outweigh the immediate risks?
How does this apply to women who did not want children and being forced to have children ruined their lives and filled them with resentment?
If pregnancy is healthier overall than not being pregnant, then nuns would be dropping dead at a significantly younger age than women who have given birth.
Agreed.
I change my nym a lot. We met a few weeks ago.
Can't even remember my last nym, but I was Purrtriarchy for a long time.
Hate to cut into this thread, but does anybody know if Marauder's had her baby?
I've already come to terms with the fact that my mom aborted. For the lack of a sibling, I am genuinely sad, but in the place of that sibling, I have a mom whose name appears in college biochemistry text books in many places for the work she has done, and the pioneer she has been for the girls of her home country. I am proud that her work has advanced biochemistry and medicine so that the technology can benefit human health, for generations to come. I am proud that she has shown me how to stand up for your dreams, and persevere no matter what obstacle society puts in front of her. I am proud that she is an outspoken proponent of women's rights and minority rights in our increasingly xenophobic home country. And I'm proud that despite the marathon experiments she ran, she still had time to give me all her love.
We do need precision in language. The term "pro life" to describe an organization that intentionally lets innocent babies die in an effort to force the birth of fetuses is a miscarriage of language. The fact is that there is nothing "pro life" about the pro life movement. The fact is that there are 1.8 born humans, 1.4 induced abortions and 10 natural abortions that occur each second —- that's right, second. The "pro life" movement has the choice to save innocent born humans or to let them die and save a fetus instead. Their choice is to let the babies die.
The pro life movement could also choose to save the 10 wanted fetuses that die each —second—, but they don't, they let them die in an failed effort to save unwanted fetuses. So all the "pro life" movement does is force unwanted fetuses to be born while letting innocent wanted fetuses and born babies, children and adults die. That is not being pro life, that is being a eugenicist.
You have a choice, Faye, you can choose to save innocent babies or you can choose to let them die and save a fetus instead. What is your choice?
So you are for spreading murder around the world?
JoAnna, you have a choice, you can save innocent born babies or let them die and save a fetus. What is your choice/
Birth kills 14 times more women than abortion. So that is the hill you must climb to save the pill is dangerous. It is a ton less dangerous than child birth.
The pro life movement is responsible for letting innocent born babies die.
When did I ever say I was Catholic?
*chuckle*
Yay for a bunch of histrionic, fact-free nonsense all in one place!
None of the "solutions" you offer is an alternative to being pregnant …
If the woman doesn't want the child, she can give the child to someone who does. I know many such women.
Really? Then how come none of those women has gotten on the stick and adopted one of the 100K+ children currently available for adoption in this country? http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/resource/afcars-report-20
Most of these children will "age out" at age 18 without ever having been adopted. Where are these "many such women" that you claim want to adopt?
Or maybe they're just too fucking selfish to be bothered unless it's a perfectly healthy Caucasian neonate?
Actually, she isn't. Pregnancy is far from being a state of wellness. Even relatively uncomplicated pregnancies leave permanent physiologiocal changes on a woman. A forensic anthropologist (that happens to be my field of study) can tell how many times a woman has been pregnant from her skeletal remains; each pregnancy leaves striations on the pubic symphysis, as it never fully reconnects to its pre-pregnant state and, in fact, stays further disconnected with each subsequent pregnancy. This is referred to as pubic symphysis diastasis. A friend of mine, who has had five children, has PSD so bad that her walking gait is no longer normal and she cannot ride a bicycle. Yet, her pregnancies themselves were relatively uncomplicated.
To me I see that the problem in the US society is that women are stepping all over men.
Yes, men are dreadfully oppressed, aren't they? Especially straight white men. They have it so hard, sitting at the top of the privilege pyramid. /snark
My husband is constantly being discriminated against at conferences.
They recently excluded him because he's not of color, female,
Um, sweetie? Helping those who have been consistently discriminated against does not mean that your husband is somehow being discriminated against.
it was a conference workshop on having problems in the field. They sent
out a letter stating it was only for women, people of color, or married
couples in the same field.
Which means ::wait for it:: that your husband was NOT the target audience for this specific conference. Ye gods.
Don't Obama's daughters have a better chance at a college education
than say a white boy whose parents work on a factory assembly line and
goes to public school?
Only because the Obama family has money.
No offense but there aren't scholarships solely designated for white men.
No offense, but white men are the top of the privilege ladder. Women and people of color are under-represented in many, many, many fields … and that is why there are specific scholarships offered.
I define murder as the deliberate killing of an innocent human being.
Well, the law defines murder as the unlawful (illegal) taking of a person's life with malice aforethought.
In case you missed the memo, abortion is legal … and personhood attaches at birth. So, you are wrong.
A toddler is a *person.* Once again, murder is the unlawful taking of a person's life with malice aforethought. The definition is specific for a reason. Manslaughter is the unlawful taking of a person's life absent malice. Do you see the difference?
WRONG. Our laws are not based on morality, but on victim's rights. Murder is unlawful because it has deprived the victim of his/her security of person, not because it is "immoral." Robbery is unlawful not because it is "Immoral" to steal but because victims have a right to security of property as well.
So what happens when deliberately end the life of a human? Is that not called murder?
Nope. Once again, murder is the unlawful (illegal) taking of a person's life with malice aforethought.
YOUR definition means that the death penalty is murder, suicide is murder, manslaughter is murder … and none of those things apply.
So many straw men! You should receive a medal for posting this many asinine, baseless remarks.
Personhood is a *legal status.* It attaches at *birth.* No one gives two craps about your personal belief that an embryo is a person; it has no basis in reality.
Why not embryos?
Embryos are not persons.
Let me put it to you this way: in order to afford the rights that you wish to afford to an embryo, you would perforce have to *abrogate* the rights of a born, sapient, sentient *person.* What is it when you abrogate someone's rights, again? Oh, yes. Slavery.
She is an uneducated imbecile.
I prefer the term childless.
And no one gives a shit about your preferences. The childless are people who want children and do not have them. The childfree are people who never want children.
it's like the difference between being cancer-less and cancer-free … if that helps you understand it better.
Yes, JoAnna, you offer them the opportunity to join you in murdering real babies. You do realize that you have a choice, you can save real babies or you can let them die and save pretend babies. Your choice is to let the real babies die.
