Appealing to Authorities

[Today’s guest post by Nate Sheets is the fourth of a series. The next post in the series will arrive sometime next week.]

When we would rather trust another person’s opinion over any evidence presented, we may very well be appealing to authority. Again, remember that with logical fallacies, we are focusing on nothing more than the argument being made at the time by either party: does the authority we cite have evidence to support the claim, or are we using their position, title, or experiences as the evidence?

The Balance of Expert Opinion and Appealing to Authority
In the midst of creating a case for our side in an argument, it is common to quote experts on any variety of subjects. In the pro-life arena, many people quote doctors, previous abortion directors, or women who have had abortions in an attempt to solidify their defense of their position.

But appealing to authority occurs when the person arguing either directly or indirectly uses another person’s “authority” as the basis for the validity to a claim.

Experts Can Be Wrong/Biased, and Experts Can Be Misquoted
A former abortion clinic director may make a statement which is false. To assert, “Planned Parenthood has abortion quotas–Cindy Larson [fictitious former clinic director] says so” is an appeal to authority. Other evidence (preferably non-anecdotal) needs to be presented, such as an internal document or a transcript of a conversation between clinic workers–and then we can evaluate how accurate or relevant that evidence is.

Additionally, we can skew an opponent’s expert’s quote as a way to support our own point of view. An abortionist admitting that life begins “at conception” seems like an “aha!” kind of moment, except that what an abortionist says about when life begins isn’t evidence: it’s their opinion. Likewise, many other abortionists may say that life doesn’t begin at conception, so where does that leave us? We can only look at the evidence for when life begins and, if there is controversy (hint hint: there is!), examine the evidence on both sides and draw a conclusion.

Appeals to Authority are Often Uncited Assertions
Most appeals to authority (at least in my experience) are just generalizations of a supposed authority’s opinion, but they lack any actual detail. This is a good sign that a person is appealing to authority rather than citing to support evidence. Some examples are below.

Pro-Choice Examples
Fallacy Why It’s A Fallacy
“Most scientists are pro-choice.”  Really? Perhaps the reality shows more varying, nuanced, or apathetic opinions than mere “pro-life” vs. “pro-choice”. There are also several reasons why one may be pro-choice: what is the link between science and the pro-choice position that this assertion tries to make?

Pro-Life Examples
Fallacy Why It’s A Fallacy
“Dr. Bernard Nathanson used to be an abortionist, and he says the fetus can feel pain.” This is not a citation–where is an actual quote? Additionally, what qualifications does Dr. Nathanson have to assert that fetuses can feel pain?
“The Catholic Church’s position on abortion is that it is wrong.” Stating the church’s position in any given topic does not present evidence to show that it is wrong. Many other churches are pro-choice or neutral on the subject. 

There is a fine line between citing sources as evidence and appealing to authority. When in doubt, ask yourself if you are presenting actual evidence or simply summarizing another person’s position.

500 replies
  1. says:

    I got an idea… If you are against abortion don't have one and you let other women decide for their own life. This way we can stop the debate about abortion and spend time on other things. Women will always find ways to abort unwanted pregnancies so the anti-choice crowd really does nothing but waste their time.

  2. says:

    No they ARE deciding for their own life because the ZEF does not have a life yet.

    It has not yet gained the ability to have brain function to even know it exists.

  3. says:

    Ok… how about 23 weeks vs 26 weeks.. or 22 weeks vs 26 weeks 🙂

    Before or after viability an unborn child is the SAME human being – just at a different stage of development. Killing him or her at any point in pregnancy – 2 weeks or 32 weeks – has the same result – that being that a human being is denied a chance at a full and productive life.

  4. says:

    Glad to see this series return. This entry got me thinking, is there a widely accepted term for the opposite of an appeal to authority fallacy? That is to say, an argument where a person dismisses a position because a group or person they see as undesirable holds it. For example, in secular circles many people dismiss the pro-life position because it is held by the Catholic church and other conservative religious groups.

  5. says:

    I think that would be an ad hominem fallacy, JDC. Except instead of an individual a position is rejected because of what an institution believes. It can be tough not to fall into this–I myself tend to roll my eyes at any proclamation the Catholic church makes; but I have to remember that whatever issues I take with it or other religions don't have any bearing on the argument being made, right now. (Unless of course their argument is "Because Jesus says so.")

  6. says:

    These posts aren't presenting pro-life arguments, someone45, so I am not sure why you are responding with this comment here. We are simply talking about logical fallacies and how both sides (including the pro-life side) uses them.

  7. says:

    >> Most scientists are pro-choice

    As a criticism, you say "There are several reasons why pro-choice". That is beyond the scope of this assertion, which merely states that they are pro-choice, not what led them to it. If it is stated in a way that says "scientists know better than you, and they are pro-choice", then yeah, this is an argument from authority, but if presented with polling data, it could merely be a demographic data point, much like "most fans of Duck Dynasty are pro-life" (don't know if that's true, but Phil has stated he is pro-life, and many supporters of Phil seem to think this is a good thing, along with his hating the sin of homosexuality but loving the homosexual, and belief that African Americans were never mistreated in the deep south in the 60s.).

    As for the actual claim "most scientists are pro-choice", as a guy who is a professional scientist, I would have to say this claim is most likely true. Never ACTUALLY asked my colleagues, but judging how they feel about current events and well, some have stickers on their cars that say "Pro-choice", I'd put the pro-choice ratio at around 95% in our institute.

    I talked about this in the previous post, but I didn't want to appeal to authority, but wanted to point out that polling shows that the more education you have, the more pro-choice you are likely to be. Less than a high school diploma, you are 2x as likely to be pro-life. A graduate degree, you are almost 2x as likely to be pro-choice. A criticism was that this could be due more to social economic privilege, that the wealthy are more likely to be pro-life, and its not the "openning of the mind" that necessarily makes you pro-choice. I cited another related statistic, that more education makes you a lot more likely to accept the theory of evolution over creationism. The criticism was that the theory of evolution is taught in school, so of course more education would make you more likely to accept evolution, but pro-choice is not taught in schools. I felt this was a fair criticism.

    So I now also offer support for same-sex marriage. Compared to 18-29 year olds in general, college freshmen are more likely to accept same-sex marriage.

    So here is an issue which is also not taught in schools, but correlates with higher education levels, much like being pro-choice. So it seems to me that "scientists are more likely to be pro-choice" (experiential for me, but consistent with polling of highest degree earned vs. support for pro-choice) is TRUE, and well correlates with other seemingly "enlightened" positions to hold that are both taught in school (evolution) and not taught in school (support for gay marriage).

    While causation of more education == pro-choice cannot be conclusively drawn, a strong correlation can be seen in the data. To say that this correlation is NOT AT ALL causational seems to me to be slightly delusional.