If killing babies is bad, as you claim, then why do you choose to kill real babies. I think what you really mean is that fetuses are more important to you than real babies and for that reason real babies should die to save fetuses.
That nails it, you are a eugenicist.
There are 250 million children that need to be adopted, along with some adults. When you have adopted them all then talk about adoption as an option.
Do you believe a mother should be allowed to commit infanticide if she decides infants don't have any inherent value? If not, how do you justify forcing your belief that infanticide is wrong onto others? How do you justify taking away that choice?
When a woman doesn't want to be pregnant you don't offer here anything but forced pregnancy and forced birth. Your "solution" is for her to give in to gestational slavery and carry to term against her will.
And you talk as if giving birth is 100% risk free… Child birth is much more dangerous than abortion and I should have a right to decide which way I want to "risk" my life.
Hi Chris. I'm not a moral philosopher or historian, but as a society, we always must draw the lines. For example, what defines incest? Sibling-on-sibling? Cousin-on-cousin? Second cousin-on-second cousin? At what point are you sufficiently not related so your relationship is not considered incest? We must also define what it means to be a "person". Embryos are living, humans. I have no objection there. They are human. But for me, if you do not have the capability to suffer or anticipate your fate (and as far as we know, early fetuses probably don't), being killed doesn't cause you any harm. For me, therefore I would say that early fetuses are not "people", at least when it comes to abortion.
One caveat is that I said "early fetuses probably don't have the capability to suffer or anticipate impending doom". If future science can prove that they in fact can, I would be willing to re-evaluate my stance.
And this to me is what separates infanticide and abortion – whether the one being killed has the capability to suffer. And this is why I am opposed to late term abortion, though do not yet believe it should be illegal.
Also, human societies are by necessity pragmatic. Laws are codified to increase the chance of survival of that society. Societies that allow things like random murder are not going to be stable. How can an economy grow if you are always afraid you might get wiped out at any moment? Infanticide, if practiced en masse, naively would probably lead to the downfall of society as there would be a dearth of future generations. And its probably an extreme waste of resources. It takes a lot of energy on the part of the woman to carry a pregnancy to term. Further, the woman or the man's in-laws probably would not appreciate one of their grandchildren being killed. So I think such a practice is practically a bad thing for society. Abortion in the early stages would not waste as much societal resources, so from this purely pragmatic view, I don't think society at large would have as much objection to it.
saving a child is saving a child is saving a child. 6 in 1, half-dozen in the other. Although, if it's a choice between saving ONE child and saving SEVERAL children, saving the several would make more sense, no?
If you were to ask my husband, he would tell you that yes, I *am* in fact sexy all the time.
Medication abortion is exponentially safer than childbirth.
If you don't think abortion is right, don't have one.
Who SAYS they have no safety standards. You??? Where did you get your pharmacology degree?
The crisis is she doesn't want to be pregnant. And you have nothing to offer.
Giving birth is not 100% safe either. NO medication other than normal saline solution is 100% safe. We still utilize medications all the time, because the benefits outweigh the risks.
SO???? Can someone else be pregnant for her?
No she isn't.
Is there some POINT here? Taking Tylenol is riskier.
I don't know of any medical procedure that is.
Lots of children available right now to people who want them. Over 100,000 in foster care have been cleared for adoption and the state will help with the cost.
It's quite easy to tell who erotome is, no matter what the name.
Complete crap. You can compare ANY two children from more versus less privileged households, and the rich kid ALWAYS has better opportunities than the poor kid.
The difference is, abortion is not murder. Definitely not rocket science now, is it? Abortion has never been murder… even when it was illegal.
A woman who aborts after rape isn't "executing" anyone for any crimes. You appear to have a great deal of difficulty with the English language. A fetus is not capable of being executed. And the woman is a victim. She doesn't have to carry the seed of a criminal. PERIOD. How ugly of you to suggest she must.
Abortion is not now, nor has it ever been murder.
You have every right to be proud of your mother. She sounds like a courageous woman. Pay no attention to vile comments.
Tumors of a certain type have skin, hair, nails. teeth, sometimes even eyes in them. I am SO NOT IMPRESSED by your appeals to emotion.
Conceived "children" will always die before birth. Cry me a river.
Never would have had anything to offer me, certainly. Of course, it wouldn't really be about me, though. It would be about my doing others' bidding with no regard of what would personally be in my best interest.
I know some, too. However, no woman with an unwanted pregnancy 'owes' them a healthy, white infant, and they're well aware of that fact.
Why is abortion wrong?
So what would you offer to a pregnant woman who doesn't wish to be pregnant any more?
What would you offer to a woman who doesn't want to raise a child but doesn't trust anyone else to raise her child either?
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.
Thank you secular prolife blog!! You are a voice of sanity and courage! Just "shared" you on FB 🙂
Do you realize that your use of the word "transformed" is indicative of magical thinking, and a disconnect from reality on your part?
If you don't think rape is right, don't rape anybody. If you don't believe domestic violence is right, don't beat anybody. See how easily that type of argument can crumble?
But sexism is ok as long as it's against men, didn't you know? I mean, 'cause we gotta get back at those dreadful penis-havers somehow, right?
Giving us equal opportunity is much different than giving us an unearned and unfair advantage. In the workplace, I would expect my skills and knowledge to be compared with equal consideration to a man's. I wouldn't like it if a man with less expertise got considered for a job before I was just because he is a male. However, I also don't think it would be fair for me as a woman to to get a job or promotion while having less expertise just because I am a female. I'm all for as much equality between the sexes as possible, but the very existence of affirmative action is discriminatory against males, and there is no denying that.
You're life as no meaning once you become a parent? So my life is pointless? You should just shoot me?
You seem to be taking this very personally. He isn't talking about you.
In context it is not used in "magical" thinking. It is clearly occurring within the process of DNA "expression."
All it's doing is encouraging more women to go into the field who may have otherwise choosen to study something else.
And that's a bad thing how?
"I was asking you to narrow down what you mean by a person being alive and born to look like a person. You still didn't narrow that down. The pre-born have organs. They have skin. They have fingers and toes with nails. Normal ultra-sounds do not give perfectly clear pictures. My own ultra sound much latter in my gestation from a bajillion years ago makes me appear as a blob. I wasn't a blob."