  8. says:

    Hi Nate

    Also another thing one should point out regarding expert opinion. An expert in field X is not necessarily an expert in field Y. For example, Linus Pauling, while one of the founders of quantum chemistry, also made various claims about nutrition in his later years, specifically the efficacy of vitamin C in high doses.

    A recent example, Stephen Hawking saying conclusively that God doesn't exist. I am an atheist, and don't think that he exists, but I don't think anyone can conclusively prove he doesn't exist, even Stephen Hawking. I don't think anyone is an expert in this field.

  9. says:

    Myintx has stated that all human life from zygote to 120 yo is equally precious. When she speaks of abortion she spends 99% of her time writing about third trimester abortion.

    And uh, in case you have been living under a rock, "the pill kills" slogan was invented by the PL movement that also believes that murder is committed if a blastocyst is prevented from attaching to the uterine wall.

  10. says:

    I don't think anyone rejects any notion simply because the Catholic church holds that notion. I think they reject the notion because it's a horrible, abusive notion that happens to be held by the Catholic magisterium, and not even necessarily by mainstream Catholics.

  11. says:

    First, anyone who doesnt want to provide that chance to their own offspring just because they don't want their body utilized is beyond selfish and it's horrible that you are even on here fighting for selfishness… But I'm guessing you are fighting because you are one of those people.

    Second, the obligation a PARENT has to provide food and shelter to their offspring should override any feelings of selfishness someone has. Post viability abortion laws help in that regard. We need more abortion laws pre-viability.

  12. says:

    "Selfish" is a gas lighting technique used with limited success against women. Shame on you for attempting it. I have children. I stopped having children long ago. NOT because I didn't want my body utilized. Because I didn't want my entire life utilized in the pursuit of having children. I had children because I wanted them. That doesn't mean any number of children will do. Because I wanted three, it doesn't follow that I would also want four, five, or six. It also doesn't follow that if one of my kids needed an organ from me to go on living, I should just go ahead and fork it over, because heaven forbid you should deem me "selfish." You can take that attitude and shove it someplace. I need my organs, too. And thinking of myself is not "selfish."

  13. says:

    Sperm is not a human being. An unborn child – at any stage – IS a human being. A newborn is a potential adult… doesn't mean we can kill a newborn because something may happen and that newborn may not make it to adulthood anyway.

  14. says:

    A newborn is a potential adult… doesn't mean we can kill it because he or she may never be an adult and may never be able to contribute to society, or she or she is inconvenient or unwanted….

    Sperm and egg are not human beings – . A unique human being is created at fertilization, not birth. If killed before birth or after, that human being is denied a chance at a full and productive life.

  15. says:

    They are not "killing to make their lives convenient." They are refusing the use of their body. Huge difference. If someone asked me for bone marrow, and I shot them that's one thing. If I say "No, you may not have mine" that's something else. YOU are selfish. You wish to control the lives of strangers who's life you don't live, and who's problems you don't care about, for the sake of your feelings. Your feelings don't matter, and aren't important to the lives of strangers. Get used to the disappointment.

  16. says:

    I understand sort of where you are coming from myintx.

    I'm a materialist, and believe that if I am killed before I have gained the capacity to feel pain or suffering, I cannot be harmed. To a person like me, the idea of "right to life" and that it is possible to be denied a chance at life is absurd. I think people on both sides need to examine what are the core beliefs on these basic issues, otherwise risk talking past each other.

  17. says:

    There is nothing selfish about women spacing their pregnancies and limiting the number of children they want to produce. This is family planning. Every pregnancy does not need to end in a live birth. Women are not chattel or brood mares and shouldn't be treated as such.

  18. says:

    I can also have an abortion. I'm not obligated to gestate because I have a uterus any more than you're obligated to run a marathon for breast cancer because you have legs. You're just 'making sh*t up' as you go along.

  19. says:

    You go ahead and keep having babies until your body gives out. That's your decision and you don't get to insult or judge women who don't want to. I find what you've said to lady black insulting, out of line, and mean.

  20. says:

    Killing an unborn child because he or she is inconvenient or unwanted is MEAN. A woman who doesn't want to get pregnant should use 2 or 3 forms of protection (forms that would bring the odds of getting pregnant to less than 1% per woman per year) or abstain. If every couple in a consensual relationship did that, it's likely we'd have 1/10 the number of abortions we have today. Maybe there would be more sympathy from most if they knew the only abortions that were done were for when the woman's life was truly endangered, rape/incest or 2-3 forms of birth control failing.

  21. says:

    You could give someone a sedative in a drink to knock them out, kill them and they would never know it. Doesn't make the killing right.

    There are some that think killing a newborn is OK (heck, Margaret Sanger used to think that). That is their belief. Doesn't make it right. A human being's life begins at fertilization. Birth is a milestone, but that human beings life began will before birth – it should be protected from the moment he or she came into existence – at fertilization.

  22. says:

    You should have said "no you may not have mine" before you got pregnant. Once pregnant, it is KILLING, not 'refusing'. KILLING.

    People use their feelings all the time when they VOTE for people who think like they do – e.g. pro-life candidates. With more pro-life laws being passed, it's only a matter of time before one makes it up to the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v wade. Then states can make the laws their people FEEL are best for all the human beings in their state – including the unborn human beings.

  23. says:

    I did say "No, you may not have mine." And if I turn up pregnant, I'll abort if I see fit. Nobody is actually going to pass your nutty laws. Nobody ever would.

  24. says:

    No, having an abortion is not mean. Forcing a woman to remain pregnant against her will is. It's an authoritarian concept I want no part of. I fully support a woman who wants to be pregnant. She should have all the resources necessary to do this. I also support women who use birth control and if they do not want to be pregnant for their personal reason and decision to have an abortion. I am not judge and jury in other peoples lives. I trust women will do what's right for them and their families.

  25. says:

    because she wants everyone to believe that all abortions occur at 24 weeks. In reality we know most abortions occur in the first trimester and for anyone woman that doesn't want to be pregnant ASAP. But myintx would like to throw out as much guilt and shame as possible.

  26. says:

    Response to your first paragraph. What you are saying is that pregnancy is a punishment for having sex. If a woman consents to sex that is not consent to pregnancy.

  27. says:

    Hi Ms. Spacecat

    I think we can agree that "right" is a totally human construct. As such, I think the idea of inherent rights "existing" is absurd. Given this, I think we identify and grant rights because they protect and project certain societal ideals, and keeps society working harmoniously. As societies mature, we sometimes expand membership. At one time, slaves in the US were denied recognition as human beings on par with white men. Such a system, while profitable for a while, caused social instability, and in many slave-owning nations, slave revolts sometimes even toppled society.