The phenotype must be correct. That means that every single requirement of being human life capable of living must be intact. If the fetus can live as a human, it is human. If it cannot live as a human, it is something else. Usually it is a product of conception.
"Arizona also stipulates how chemical abortions are to be performed. You can't just buy some random drug and take them legally. This has adverse affects to your body. But if you want to go ahead and run the risk of harming or killing yourself so you can get your abortion, I can't physically stop you. I think it's foolish, obviously."
If abortion is outlawed women will die. So think about that, you will be responsible for that outcome.
"You're life as no meaning once you become a parent? So my life is pointless? You should just shoot me? Come on now. We know people's lives have meaning regardless of whether they have children or not. And this holds true for you as well."
Straw man fallacy and of no value.
"Yes, it does. Consenting to sex implicitly runs the risk of pregnancy."
That is twisting the facts. Most conceptions end in abortion. There is only a 30 percent chance of pregnancy that will produce a child.
"It is the same if you choose to drive a car. If you wear a seat belt, you up your chances of not dying in an accident. However having the use of a seat belt does not ensure an accident will not occur. That's why you also invest in car insurance. It is the same with sex. Every time you engage in sex you run the risk. If you don't want a baby, then don't have sex."
They are not similar. With sex each time you conceive there is a 70 percent chance you will abort. So intentional sex is consent to abort 70 percent of your "babies." Driving a car does not result in an accident 70 percent of the time, so the analogy is invalid.
"If you don't want a car accident then don't drive a car."
The analogy is false, but what is true is that if you don't want to abort, then don't have sex. Intentional sex is consent to abort.
"The problem because that people like those two things and so they try to bury the risk. They don't want to give them up but they don't want to take responsibility for the consequences either. This isn't adult thinking."
It isn't adult thinking to compare auto insurance or accidents with abortion. In order to be pro life one must come up with ludicrous analogies.
"So are you saying that a baby born at 25 weeks gestation and a baby in utero at 25 weeks gestation are "look" different? One is a person and one is thing? One is alive and the other is….dead? Color me confused."
Lets talk scientific fact. It is a scientific fact that a fetus has a different structure than a human baby. Until birth the heart, lungs, brain and digestive tract along with other organs are different from a baby. Until those transform into human organs, we don't know for certain that a human baby will be produced.
"Actually you "can't have one if you want" there are laws governing how abortion is administered. And this varies from state to state. For example, it is illegal in Arizona to have an abortion because you don't like the baby's gender."
Such laws are based upon false precepts. If one attempts to enforce such a law they can only do so by causing the death of a born human.
"So me having children means I am inferior? I'm worth less than a woman who has no children? Or perhaps a man? Way to set back the feminist movement if that's you're way of thinking."
That is a straw man fallacy based upon a false analogy and is of no value in this discussion.
"And mine says that your choice ends when it violates someone else's."
Your own beliefs must be violated to be "pro life". In any effort to save a fetus you must violate the rights of born babies, children and adults. You rights to be pro life do not exist because you must murder life to be pro life.
"In other words it's the child that's the "slave" not the woman. If children are "owned" to be discarded at will that's slavery yes?"
You are conflating a fetus into a baby. A fetus must be born before it changes its organs and becomes a baby. That is a scientific fact.
" A woman (in the vast majority of cases) ran a risk engaging in sex."
Speaking in absolute terms, any choice to have sex is consent to abort 70 percent of any "babies" that are produced. So engaging in sex is consent to abort.
"It's like getting into a car. Do we sue the car if we are at fault for creating an accident?"
It is not like getting into a car. When you have sex, you consent to a 70 percent accident rate where a "baby" dies. With a car you are consenting to a one in a million accidental death.
" We knew the risk of driving. We know the risk of sex. Yet we are punishing someone else in both cases. Why? "
You are conflating a fetus into a baby. You need to make some type of common sense argument to explain why? Do you think you can do that? Lets talk.
"Why not own up to our responsibilities and deal with the risk instead of sweeping it under a rug?"
In order to force the birth of a fetus you must intentionally murder an innocent baby. Until you can explain why a fetus is a baby and why you can murder real babies, I don't see you having a valid argument.
Looking at an ultrasound does not prove the fetus has enough human DNA to live as a human. It is really of no value whatsoever in the sense that viewing such photos will not detect a non human fetus.
Once a woman conceives she has no idea as to whether or not she will be a mother or not. Most of the time she will abort naturally or produce a still birth. That is a scientific fact. So at conception she has a small chance that she will be a mother.
Thinking you know what is right for everyone else is not proof that what you think is right. In fact your ideas lead you to murder innocent babies.
Before abortion was legal, the number of births was declining. After abortion became legal, the number of births increased. For that reason I thrust women to make decisions that will lead to more life. Those decisions include the choice to abort.
"So what does a person look like?"
If a human phenotype expresses a living human life form and not a product of conception then it does not matter what it looks like.
" My children are two and four. My two year old's head is more disproportionate to his body than his brother's head because the rest of his limbs and torso haven't developed yet. This is normal for his age. Does this mean that my four year old looks more like a person because he's more proportional to that of an adult? Should I shoot my two year old in the head because his head to body ratio is different? Come on now. Be rational."
That is a false analogy.
"As for your second point, sorry but that's how morality in civil society works. Should I allow a pedophile to molest my children because it's perfectly fine in his moral universe?"
You should not be able to murder innocent babies to stop a pedophile. You should not be able to murder innocent babies to force the birth of a fetus.
"Should I not voice that I think it's morally wrong and why? Should I not say this should apply to all children even those who parents allow others to molest their children? You have to draw a line in the sand and mine says abortions are murder."
You have a sick fantasy that justifies your act of murdering innocent babies to save fetuses. You "falsely believe" a fetus is a baby and that you have the right to murder babies to save fetuses. That is a sick idea. My goal in life is to stop you from murdering innocent babies. I will shine my light of truth on you.
Your choice to pursue the pro life agenda forces you to murder innocent born babies in a false attempt to save a fetus. You are murdering innocent life by practicing the pro life fallacy.
Any abortion is safer than practicing the pro life agenda. Pro life ideas can only be transmitted and discussed by allowing innocent babies to die. Society would be better if pro life arguments were treated for what they are, money raising scams.
The site you mention is only successful in the sense that it is a money raising tool used to murder innocent born babies. It is impossible to post information that is pro life without causing the death of an innocent born baby, child or adult. The doctors in the source are murderers if they are following the pro life agenda. The people that built the site are murderers and those that attempt to sell the site and raise money and power for the pro life movement are murderers. That is abundantly clear?
There has been an increase in life of millions of babies, so obviously importing pills is better than not importing pills. And that is what the real question is. Which is better? Letting pro lifers murder babies or allowing the import of pills? The answer is clearly yes, importing pills of questionable quality is better than letting pro life ideas kill women.
But you murder babies to give them information in crisis pregnancies. Is that a lucid practice?
No, there is *plenty* of denying that. Women get paid 77 cents on the dollar for doing the same work as men. No, there is *plenty* of denying that. Women get paid 77 cents on the dollar for doing the same work as men. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/24/upshot/the-pay-gap-is-because-of-gender-not-jobs.html?abt=0002&abg=0
Being paid equally for the same work is not giving someone an "unfair and unearned advantage." Neither is choosing a woman or a person of color if two applicants are equally qualified. You seem to think that men are automatically better qualified for a given position, and that simply is not so. Historically, though, a white man is much more likely to be
chosen among equally qualified applicants. He's more likely to get an *interview* among equally qualified applicants.
And if you don't believe me, you can read the article written by a man whose first name is Kim. http://qz.com/103453/i-understood-gender-discrimination-after-i-added-mr-to-my-resume-and-landed-a-job/
Actually, that doesn't fall apart at all; people who think rape is wrong don't rape. People who think DV is wrong don't commit rape. People who think abortion is wrong need not have abortions.
I read a fascinating book about Lise Meitner last year. Men were given credit for her work, because the scientific community didn't believe that women were capable of work at that level. It boggled my mind.
Ru486 isn't killing children. No one is advocating killing children. A zygote, embryo, fetus is not a child. Got any more fact-free crap for us?
@spam
Ever hear of the Jane Collective? Might want to read up on that.
What happened to the whole "precision of language, please" thing?
Those are crimes. See how quickly your dishonest argument crumbles?
Actually, I know several families on waiting lists for years to adopt one or more of those 100K children, any race or age. The agency contracted to adopt out of foster care in my area not only moves extremely slow, but are totally unrealistic in this day and age in that they want the adoptive home to have a stay-at-home mom. Social worker I know confirmed many agencies contracted to do foster care adoptions still have guidelines out of the 2-parent, stay-at-home-mom, match-the-race/ethnicity era.
Also, if you have other natural or adopted children in the home, you often cannot adopt older children as not permanently placing a child older than those already in the home is an almost universal, dramatically limiting available homes for older foster children.
Do you realize most foster children were originally wanted children, not placed there voluntarily as infants, and even once in the foster system, not available for adoption until a judge severs the original parental rights, don't you?
Freeing foster children for adoption often takes years as the system was designed to provide a safe place for children while parents fixed their problems.
"And we are doing everything in our power to change the laws of our
country to preserve the lives of innocent human beings in the womb"
You realize you have to go through women's vaginas to get to them, right? It's not like CPS getting a court order to remove a child from an unhealthy home. It's making it illegal for every woman not to gestate and give birth to every single pregnancy, no matter what the circumstances, whether she was raped or whether she has a wanted pregnancy that's gone wrong. Is this really what you want for ALL women? Even your own daughters?
the problem then is not a shortage of babies, but a shortage of parents. I am sorry your friends were not found to be suitable, but that is no reason to torture a child.
And actually there are 210 million children that need to be adopted along with many adults. So there is no shortage of children, there is a shortage of parents.
Whatever the reasons, (too many children, not enough suitable parents; or flaws in the system) the bottom line is that there are many millions of children suffering right now, as we speak.
To add MORE children into that situation without fixing the problems first, is to willfully promote child neglect & abuse.
I don't think that will do anything. They don't do very much moderation around here.
Russel I have read through some of your comments on this page – none of them make any sense at all?
Where on earth has Russell got this idea of organs transforming at birth from?
That is an ad hominem fallacy and of no value. If you have some valid comment to support what you believe, the post that.
Russel I am also really struggling to follow this idea of a birth transformation where organs magically transform from one entity to another? It makes no sense what so ever – you are going to have to support these statements with sources that document this transformation rather than claim that any comment that challenges you on it is a 'ad hominem fallacy'.
I noticed it's a real rogue's gallery here. Sort of like the Critter Bar in the original Star Wars movie.
http://www.embryology.ch/anglais/pcardio/umstellung02.html
I suggest that you take a good embryology course. There are so many changes that occur that I cannot list them all on this page if I were to write solid for one hour. The above link should be a good start. But you need to know what happens in the blood/brain barrier as well. So look that up.
True. The limited moderation worked a lot better when this blog was less popular. Now it just results in chaos.
You know that if you think what I post is spam, you may be wrong. Why not express yourself and let everyone know what you think is inappropriate.
My personal belief is that you have simply come up against an argument that you do not understand or cannot defend against. Voicing you opinion would clear up that belief. Help the readers out and let us know your concerns.
What's an obvious reason for increase of poverty? More people than there are resources; i.e. overpopulation. Who is the major culprit for that? The forced-birth movement.
>As a society, we always must draw lines.
Why do we have to? Why can't we trust women and allow a mother to make that decision? If your value is based on how others feel about you, why doesn't that extend past birth?
>But for me, if you do not have the capability to suffer or anticipate your fate (and as far as we know, early fetuses probably don't), being killed doesn't cause you any harm.
Were you under the impression that late-term fetuses could anticipate their fates? Because that doesn't come until a year or so after birth.
>And this is why I am opposed to late term abortion, though do not yet believe it should be illegal.
Why not? If the late-term fetus can suffer, doesn't that make him or her deserving of protection under your system?
>Societies that allow things like random murder are not going to be stable.
Does this mean we should permit anything that does not lead to societal collapse? Are we throwing away the idea of individual rights? Because the South was doing just fine with slavery for hundreds of years until the North came along and imposed its morality on them.