    In this way, I believe we grant rights and recognize, for example that slaves are humans out of a need to keep society healthy. So where does the "right to life" of the fetus fit in? The way I see it, denying this right does not cause instability in society, or cause society to devalue life in general. I've talked about why I think it is not possible to harm a fetus, given my materialistic world view. For a person like me, I would see fit to grant fetuses "right to life" if it turned out that 1) fetuses actually can experience suffering during an abortion or 2) devaluing the life of the fetus causes the born members of society to devalue life. 1) As a materialist, what we experience in the here and now is all we've got. If I have never possessed any desires or hopes and cannot feel pain or fear yet, aborting me will have no consequences. This is why I feel justified in assuming fetuses cannot suffer during early term abortions. 2) I see how society has changed since Roe vs. Wade in the US, and I do not actually see evidence of the devaluation of life. Also, looking at another country like Japan where abortion is accepted by about 90% of the citizens, I also don't see evidence that abortion, when legal causes people to devalue life. In both countries, the number of abortions have continued to drop, suggesting that people won't have an abortion just for fun when its legal. In Japan, many women will keep the memory of the aborted fetuses alive, and will sometimes talk to them in a similar way as they talk to their ancestors through the family alter.

    This is why I do not think a "right to life" is that crucial or actually real.

  28. says:

    To do that to a born person, you are disrespecting any prior wishes they may have had to keep on living longer. And also to give them a drug without their consent is also bad, so this is a bad analogy in 2 ways. A fetus has never had hopes or a will, and cannot feel pain yet. From my perspective as a materialist, we only have the here and now. If I do not possess and never have possessed the capabilities to feel pain or fear, it is simply not possible to harm me. Do you at least not see that as a valid position, even if you do not agree with it? I agree with your position that "human life begins at fertilization", but do not agree that it has all the right to life as a born person does, but I can see your position as a valid one to hold, yet not agree with it. Do you find my materialist view a valid one (but disagree), or do you find it as completely invalid?

  29. says:

    The strongest PL argument against what you wrote is that the embryo is denied a future, and therein lies the rub…

    If, as PL arguments go, all humans have an inalienable right to life, and the right to have a future, and that this right overrides bodily autonomy, then why *not* forced organ and tissue donation for the sick and dying?

    Is a 5 year old with leukemia not worth as much as an embryo/ is it not a terrible tragedy if that 5 year old is denied a future because someone found it too 'inconvenient' to donate bone marrow? Seriously, if bone marrow donation was mandatory many sick children *would* be guaranteed a future, no? And I have heard some ardent pro-lifers argue that every life is valuable, no matter how short, no matter how diseased – we are all of equal value. So if we can demand that an embryo is entitled to a future at the expense of a woman, then why can't the rest of us have our bodies exploited to give those dying 5 year olds a future?

  30. says:

    A fertilized human egg is a human being and should have a right to life – the same right to life an unborn child at 39 weeks should have and the same right to life as a newborn. Kill either one and a human being is denied a chance at a full and productive life.

  31. says:

    Family planning should occur BEFORE the pregnancy. Once pregnant, a new member of the family is in the womb. Killing a child – born or unborn – to control the size of the family is eugenics.

  32. says:

    So, let me see if I understand your position… you say it's OK to kill as long as someone cannot feel pain, but you don't approve of giving a drug to someone so they don't feel pain because they might have prior wishes…What about an unborn child at 30 weeks? no prior wishes… can he or she be drugged and killed in the womb if unwanted? How about a newborn 1 minute old… no prior wishes… same question…

    "devaluing the life of the fetus causes the born members of society to devalue life." Not sure what this means since an unborn child is alive…. is 'life' and is devalued by pro-aborts. So, since an unborn child is devalued then abortion should be illegal.

    I don't agree with your point of view. I don't think it's OK to kill a human being if they cannot feel pain. "we only have the here and now. " – If a relative of yours was brain dead (and never made their wishes known on whether they wanted the plug pulled) and a doctor said it would be likely they would have full brain activity within a few months, would you have the plug pulled because were are in the "here and now" or would you wait a few months and see if their brain started working again?

    FYI: I have enjoyed debating with you. Much more so than with those on this forum who resort to insults.

  33. says:

    And – Loki's neck fallacy again.

    Refusing to have sex so that your eggs can be fertilized denies a 'human being' a 'chance at a full and productive life'. Arguably, having an oops baby on purpose like you did to trap a man denies him a 'chance at a full and productive life'. Do you have a point, or is it just sad feelie talk?

  34. says:

    **Thinking of yourself is the very definition of selfish ("arising from concern with one's own welfare or advantage in disregard of others)**

    And I'm somehow worth less than all these others, thereby making 'selfish' synonymous with 'evil' because why?

    Oh? And why isn't your rape and extortion activities 'selfish'? Because Myintx is more special than everyone else?

  35. says:

    ** When they would kill to make their life more convenient, it's beyond selfish.**

    Stop breathing. You're 'killing' thousands of bacteria every time you inhale. That's 'beyond selfish'. Boo fucking hoo.

  36. says:

    ** A woman who doesn't want to get pregnant should use 2 or 3 forms of protection**

    And what group deliberately lies about the effectiveness of said protection, in hopes of getting people to go with the 'abstain' route, but with the actual results of people having sex and not bothering with the protection, because this group has told them it isn't effective?

    Oh yeah? And what group keeps objecting to most forms of 'protection' on the grounds that the protection kills an 'innocent little zef baby' by preventing it from implanting?

  37. says:

    **Once pregnant, it is KILLING, not 'refusing'. KILLING**

    So, if I manage to drill a hole in you and start sucking out your bone marrow for someone who 'needs' it for their 'very life', then you aren't allowed to take the drill out, if I ever once manage to get it in?

  38. says:

    **If an unborn child at any stage is killed, it has the same result as killing a newborn – that is, a human being is denied a chance at life**

    If you don't have sex at all, and the egg isn't fertilized, the same thing is true. Boo fucking hoo.

  39. says:

    Again – what's your definition of a 'human being' that includes zefs, and in exactly what manner does this definition, and nothing else, justify having rights. This is the 17th time I've asked that.

  40. says:

    I agree that rights are abstractions that do not exist in the way that trees or rocks exist. Rights are principles or ideals that society should recognize for the benefit of all. I would much rather live in a society where my human rights were taken for granted than one in which I had to prove, to someone else's satisfaction, that I was worthy of having rights.

    I do think that human beings can be harmed without their knowledge. To take slavery as an example, suppose a society had a hereditary slave class and that scientists developed an in-utero treatment that altered fetal brain development in such a way that the human born into slavery would be able to carry out orders but would have no desires of their own, not even the will to live. Suppose that these alterations also rewired the brain in such a way that the slaves experienced intense pleasure from obeying their owners. The slaves would be happy and would be incapable of revolting, but I think it is clear that this would be morally wrong. Or suppose that a genetic test was developed that could identify fetuses that were predisposed towards becoming gay, and there was a gene "therapy" that would ensure that they grew up heterosexual. Would it be wrong for parents to treat their child in this way? I think it would, even if the children so treated never found out what had been done to them.