>Infanticide, if practiced en masse, naively would probably lead to the downfall of society as there would be a dearth of future generations.
If everyone committed infanticide, sure, but the same argument could be made against abortion, birth control, or homosexuality. A society can permit infanticide and still survive.
>Further, the woman or the man's in-laws probably would not appreciate one of their grandchildren being killed.
People don't always appreciate their unborn relatives being killed either, but presumably you don't think that matters.
>And its probably an extreme waste of resources.
So? It's a waste of the parents' resources. Should we ban people from using their own resources in wasteful ways?
>It takes a lot of energy on the part of the woman to carry a pregnancy to term.
It also takes a lot of energy to reach 8 months. Why place the cutoff at birth? Since when is your right to live based on how much energy was put into raising you? Does a child raised in poverty with barely enough to survive have less of a right to live than a pampered child of a wealthy family? Does a 4-year-old have less of a right to live than a 40-year-old? Should we execute people, such as some of the disabled, who use more resources than they produce?
The children to whom I am referring are those for whom the plan is adoption, not repatriation. You might want to try actually reading the report to which I linked.
I'
While taking a course on classical mechanics (basically Newtonian Theory for major physics geeks), one of the final theorems we covered was Noether's Theorem. It states a connection between symmetries in the equations of motion and the existence of conserved physical quantities, and I thought it a most beautiful and profound mathematical statement concerning the physical world. I was shocked when I learned much later that Noether's first name is Emmy, and she was a woman! People like her, Lise Meitner, Ada Lovelace (first "computer programmer" of the Babbage Analytical Engine, late 1800s), Grace Hooper (inventor of the first human readable computer programming language, COBOL), Jane Goodall, Rosalind Franklin all are such pioneers, and prove that women are just as capable of ground breaking scientific discoveries. I know of a husband and wife team at Stanford who developed a method to sort cells based on their surface anti-body markers, a hugely innovated method which is used everywhere in biology now. The wife was not allowed to go to CalTech despite her talents, because CalTech did not admit women (late 60s), and did her early research unpaid, and this research is probably up there as a candidate for a Nobel Prize. There are similar stories as this of women not getting recognized or even paid as professionals, and this was happening AS RECENTLY AS THE EARLY 70s IN THE USA! This is the reason affirmative action is still needed. Long entrenched injustices are not fixed oven night.
I fully admire deltaflute's husband's drive and determination to be the 1st PhD in his family. I imagine it was much harder than what I had to go through. However, she and MamaBear need to realize that while poverty is a major setback to achieving one's goals in life, as a white male, NO ONE is going to feel that he is incapable of succeeding. Women have been barred from the top-flite US universities until the not the late 1860s and 1870s, but the late 1960s and 1970s. Women were not believed to be capable of achievement. In a similar vein, women were barred from the Boston Marathon until a similar time. Same goes for minorities. Even to this day, African Americans do not have strong role models in many academic disciplines. Is this surprising, given that lynchings were widely attended public spectacles, complete with people hawking souvenir postcards of the dead black person, well into the late 1930s?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyer_Anti-Lynching_Bill
Only in 2005 has the US Senate apologized for not making a bill criminalizing lynchings until 1968. And MamaBear and deltaflute believe that we no longer need affirmative action because African Americans and women are now on completely equal footing as the white male? All I can think of is that they have a not so firm grasp on reality and history.
Some anti abortionists are also racist. Skinheads are notoriously pro life. They view women as fields to be ploughed.
Awesome, highly credible hearsay anecdotes about supposed career-boosting benefits of white women marrying minorities. I guess if you believe prayer heals the sick (yet doesn't heal amputees??), and believe the accounts of nomadic dwellers of a man rising from the dead, this story might sound pretty credible. Just giving you another anecdotal tale of
a guy changing his name from Jose Zamora -> Joe Zamora, his job hunting went from nada
to a full inbox:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/02/jose-joe-job-discrimination_n_5753880.html
This one an academic study saying black sounding names get less responses than white sounding names:
http://www.povertyactionlab.org/evaluation/discrimination-job-market-united-states
I'm assuming MamaBear is someone who also believes like deltaflute that the whipping boy of modern academia is the white male. deltaflute claims a "largely female dominating class" of entering graduate students. From her husband's experience as the 1st PhD holder in his family (props to him, good work!), she observes that
>> To me I see that the problem in the US society is that women are stepping all over men.
>> (deltaflute's husband)'s written off because he is male
>> The vast majority of the people (deltaflute's husband) sees seeking advanced degrees or any degree at all are overwhelming female.
This genuinely piqued my interest.
So I decided to do a quick informal survey of Planetary Science graduate schools in the US, and count the F/M ratio. Any time a graduate student's gender was ambiguous (foreign name, no picture etc.) I counted that student as FEMALE, just to give deltaflute the benefit of the doubt. Here are the results.
F / M
U Texas 2/6
U Tennessee 22/27
UC Davis 24/23
Wash U St. L 15/16
John's Hopkins 17/18
UC Santa Cruz 32/25
MIT 91/94
———————
TOTAL 203/209
This shows a near 50/50 split. Hardly what I'd call "overwhelmingly female". For comparison, for Astronomy Graduate Schools,
F / M
Boston U 14/22
UC Berkeley 12/20
Yale 11/19
———————
TOTAL 37/61
For a more "hard" physical science, men still handily outnumber the women.
Why is this important to me? Well, in another thread, I wrote about Emmy Noether, whose most famous contribution to physics is "Noether's Theorem", a beautiful and profound result connecting symmetries in the equation of motion and conserved physical quantities. I was shocked when I learned that Noether was a woman! Careful digging reveals many great women scientists, including
Ada Lovelace (first computer programmer)
Grace Hooper (inventor of the 1st human readable programming language, COBOL)
Lise Meitner (nuclear fission co-discoverer)
Rosalind Franklin (crystallographer, co-discoverer DNA double helix)
Until the late 60s and 70s (that's 1960s and 1970s), the top-flite US universities were largely not admitting women, and many women researchers worked as unpaid workers. That's NOT 77cents on the dollar, BUT 0 cents on the dollar. In the US. In the late 1960s. Women are just as capable as their male counterparts, but institutional discrimination tried to tell women that they were not capable of science. Economic disadvantage hurts everyone equally, but if you are a woman or an African American, you are also expected to be incapable of doing your job. Note that the US Senate apologized only in 2005 for not making lynching of African Americans a punishable crime until 1968. If you're that much of a fifth-class citizen, do you suppose that your lot in life is going to improve in 1 generation after segregation was outlawed?