    You don't think that legal abortion has any negative effects on society. If all pro-choice advocates made a sharp distinction between third trimester abortions and earlier ones, or between abortion and infanticide, then I would be inclined to agree with you. However, they don't make this distinction. Pro-choice philosophers like Peter Singer argue that there is no morally relevant distinction between a fetus and a newborn baby and that infanticide should therefore be legal. He doesn't consider fetuses or infants to be persons. Other philosophers call infanticide "after-birth abortion"

    and a spokesperson for Planned Parenthood said that the question of what to do with an infant born alive after a botched late abortion should be left up to the mother and her doctor.
    Euthanasia advocates often cite abortion as a legal precedent. They may advocate it for infants (not a person yet), the demented elderly (not a person any more) or the severely mentally handicapped (never will be persons). I read a lot of what disabled people write about disability rights, and nearly all of them agree that with the push towards legalization of euthanasia and assisted suicide in recent years, disabled people are increasingly seen as a burden to others and as having lives not worth living. They are often pressured not to take life-sustaining medical treatment and may have DNR orders placed on their medical charts without their knowledge or consent.

  41. says:

    Prolifers only want to abuse and force girls and women by claiming that a girl or a woman who chooses to have abortion is a killer so abortion ought to be made illegal/difficult to obtain.

    My evidence for this is your comment here.

  42. says:

    Define 'human being' in such a way that it includes zygotes, and that that definition, with no additional qualities, explains why it has 'rights'.

    This is the 18th time I have asked you to define that term.

    Otherwise all your babbling about 'human beings should be protected in all stages of developement' amounts to is: 'clumps of cells with human DNA but no functioning brain, that I pretend to have sad feelies about, should be 'protected' so that they can be used to punish human beings who do actually have a brain and feelings who have offended me by daring to be happy in their lives.'

  43. says:

    Oh… and is there a 'human being' involved when you decide to rape and extort that 'human being'? Or are adult men just clumps of cells for myintx to try to extort money from, and she doesn't have sad feelies about them because their head isn't cute enough or something.

    And stop already demanding 'proof'. Everyone here knows your story with babydaddy. I have better things to do than play hunt the slipper on the internet for the posts where you told your story, which you've likely as not deleted now, since some people have finally called you out on it.

  44. says:

    What is your definition of 'human being'? This is the 19th time I've asked you that. Right now your definition is a cell with human DNA. Sorry, the mere existence of human DNA or the potential to 'someday' have a brain, doesn't grant rights. Neither do your sad feelies, or it's 'very life'. And there are no 'human beings' even with a brain, that have a special right to occupy someone else's body.

  45. says:

    The abortion industry manipulates women into killing so they can rake in big bucks for killing.

    Pregnancy centers try to HELP women facing unexpected pregnancies. If the womens reasons for wanting an abortion having nothing to do with a fixable problem such as finances or concerns over whether she'd be a good mother, adoption is brought up as an option. The goal of adoption is to give a new human being a chance at life, not to make a rich couple happy.

  46. says:

    Abortion should be illegal because it takes the life of a human being that has done nothing wrong. The only time abortion should be allowed is if it is absolutely necessary to save the woman's life.

  47. says:

    Define 'human being'.

    Or is what you really mean is: "Abortion kills a clump of cells with no functioning brain, that I'm going to call a 'human being' and pretend to have sad feelies about because it has human DNA, so that I can use it to punish everyone and make them as miserable as I am because I got stuck with my failed attempt to oops babydaddy."

  48. says:

    **Before or after viability an unborn child is the SAME human being – just at a different stage of development.**

    And what were we before conception? WHAT exists in the fertilized egg a second after conception, that didn't exist in either the egg or the sperm a second before conception. No DNA in it that wasn't either in the egg or sperm. Not a single atom in the zygote that wasn't in either the egg or the sperm. Does a fairy come down and sprinkle 'human being' dust on it? Or is the zygote just another stage in developement, that comes after the egg and sperm?

  49. says:

    okay. Lets play your little game myintx. You claim the zygote is a 'human being' and that human beings 'should be protected at every stage of developement'.

    Fine. I think 'human beings should have a full complement of rights and responsibilities at every stage of developement'. Can I prosecute a newborn for manslaughter and put it in jail if the mother dies during childbirth. Can I prosecute it for assault due to the injuries caused by childbirth. Can parents require a 4 year old boy to pay for his food and put him to work in a factory to do so? Can a 4 year old girl get a job as a hooker in the Mustang Ranch to pay for her food?

    Or do you just want to treat the 'different stages of developement' as a 'real person for sure' only in SOME things? Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Either it's a 'real person for sure' with all the protections, rights, and responsibilities thereof, or it isn't. You don't get it both ways.

  50. says:

    The abortion industry manipulates women into killing so they can rake in big bucks for killing.

    Demonstrably, you know nothing about the provision of abortion in the US or anywhere else.

    Pregnancy centers try to HELP women facing unexpected pregnancies.

    Demonstrably, you know nothing about the "crisis pregnancy centres" that either pretend to be abortion clinics to lie to women about how dangerous abortion is (it isn't) or that simply funnel desperate women into the adoption industry.

  51. says:

    Abortion should be legal and accessible as abortion bans take the lives of human beings that have done nothing wrong.

    That prolifers think that pregnant women don't count as "human beings who have done nothing wrong" just proves the basic immorality and inhumanity of the prolife movement: akin to pro-slavery. Slaveowners also saw women they could force to breed as less than human.

  52. says:

    Girls and women who need abortions are innocent human beings: that prolifers are happy for them to die rather than have access to safe legal abortion says it all.

  53. says:

    Unless a woman's life is truly endangered from her pregnancy, no one 'NEEDS' an abortion. It's a 'WANT'. And no 'wants' should result in the death of a human being that has done nothing wrong

  54. says:

    And making an 'oops' baby on purpose like you did is mature?

    Refusing to answer my question (this is the 21st time now) of what exactly your definition of a 'human being' is, so as to be able to keep playing your equivocation game is mature?

    You remind me of the spoiled bitches at my work who call me 'immature' because I like to read comic books, but they are so effing mature that they can't even set an alarm clock and get their butts into work on time without my calling them every morning as if I were their mommy or something.

  55. says:

    What Myintx really has, IMO, is a giant-sized case of existential angst. She keeps thinking "But what if I didn't exist" and projecting it onto a zygote.

  56. says:

    You need to learn the difference between academic philosophical arguments and generalizing about "what pro-choicers think," IMO.

    And you CANNOT have a DNR order without your own consent. Nice try.

  57. says:

    A fertilized human egg is a human being and should have a right to life

    Will you be seeking to have all women arrested each month when they menstruate? After all, 70 percent of "human beings" (according to your definition) exit a woman's body that way …

  58. says:

    "Selfish" is a gas lighting technique used with limited success against women.