Just so that you know, many US top-flite universities did not admit women until the 1960s and 1970s.
http://www.collegexpress.com/lists/list/years-that-mens-colleges-became-co-ed/366/
Many women researchers who went on to do influential work were paid 0 cents on the dollar compared to a man in the 1960s and 1970s. Not 77 cents on the dollar, 0 cents.
Lynchings of African Americans were a popular spectacle complete with postcards of the dead black man
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching_in_the_United_States
US Senate apologizes in 2005 for not making lynching of African Americans a punishable offense until something like 1968.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyer_Anti-Lynching_Bill
Do you feel women and African Americans have been allowed enough time to say bygones will be bygones, and pull themselves up by the bootstraps and be completely on par with white males?
Thank you for your points. You have made me think.
>> As a society, we always must draw lines.
> Why do we have to? Why can't we trust women and allow a mother to make that decision? If your value is based on how others feel about you, why doesn't that extend past birth?
——— BEGIN my response
I say we must draw lines because while I generally believe in trusting the woman, I do believe if we are to live in a society, some behaviors must have limits imposed by law. Otherwise, mutual cooperation would not be tenable, and society would probably collapse. I believe in maximal freedom of the individual as long as that behavior doesn't impinge on others.
Now your original question was "why not infanticide"? I should have answered the next question a bit better, and I will in the your next question:
——— END
>> But for me, if you do not have the capability to suffer or anticipate your fate (and as far as we know, early fetuses probably don't), being killed doesn't cause you any harm.
Were you under the impression that late-term fetuses could anticipate their fates? Because that doesn't come until a year or so after birth.
——— BEGIN my response
OK, "anticipate their fates" was added without much thought. I really meant to say "able to suffer". AFAIK, suffering and pain require a working central nervous system. I am not an
expert on the development of the CNS, but I would venture to guess that's somewhere around
20wks.
This is where I think the line should be drawn, because if an embryo cannot feel pain or sadness
due to its demise, who is the victim? Unless you somehow endow specialness to the embryo,
some inherent value to that life, I cannot think of any reason aborting a non-feeling thing
is inherently bad. This is why I say I am willing to change my stance on abortion IF it were
proven that early embryos are somehow able to feel pain. I can't think of a reason why an
embryo should have inherent worth. If it should, I think it should then follow that sperm
and eggs are also inherently valuable, which I don't think they are either.
I think I added "anticipate their fates" to distinguish the case of a person in a coma. At one
point in their lives, they were capable of feeling pain and must have had hopes and dreams. To kill a person in a coma (who has a reasonable chance of recovering) ignores this wish which has a non-zero chance of fulfillment. If a person is a complete vegetable with no hope of recovery, I would also argue that killing them is merciful. However, what we deem "no hope of recovery" is naturally dependent on our state of medical art, and this determination should reflect the state of medical art.
——— END
>And this is why I am opposed to late term abortion, though do not yet believe it should be illegal.
Why not? If the late-term fetus can suffer, doesn't that make him or her deserving of protection under your system?
>Societies that allow things like random murder are not going to be stable.
Does this mean we should permit anything that does not lead to societal collapse? Are we throwing away the idea of individual rights? Because the South was doing just fine with slavery for hundreds of years until the North came along and imposed its morality on them.
——— BEGIN my response
Societies do collapse because of slavery.
See Haitian revolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haitian_Revolution
Also, I think the US Civil War is societal destabilization for which slavery was a partial cause.
Also, while I am not an economist (Nobel Laureate Robert Fogel might disagree with me here), I would think slavery is probably not a good economic system in post-industrial societies. Having disgruntled and abused workers probably won't lead to very good products.
——— END
Thanks, my mom is certainly not unique. So many awesome women (not only scientists, but marathoners, little league base ball players) have said "Up yours" to bondage. I so prefer living in our world now as opposed to a world where they didn't speak up and stand up. I'm sure such a world would be orders of magnitude suckier.
Isn't it funny how people who tend to hold 1 bad idea also tend to hold other bad ideas? Its highly unusual to find rational racists.
Why racism and misogyny go hand in hand
http://anti-racistcanada.blogspot.ca/2014/08/guest-blogger-why-racism-and-misogyny.html
" … he would tell you that yes, I *am* in fact sexy all the time."
That's not surprising– pro-life women usually are.
Sarah, save yourself the headache and don't try to engage with Russell. Otherwise I can just lead you to a brick wall so you can have a more productive experience.
That's because MamaBear is full of crap.
Anecdotes =/= data, just so you know.
Yep, and Mary Leakey made most of the discoveries at Olduvai Gorge … for which her husband was given credit.
Just had to add one from my particular discipline to the pile of evidence. 🙂
You still haven't addressed how offering a scholarship based on birth is
somehow helping people particularly those who don't really need it.
What part of *systemic discrimination* is hard for you to understand? I'm serious. Women and people of color faced, and continue to face *systemic discrimination.* White men DO NOT.
Indeed. Likewise, Louis Leakey was given credit for discoveries made by his wife, Mary, at Olduvai Gorge … as I mentioned above.
They also tend to be in favor of the death penalty, whilst screeching about how "pro-life" they are. They disregard the fact that a statistically significant percentage of people on death row have been found innocent of the crimes for which they were incarcerated … sometimes posthumously. 🙁
Liberals all seem to have reading comprehension skills.
I said most will not put a child in the home who is older than the children already present, not that there can be no other children. That may not be written in the requirements, but is typically standard practice in permanent placements because children adjust to new younger siblings better than an older sibling. (Yes, there are exceptions.)
Also, I referred to requirements of the agencies that foster care services contract out to. They go by state requirements, but often also include their own in addition. And as I am in a small community, right now there is only one nonprofit social service contracted out for foster care adoptions in my town. A social worker who until recently was doing foster care adoptions herself in a nearby city informed me that there are several agencies who still want a stay-at-home parent and stress preference to same-race adoptions, including the one that services my community.