    Exactly. Myintx is just pissed because she sees herself as having made a huge, selfless sacrifice — and anyone who isn't as miserable as she is, well, that can only be because others are "selfish.'

    Myintx needs to read a book by Dr. Freida Porat called "Positive Selfishness." Alternately, she can look to William Shakespeare: "Self-love is not so great a sin a self-neglect."

  59. says:

    Exactly. Of course, and I have been thinking about this of late..why does this torturous (And I do believe it causes them a great deal of anxiety) case of existential angst not translate to concerns about sustaining the lives, by any means possible, of dying infants and 5 year olds? Where is the empathy for the 5 year old who will be denied a 'full and productive life' because myintx was too selfish to donate bone marrow?

    I suspect that it's because pregnancy is related to sex, and it all feels very 'unseemly' to have some slutty slut slutting it up and then killing an innocent widdle embwyo because she couldn't stop spreading her slutty slut legs for every man (or husband) in her vicinity. This is where the horror comes in. That someone might be experiencing some *pleasure* at the expense of an innocent, angelic embwyo.

    Of course, it does still go beyond the whole sex factor, just look at the reaction to Brittany Maynard's decision to die with dignity. The invective hurled at her…the hate. The thought that someone, somewhere, might take control of their lives, is absolutely terrifying.

    When I think of pro-lifers who oppose euthanasia and abortion (or even dying without intense suffering, hi Mother Theresa), I always think of this:

    It is no surprise, imo, that the *most* fanatically religious also tend to be the most 'pro-life'.

  60. says:

    You don't think that legal abortion has any negative effects on society.

    No, it doesn't, because fewer unwanted children are born, to be abused and yes, to be victims of infanticide.

    And women will generally have the exact number of children that they intend to have – at the right time, and spacing. Simply having kids because you can is irresponsible, imo. Having a child when you can create the best possible quality of life is the responsible thing to do. Spacing births for a healthier child – and mom – is the responsible thing to do. Simply creating 'life because it's life' is the height of irresponspibility, imo. You believe in quantity of life, I believe in quality.

  61. says:

    If there are abortion bans, all people have to do is OBEY THE LAW. We're not going to keep something so horrible legal just because someone might do it anyway and get hurt…. people sometimes kill their newborns. What if they dont want their newborn and they don't want the mental anguish from knowing their child is in the system? can they kill so they don't 'suffer'? Heck no. They are killing a human being. A human being is killed in every abortion too. Abortion should only be done if absolutely necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman.

  62. says:

    "Zygote: This cell results from the union of an oocyte
    and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).
    The expression fertilized ovum refers to a secondary oocyte that is impregnated
    by a sperm; when fertilization is complete, the oocyte becomes a zygote."
    Keith L. Moore and T.V.N. Persaud, The Developing Human (Philadelphia: W.B.
    Saunders Company, 1998). (FYI: Keith Moore is an embryologist)

    All innocent human beings should have a basic right to life. They should not be KILLED because they are unwanted or inconvenient.

  63. says:

    Hi Ms spacecats

    OK, so we agree on what rights are.

    As for your reply to the slavery part, if we COULD genetically engineer a slave class of humans to be servile and they would derive pleasure from it (kinda like worker bees?), I would not in principle be opposed to such a modification, as I am not in principle opposed to GMO foods. Though in developing that line of humans, there'd probably be lots of trial-and-error on getting the right genes knocked out and in, and lots of suffering there, and because of that experimentation, I'd be against trying to manufacture these clones. In the same vein, if the "gay gene" exists (I think its a combo of genetic and epigenetic factors) and could be turned on or off by the parents, I see nothing wrong with it. So I don't agree with you there. Genetic engineering of humans in principle I am not against, but because to reach that goal there'd have to be lots of trial and error, I would be against it.

    As fiona64 states, not all pro-choicers have the same views. I am a pro-choicer who believes certain restrictions on abortion are warranted, ie OK until 24wks or so. Also, note that certain positions can also evolve in time. I'm sure I wouldn't agree very much with Margaret Sanger. I am a pro-choice advocate that believes in distinctions between early and late term abortions. Just like ALL pro-life advocates don't necessarily believe in forcing child rape victims to have that baby.

    As for your points on disabled and euthanasia. I myself am an advocate of euthanasia. I myself do not wish to have overly aggressive life sustaining measures applied to me if I am not likely to come out of a coma, or if dementia makes me unable to recognize any of my family members and friends. I'm sure there are certain similarities between the abortion debate and euthanasia. I would have a problem if euthanasia was forced on people who have specifically expressed that they do wish to be kept alive at all costs, and there should be strict measures in place to assure that abuses don't happen on either side, but that is an implementation issue. In principle, I am for pro-choice on euthanasia, as was my now deceased grandmother, and my parents. For me, life is worth living if I can experience it, and when the time comes that I cannot live a high-quality life anymore, I would not wish to prolong it.

  64. says:

    "Zygote: This cell results from the union of an oocyte
    and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).
    The expression fertilized ovum refers to a secondary oocyte that is impregnated
    by a sperm; when fertilization is complete, the oocyte becomes a zygote."
    Keith L. Moore and T.V.N. Persaud, The Developing Human (Philadelphia: W.B.
    Saunders Company, 1998). (FYI: Keith Moore is an embryologist)

    your babydaddy b s is making you look like you're grasping at straws to justify the killing of unborn children… pretty pathetic.

  65. says:

    Unless you yourself are pregnant and needing an abortion, you have no idea how to distinguish "need" from "want". You merely want to ban safe legal abortion, and your "want" will result in many, many deaths of innocent human beings who have done nothing wrong.

  66. says:

    Do you really believe the only reason people don't kill newborn babies is because it's illegal?

    What a strange, strange world you live in.

    Making abortion illegal doesn't take away the need for abortions: it just ensures abortions are performed illegally – usually at greater expense and risk.

    It also ensures that a woman who needs an abortion to preserve her health can be forced through pregnancy and childbirth with consequent huge, permanent damage to her health, without any concern from prolifers because all they care about is force.

  67. says:

    CPCs lie to and deceive women.

    CPCs exposed:

    We had volunteers of reproductive age go to CPCs and pose as visitors seeking information about all of their options, including abortion. The investigations took place in Austin, Dallas, Houston, Bryan/College Station, El Paso and their surrounding suburbs. Eight of the investigated CPCs receive state funding from Texas Pregnancy Care Network and two CPCs receive funding from the “Choose Life” license plates. Our investigations revealed that CPCs use similar tactics to pressure people into continuing their unintended pregnancies, including stalling access to health care so that pregnancy progresses, proliferating false information about health risks associated with abortion and providing incorrect information about fetal development. Use the menus at the top and side of the page or the list below to explore the findings of our 2014 crisis pregnancy center research.

    Shady Sonograms- Learn about how CPCs use ultrasounds to manipulate people into continuing their pregnancies.

    Delay Tactics- Find out how CPCs delay pregnant people’s access to healthcare services.