Yep, terribly unsuitable. (sarcasm)
They are white and most the children available in our area are Hispanic or mixed race, and their is still a strong preference (no longer in the written guidelines of course) for race matching, even when it keeps many children from finding permanent homes.
And they has been told repeatedly that they will not place a child for adoption with them who is older than her present child, and for a child that young she needs to be a stay-at-home-parent, but then they would not have enough income. (Ironically, she works with children.)
So, yeah, typical pro-child-murder lying, no one wants to adopt and if we find out there are actually people WAITING to adopt, they must be "unsuitable."
Changes as a response to change in their external environment =/= "transformation". When I put food in my previously empty stomach and it begins digestion, it does not "transform"-it's still the same stomach I always had.
PC'ers have a strange mysticism attached to development and organ function.
"What would you offer to a woman who doesn't want to raise a child but doesn't trust anyone else to raise her child either?"
Just thought I'd re-state this to highlight the schizophrenia of the PC position.
I don't want to raise a child, but I don't trust anyone else to raise this precious child, either. So of course, I must…kill the child. MAKES TOTAL SENSE! 😀
"It would be about my doing others' bidding what's best for my child with no regard of what would personally be in my best interest."
Fixed for ya.
I take it you have no answer to either questions? Which means your claim to offer "options" to pregnancy, childbirth & child-raising is a total LIE.
The mysticism of development/organ function. Right on queue.
Humans in their embryonic and fetal stages have fully-formed organs for the age they are currently experiencing.
Oh, wait. You're right. I guess my 11 year old daughter isn't a "complete and fully-formed human being" yet because she's not done with puberty and her mammary glands are "under construction". How could I have been so foolish!
I just want the killing to end. I just want children to stop being punished with death and torture for the bad choices of their parent(s). I *hate* injustice. If that's "sad", then so be it. But I think *everyone* should hate injustice.
Oh please. If prenates are complete and fully formed, as you keep saying, they would be able to sustain their own lives independently. The entire point of gestation is to construct a human so that it can survive independently. And until it is capable of sustaining its own life as an autonomous individual its merely a potential life.
And babies have all of the organs and body parts that they will ever have. Can't say the same for an embryo!
P.S.
If you knew me, you'd know my "misery" isn't really "misery" at all. If more women were able to accept and love the children they bring into the world instead of resenting and blaming them for their problems, there would be far more joy, and far less misery all around.
Misery loves company. That is what you want. Keep on hating though, your sociopathic personality does wonders for the PL movement.
Your hateful reply to Chalkdust's thoughtful post was really out of line.
I did not know who the Leakeys were, interesting read, thanks. This kind of arrangement was probably VERY common among scientists. Einstein's first wife was a major collaborator to the work that got him the Nobel Prize, the photoelectric effect. After divorcing his wife, he gave the moneys from the Nobel Prize to his wife, and posthumous examination of his correspondence to his first wife suggests that that she made critical contributions in the papers describing the photoelectric effect, yet she was never acknowledged as an author. No doubt Einstein was a genius, but it is probably very likely he wouldn't be the icon of towering minds without the contributions of a certain Mileva Einstein-Maric.
ROFLMFAO!
"Sociopathic"?
…says the person who trumpets the virtues of killing one's own child in utero to grease the wheels of ease of their own life.
Give me a friggin' break already. XD
You are giving the worldwide statistics. There is no way the US is going to allow over 200 million children adopted into this country. Approximately 20 million children or more are orphaned by AIDS
in Africa. I support an organization that feeds, educates, and helps grandparents or other relations raise AIDS orphans. They were wanted babies and the long term solution is to end the AIDS epidemic which took their parents. As in many situations, the solutions vary by country and culture, but in many cases, abortion would not reduce the orphans.
Getting back to the US, in 2010, there were 143,000 adoptions, 53,000 of which were out of fostercare. For infant adoptions (private and public), it is estimated there are 30 to 40 couples waiting for each baby. Wouldn't it be better to fix the system to match up adoptive parents and children, to do away with antiquated ideas such as my friends have run into of race-matching (on the part of agency handling adoptions – my friends will take any race)?
Abortion has not reduced the number of children in foster care or child abuse or poverty or single parenting in this country. All three have increased since the legalization of abortion many times greater than population increase could account for.
Once again:
changes to *EXISTING SYSTEMS* =/= magical transmogrification from one organism into another.
So anyone who identifies as pro choice is a sociopath according to you? 100million+ people?
"Oh please. If prenates are complete and fully formed, as you keep saying, they would be able to sustain their own lives independently."
Umm…how does that follow? You're making an assumption "If _x_, then _z_." which simply isn't so. Very young children are dependent upon their parents for continued survival, up until around age 7 or so. Such is the life of the placental mammal, homo sapiens.
The entire point of gestation is to *finish* development of a human organism to the point that it can carry on its own internal life processes unassisted. I'd love to see the neonate that can "survive independently". They don't exist. But I guess neonates are merely potential lives until the point post-partum at which they can wipe their own bums.
All bodily systems are present by the end of the embryonic stage, by the way. 😉
No. Some are just victims of marketing, propaganda, and a shutting-out of thought and discussion.
My current husband considered himself "Pro-Choice" until he was actually allowed to give the issue serious thought. Turns out, the "Pro-Choice" side really loathes discourse, so they try to discourage it as much as possible by making people adopt the "Pro-Choice" position by default without thinking about it, lest they be accused of "U HAET WIMMIN, OMFFGZZ!"
PC loathes discourse…which is why you immediately shat all over Chalkdust after she made a heartfelt post about miscarriage.
Infants don't need to borrow someone else's lungs to breathe for them.
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ln6s3k18WC1qdf6w8o1_r1_500.gif
I'm talking about it. I'm talking about how double-minded it is, and how sad it is that she's had to dehumanize her own children just to maintain her PC position. Her child who died isn't going to get any mourning from his/her own mother, because she's had to convince herself that abortion is "no big deal" for so long, that she feels compelled to view her child's death as "no big deal" just to stay consistent. This is evident from the statement: "What undermines my ability to cope are pro-life billboards–you know, the ones that want to remind me that my prenate had a heartbeat for eleven days or so before it died."-she feels the pangs of reality by being given the facts which cut through her denial, and is bothered by the cognitive dissonance of her PC position ("No big deal.") coupled with the KNOWLEDGE (Yes. Think about that for a minute. A simple fact-KNOWLEDGE-of her once living child is what caused her this discomfort. That should concern you and your ilk.) of her child's short life.
I'm unvarnished. That's how I engage in discourse. Getting the conflict out of the way helps to get to the meat of the issue. So yeah, let's talk about it. Discourse is good, and saying what's on your mind helps to get things started.
…But they still use the oxygen. You're just up-in-arms over the method of delivery. I don't think it matters. You do. And there's the impasse. Can we rap this up now please?
I don't believe a word you've written. In fact, I suspect your friends are holding out for a perfectly healthy Caucasian neonate … and probably a male … because they're too selfish to be bothered with any of the other kids who are available.
typical pro-child-murder
Please cite where I have advocated infanticide. I'll wait.
So?
Then discuss it with her instead of being so dismissive and hateful. Please?
All children anywhere have been born. Zygotes, embryos, and fetuses aren't children.
I don't claim there is a change in organism.
I'm inclined to side with the dictionary over your personal opinion.
So I am right. There are 200 million children that need to be adopted and you don't want to do what it takes to adopt them, but are willing to kill babies to force fetuses to be born.
And the same is true with the 110,000 children in the U.S. You are willing to kill born babies to force the birth of fetuses so you will have even more babies you can't get adopted.
There has been an increase in babies since Roe so there would naturally be an increase in the need for adoption, not a decrease. The way to decrease babies is to kill them the way the pro life movement does. the way to increase births is to allow abortion http://naturalabortionlaws.com/?p=79
Not my personal opinion, fact.
So you want to uproot 200million children and adopt them all out without knowing anything else. How naïve and unthinking.
I obviously cannot talk about every situation in every country, but there are NOT anywhere near 200 million in orphanages or living on streets. And depending on many factors, including age of child, adoption to a foreign country might not be the best solution. Plus, their home country has a sovereignty in this, and many do not allow or limit adoptions.
With the AIDS orphans, a few of the 20 million are in orphanages, but the majority are actually with family, mostly grandparents. The organization I donate to helps those families care for their own orphans. They help with food, school costs (not all public schools in the world are free – many require tuition, uniforms, and school supplies), seeds for gardening, AIDs prevention education for older children, and economic development within the villages. It would be cruel and unethical to uproot those orphans from what family they have left for an adoptive home here. Far better to see what needs to happen to allow them to stay with grandparents, or aunt or uncle, or even an older sibling.
The prolife movement DOES NOT kill babies! We believe in respect and caring for life from conception until natural death, at all stages of life!
I see you still agree that there are millions of children that need to be adopted and that you do not have the will to help them. You in fact choose to kill innocent born babies in an effort to produce more adoptable children. You are insane, you know that right?
The pro life movement kills innocent born babies and attempts to create more children to adopt, without adopting the ones that are already here. And it tries to convert innocent people into murderers.
The movement will not open its sites to debate the truth because it is a multibillion dollar cash cow that does not care about life, just cash.
You have a choice mommabear, you can save innocent born babies or you can let them die and instead attempt to save a fetus you cannot prove is human or alive. Your intentional choice is to murder babies.
That's weird, because what I posted was in the dictionary, and from here it appears that you're just supplying your opinion.
Now think about what you just said for awhile.
"The prolife movement DOES NOT kill babies! We believe in respect and caring for life from conception until natural death, at all stages of life!"
It has been pointed out to you how you are murdering babies and you choose to continue to murder innocent life. Your empty statement does not resolve the scientific fact that you cannot save both fetuses and born babies, children and adults. Therefore you are proved to be killing life and because you refuse to stop, your murders are intentional.
The dictionary definition of a fetus doesn't define personhood. Hence, the gigantic debate around abortion rights. A women who is pregnant can decide whether or not to bring a fetus to fruition. A fetus doesn't have more rights than the women who is pregnant. A zygote, embryo, fetus has no rights to be carried to term or to be born.
Furthermore, there is no consensus from the scientific, religious, or the community at large on when personhood begins. To say that you've solved this with a dictionary definition is silly at best.
Very young children are dependent upon their parents for continued survival,
Nope. Anyone can care for a born infant; otherwise, adoption would be impossible.
However, only the woman can be pregnant … and only she can decide what to do about that, one way or the other.
For infant adoptions (private and public), it is estimated there are 30
to 40 couples waiting for each baby.
That's because they're selfish.
Wouldn't it be better to fix the
system to match up adoptive parents and children, to do away with
antiquated ideas such as my friends have run into of race-matching (on
the part of agency handling adoptions – my friends will take any race)?
It is my opinion that Adoptive Parent A should just be matched up with Child A, and no complaints permitted, right on down the list … with a permanent eligibility exclusion for refusal.
"What, you didn't want a developmentally delayed female toddler and would rather hold out for a perfectly healthy male neonate? What would you have done if you had given birth to a developmentally delayed female? Next!"
The prolife movement DOES NOT kill babies!
No, it kills born, sapient, sentient women. Ref. Savita Halapannavar.
You are insane.
No love, someone whose wanted pregnancy nearly killed her and who will NOT gestate another. Period.
She feels the pangs of reality by being given the facts which cut
through her denial, and is bothered by the cognitive dissonance of her
PC position.
Do you actually want to engage with this particular point, or do you just want to have fun mocking me? Because I've been thinking about why pro-life billboards bother me, and I'm not coming up with "because I think they're right".
Thank you for the support.
Abortion is 14x safer than gestation and delivery. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22270271
If we're going to base this discussion on relative risk, I suggest you start griping about women remaining pregnant, since it is far more dangerous.
My experience with life-endangering pregnancy, BTW, is primary.
Wow. Three paragraphs, and yet totally non-responsive.
Just a little pro-tip, Faye; Merriam-Webster does not determine biological reality. In case you skipped a day in class, here are the stages of development of *all* viviparous vertebrates:
In utero:
Zygote
Embryo
Fetus
Ex utero:
Infant
Child <– See that? Ex utero.
Adolescent/juvenile
Adult
I'm glad to help you with this gap in your education.