    Lies and Misinformation- Discover some of the lies that CPCs tell their visitors about abortion and fetal development.

    Scare Tactics- CPCs will say anything to convince their visitors to not have an abortion, check out this section to learn more.

    Service Limitations-CPCs are incapable of handling the nuances of unintended pregnancy and there are many limitations to the services they offer, visit this page to find out more.

    What about the CPC industry? ( "The Texas Legislature has increased the funding to the Texas Alternatives to Abortion Program over the years, and has most recently budgeted for $5,150,000 in 2014. "

    More sources:

  68. says:

    I never said it was OK to kill someone because they cannot feel pain.
    If that someone cannot feel pain, has never expressed a wish to live, and
    will never be around to regret this loss, I simply cannot see the problem.
    A person in a coma presumably prior to being in a coma, might have

    For the aborted fetus, aborting it to me is akin to not having conceived it in the first place. Until rudimentary brain functions are in place, the fetus to me is not yet "experiencing life", and as such cannot find meaning in it, even in the most rudimentary way. I simply don't see anything special in conception alone. Conception happens billions and billion times a year in all species all over the earth. To me conception itself is neither miraculous nor special.

    An analogy I made before is conception is like creation of a blank MS Word document "Untitled 1". When another blank "Untitled 2" is created, it is actually not byte-by-byte identical to "Untitled 1". In that sense they are unique, the blank document contains some unique meta-data supplied by Microsoft from the outset. This meta-data is auto-generated and pseudo-random, and probably is some fairly long string of alphanumeric bits – long enough that the chance of generating an identical one is highly unlikely, say 1 in (26+10)^20. Kinda like identical genetic material being extremely unlikely. However without someone actively writing his or her thoughts into it, the meta-data being unique to me alone is not enough for me to value it. For me, adding non-trivial user-generated content into that file is akin to a fetus gaining some rudimentary brain function, and starts processing sensory input on its own. Prior to that, a fetus to me is really just a mass of cells differentiated from other fetuses only by its unique DNA. Unique does not necessarily mean valuable. To me, life at that stage is neither special or meaningful.

  69. says:

    Do you understand how horribly women are treated in countries where abortion is illegal, like El Salvador? Women are imprisoned for miscarriage. Christina Quintanilla was 17 years old at the time of her miscarriage. She was sentenced to 30 years in prison.

  70. says:

    And this is exactly what happens when abortion is illegal. I applaud the El Salvadorians for being consistent with their pro-life position. If abortion is the murder of an innocent, then the woman SHOULD NOT be shown compassion or understanding. Every miscarriage should be deemed a potential crime and investigated. She needs to be treated like a murderer, or else anti-abortion laws will be a farce, and women will be encouraged to try self-inducing miscarriages or going to illegal providers.

    To me this seems like a no-win social policy. Make it illegal and STRONGLY enforced and you make every miscarriage suspect. Make it illegal but WEAKLY enforced, and you create a potential public health crisis of women taking it into their own hands or going to illegal providers.

  71. says:

    You were created at fertilization Ann. They lifecycle of a human being starts at fertilization.

    Dr. Alfred M. Bongiovanni, professor of pediatrics and
    obstetrics at the University of Pennsylvania:

    “I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception…. I submit that human life is present throughout this entire sequence from conception to adulthood and that any interruption at any point throughout this time constitutes a termination of
    human life…. I am no more prepared to say that these early stages of development in the womb represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty…is not a human being. This is human life at every stage.”

    Dr. Jerome LeJeune, professor of genetics at the University of Descartes in Paris, was the discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down syndrome: “after fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being.” He stated that this “is no longer a matter of taste or opinion,” and “not a metaphysical
    contention, it is plain experimental evidence.” He added, “Each individual has
    a very neat beginning, at conception.”

    In 1981 (April 23-24) a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee held
    hearings where they discussed when human life begins. Internationally-known geneticists and biologists spoke.

    The official Senate report reached this conclusion:

    “Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being – a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings.”

    I'll trust DOCTORS over a pro-abort any day.

  72. says:

    Is every miscarriage after viability investigated by the police? NO!

    People die of natural causes every day. It doesn't make killing an elderly person OK just because some of his friends may have died of natural causes.

  73. says:

    Margaret Sanger:
    “The most merciful thing that the large family
    does to one of its infant members is to kill it.” Sure, you and all the other liberals will claim it was taken out of context… blah blah blah… I've read the claims it was taken out of context, it wasnt.

    And there are these 2 nut cases: Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva. In the Journal of Medical Ethics, they propose:
    "[W]hen circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible."
    I even found a liberal citation for you so you wouldn't have a cow: – if you don't like that citation, GOOGLE IT YOURSELF.

    It's a slippery slope… support killing human beings in the womb, and killing at birth is the next step.

  74. says:

    Granted I am not a doctor, but I am a scientist. I'd say 99.99% of scientists agree that embryo at conception is alive, and is human. But the societal judgement of whether it has a "right to life" and whether aborting it is unethical or not, is not the domain of science, and I'm pretty sure you will find no reputable scientific journals in which an author would state something subjective like whether that embryo should be treated by society at large as a person.

  75. says:

    Still too stupid to properly provide a citation. Must we do all of your work for you, you lazy sow? Well, I did … and now you're going to regret it.

    And yes, you have once again taken the quote out of context — to the surprise of exactly NO ONE.

    It was an IRONIC comment about the high infant mortality rates and how they worsened with continued increase in family size. No wonder you never provide sources; you wind up with egg all over your face.

    Quote (in CONTEXT):

    The direct relationship between the size of the wage-earner’s family and the death of children less than one year old has been revealed by a number of studies of the infant death rate. One of the clearest of thesewas that made by Arthur Geissler among miners and cited by Dr. Alfred Ploetz before the First International Eugenic Congress. 1 Taking 26,000 births from unselected marriages, and omitting families having one and two children, Geissler got this result:

    Deaths During
    First Year
    1st born children 23%
    2nd " "20%
    3rd " "21%
    4th " "23%
    5th " "26%
    6th " "29%
    7th " "31%
    8th " "33%
    9th " "36%
    10th " "41%
    11th " "51%
    12th " "60%
    Thus we see that the second and third children have a very good chance to live through the first year. Children arriving later have less and less chance, until the twelfth has hardly any chance at all to live twelve months. 8

    This does not complete the case, however, for those who care
    to go farther into the subject will find that many of those who live for
    a year die before they reach the age of five. 9

    Many, perhaps, will think it idle to go farther in demonstrating the immorality of large families, but since there is stillan abundance of proof at hand, it may be offered for the sake of those who find difficulty in adjusting old-fashioned ideas to the facts. The
    most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant
    members is to kill it. The same factors which create the terrible infant
    mortality rate, and which swell the death rate of children between the ages of one and five, operate even more extensively to lower the health rate of the surviving members. Moreover, the overcrowded homes of large families reared in poverty further contribute to this condition. Lack ofmedical attention is still another factor, so that the child who must struggle for health in competition with other members of a closely packed family has still great difficulties to meet after its poor constitution and malnutrition have been accounted for.

    Be careful what you ask for, Mathilde; so far your record of having your demands that we "look it up ourselves" is 100 percent for having it bite you right in the ass.

  76. says:

    Or collecting stamps. Or anything other than being pissed at women who don't do as she says.

    I swear to god, I envision her as an overgrown Shirley Temple, stamping her Mary Jane-clad foot and sticking her lower lip out in a giant pout every time she repeats one of her asinine talking points.

  77. says:

    That's exactly how she sees it.

    Plus, failing her little "oopsy" has made her bitter because the attempt to create a diaper-clad anchor didn't keep babydaddy in the picture. I'm just sayin' …

  78. says:

    A zygote is the beginning of a new human being

    Aside from the fact that your reply is non-responsive to Ann, I hasten to point out the word in bold. That doesn't mean it IS a new human being, you ninny-hammer. It means it is a potential human being.

  79. says:

    Nope… wanting to ban post-viability abortions isn't wanting to feel morally superior is it? It's about protecting human beings from being killed. Same with wanting abortion to be restricted prior to viability.

  80. says:

    >> If there are abortion bans, all people have to do is OBEY THE LAW. We're
    not going to keep something so horrible legal just because someone
    might do it anyway and get hurt…. people sometimes kill their

    There are so many things wrong here. So even if a law is unjust, you believe people should just shut up and obey? Also am I correct in assuming that you believe women who have abortions should be punished to the full extent of the law, since they did something so horrible? Do you also think miscarriages should be investigated? If so, I at least respect your consistency on the issue. And the point of abortions is to prevent people from killing newborns, no? Japan legalized (well, made it practically legal) abortions post-WWII precisely because infanticide and illegal procedures were so common. Now 90% of the populace approve the procedures, and the abortion rate is dropping steadily nonetheless. Give women and a choice, and usually they'll make the right one.

  81. says:

    I do believe laws sometimes prevent people from doing things…. don't you? Otherwise, we wouldn't need laws at all because people would always do the right thing.

    Unless a woman's life is endangered from the pregnancy, she doesn't 'need' an abortion. If she doesn't want the baby, she can work with an adoption agency. If she needs money, she can work with an agency that can help her get benefits or donations, etc. She can ask for help from friends, family, her church (if she has one), her partners family, her partners friends, etc. Help is available. Killing doesn't need to be a 'choice' – it shouldn't be a 'choice'.

  82. says:

    Do you understand that about 3000 unborn human beings are killed in this country every day – many in the name of 'convenience'? Their lives matter too.

  83. says:

    Agree. There is a really good thread at The Atlantic. I posted the link at RH. Sorry I can't repost it because I haven't mastered that skill on my phone yet. lady black and refruits are there kicking butt.

  84. says:

    Nope. not taken out of context… pro-aborts will twist anything. And I provided names of others that think infanticide is OK. Gosnell supported infanticide and he loved killing unborn children. Not a stretch to see that if someone is for killing a full term or nearly full term unborn child that they could also be for killing that same human being right after birth.

  85. says:

    Most pro-aborts debate about the humanity of the unborn child. Many scientists believe that a human beings life begins at fertilization. I never did say those scientists were pro-life or pro-abortion. I was just attesting to their scientific information on when a human beings life begins.

    Many pro-aborts on this forum use the "it's not human" or "it's not a human being" lines as an excuse to kill. It's pointless. Of all the survey's I've seen on reasons women have abortions, "it is not a human being" wasn't on any list on any of them. Reasons like "cannot afford a child" and "not the right time for a child" were though – so, those women knew they were carrying unborn children. Perhaps they didn't know all the resources available to them. Perhaps they never got proper counselling and support. If one of those women who said she couldn't afford a child walked into a real counseling center instead of a killing center, the counselors could show her the government benefits she might be eligible for, show her places like Catholic Charities – places that can help if she is just a few dollars short every month – places that can give her diapers, wipes, food, clothing, etc. Too many people are encouraged to take the easy way out instead of doing the right thing.

  86. says:

    If fertilized eggs are sloughed off in a menstural cycle, and this is a large percentage, then why dont these dead fertilized eggs have funeral services? According to you these are persons. If this was a belief of the entire population of the U.S., then why no mass funerals?

    I'll cut to the chase. Most people do not belive a fertilized egg is a person. I belive every attempt at a fertilized egg as person legislation has failed.

  87. says:

    Nice try, nitwit, but no dice. Your "medical information" is more than 30 years old.

    Why do you hate other women so much, Mathilde? Are you jealous that that somebody, somewhere, is not stuck with a kid they don't want?

  88. says:

    And here I thought that your feral toddler scenario was the most moronic thing you'd ever come up with. Now you've just doubled down on stupid.

    Jesus wept.

  89. says:

    Many women grieve miscarriages – even if they occur early on in the pregnancy

    If a homeless person disappears and dies and no one knows he is missing or even dead is his death not important? If a woman gives birth in her bathroom, kills her newborn and disposes of the body without anyone ever knowing, is that OK? No funeral was held… by your 'logic', I guess that's OK?

    Miscarriages don't justify abortions any more than natural deaths in born people justify murder.

  90. says:

    I understand your reasoning and the reasoning used by anti-choice forced-birthers to treat women like chattel and brood mares basically second class citizens to be forced to gestate against their will. If she doesn't give birth to a live baby then she's a criminal. Every miscarriage will be investigated as a crime scene. Every woman of child bearing age will be treated as a possible criminal. Sounds like that's what you want.

  91. says:

    Making abortion illegal would have a negative effect on society. Illegal abortion is a public health problem. Outlawing abortion only makes it more deadly for women who don't have resources to get a safe abortion by leaving the country or having enough money and resouces to get an abortion "legally."

  92. says:

    No. Being prolife doesn't mean wanting people to have as many children as possible. Women have the right do decide if and when to have children, whether they want no kids or ten. I support the right to use whatever contraceptives you wish, but once you have conceived, whether it happened by accident or not, you are responsible for that life, at least until birth when care can be turned over to someone else.

  93. says:

    Don't bother. The rudeness coming at you is disgusting. These particular pro choicers are not here to convince you or develop their arguments or become more thoughtful about the debate. They are here to irritate, antagonize and insult. And bully.

  94. says:

    I never said that all or most pro-choicers are in favor of abortion on demand up until birth. However, what academics like Peter Singer and others think does matter because they teach at prestigious universities and author textbooks, and so their positions do affect the attitudes of the next generation of doctors and other health care workers.

    You are wrong about DNR orders. A number of states and provinces do have futile care laws

    which allow physicians to unilaterally withdraw life-sustaining care which they believe to be futile, without the consent of the patient or their surrogate decision maker, or even against the expressed wishes of the patient or their decision maker.

  95. says:

    Right. So you do NOT believe that women "have the right to decide if and when to have children" since you clearly support the right of a rapist, with government approval (abortion ban) to force the woman of his choice to birth his child.

  96. says:

    I never said all of them, just ones that doctors think might not be natural miscarriages. e.g. if there are high levels of drugs in a womans system, or she was beaten up.

  97. says:

    I'm proud to be anti-abortion – against the killing of unborn children. The opposite of that is pro-abortion – for the killing of unborn children. Which one are you – anti-abortion or pro-abortion?

  98. says:

    You can be anti-silicone breast implants, and forbid anybody from having them, or you can be pro-choice about silicone breast implants. People can get their boobs enhanced if they want or not get them enhanced if they so desire. Pro-choice about silicone breast implants doesn't make you pro-breast implants necessarily. I hate those things, but I support anybody who wants them to get them. So I'm pro-choice breast implants, but not pro-breast implants.

  99. says:

    I have used a similar analogy, except instead of boobs, I talk about tattoos. I really don't like tattoos, but I don't think that people should be forbidden from covering their entire body with tattoos.

    And I have known some pro-choice women who would gestate a pregnancy even if raped – except they would never seek to ban abortion – because that is what being pro-choice is all about.

  100. says:

    Guess we need to re-visit Roe V Wade if you think any information over 30 years old needs to be revisited.

    Post viability abortion laws aren't about hating women, they are about PROTECTING unborn children after viability. We need more laws to protect unborn children before viability as well.

  101. says:

    No rap exception. That puts you in the tin hat wearing category of pro-life zealotry. You do realize that if you were to make a that public policy, you WILL be putting women at risk to harm themselves. I remember back in uni, a female student committed suicide after she was raped, shocking our campus. I don't know if she was impregnated, but its a situation where forced pregnancy could be dangerous. If such a woman really really wanted an abortion, and threatened suicide, would you support restraining her against her will?

  102. says:

    Um… not seeing how that is taken out of context. Sanger clearly said that killing an infant would be "merciful" if that infant happens to be the 4th, 5th, etc. child.

  103. says:

    What is your definition of the term 'human being'. This is the 22nd time I have asked you.

    **All innocent human beings should have a basic right to life. They should not be KILLED because they are unwanted or inconvenient.**

    All human beings should have a full set of rights and responsibilities. They should NOT be exempt from any of them, because of their developemental stage. Therefore, all newborns should be immediately prosecuted for assault, due to injuries caused to the mother during the birth process. Also, all laws regarding pedophilia will be immediately stricken from the books, a 3 year old has just as much 'right' to have sex as a 23 year old, just like a zygote has just as much 'right' to life as a newborn.

  104. says:

    Saw someone else post this somewhere:
    Pro-stealing : "stealing is okay, anyone should be able to do it."
    Anti-stealing : "stealing is wrong, nobody should be able to do it."
    Pro-choice [to steal] : "stealing is wrong, but if someone else thinks it's okay, then whatever, go for it!"

  105. says:

    The only problem being that abortion is not wrong. I realize we disagree on whether it is or not. Another problem with that analogy is that stealing involves 2 people while abortion and breast implants involve only 1. Sure, we may disagree on that as well, but for an analogy to work, you need to make it so that even someone who disagrees with you will find it sufficiently close to their perception of the scenario, otherwise it is not terribly persuasive and appears only as sloppy thinking.

  106. says:

    Is there an easy way to distinguish between a legitimate miscarriage and one that may have been induced? If abortion is made illegal, don't you think some will resort to trying to miscarry? Don't you think then that some effort needs to be made to discourage doing this, and to also prosecute someone if they do? Then it seems like there needs to be a procedure to in place to determine a suspicious miscarriage, no?

  107. says:

    >> Many scientists believe that a human beings life begins at
    fertilization. I never did say those scientists were pro-life or

    Yes, I agree. I can't imagine any rational human being saying otherwise. But I think its worth pointing out that those same scientists who believe life begins at fertilization are also highly likely to support the right to have an abortion. Scientists almost always have a doctoral degree, and gallup says holders of doctoral degrees (including non-science degrees) are almost 2x as likely to be pro-choice. And my daily life working in a research institute are in-line with this.

    It says that highly rational, educated people who believe life begins at fertilization can also support the right to have an abortion. In fact, those who support the right to have an abortion out number those who don't in this demographic. And it is interesting that among those who are highschool dropouts, those who don't support abortion rights outnumber those who do – the opposite trend as among the scientists. Please draw your own conclusions.

  108. says:

    **A human being is an organism of the species homo sapiens.**

    You're gerrymandering.

    **Really, this isn't a difficult concept. Why do you have so much trouble with it?**

    Because you are being deliberately evasive and giving both circular and complex definitions in order to keep playing your equivocation game.

  109. says:

    What is the minimum standard to be considered a 'human being'? Exactly what qualities in this standard, and nothing else, justify granting 'rights'. Do you feel that rights are granted by human DNA, and nothing else? By a heart? Exactly by what means does human DNA or a human heart grant rights, but not animal DNA or animal hearts? Apparently it's not the brain, so what is it? A magic 'rights' fairy that sprinkles rights all over selected cells that happen to have human DNA?

  110. says:

    You don't get it though… Your woman hating rants will NEVER change my mind. By telling a pregnant woman she is nothing but an inferior incubator you are "devaluing the lives and humanity of pregnant women."

  111. says:

    By telling a pregnant woman she is nothing but an inferior incubator you are "devaluing the lives and humanity of pregnant women."

    I agree. That's what prolifers do: they devalue the lives, health, will, and conscience of pregnant women, reducing all women to "inferior incubators" – machines or slaves to be used til they break.

    The women-hating rants of prolifers will never do anything to change the minds of those of us who support human rights.

  112. says:

    I don't trust Wikipedia as a citation, because anyone can alter it. The anecdotes at the blog site also do not count a citation in my mind. Having a physician cite risks, benefits and alternatives does not mean that they can implement a DNR without permission of the patient or the patient's durable power of attorney for medical care.

    I'm in the medical profession, and I worked in hospitals for several years. My source on this information is primary.

  113. says:

    I haven't; clearly I need to look for it. I also need to watch my copy of "After Tiller." I've been doing so much writing, as well as taking classes, that I've not been as 'caught up' on things as I would like.

    It's really no surprise that Mathilde is using the same talking points as CPC volunteers; she learned them all at White Rose.

  114. says:

    Unborn children are human beings. They should have rights too. They shouldn't be killed just because someone deemed them to be inconvenient or unwanted.

  115. says:

    The MISCARRIAGE should be investigated… that would most likely start with asking the woman questions.. unless, a guy with bloody knuckles was the one that brought the woman to the hospital.

    Most women who are abused are scared. A private talk with a counselor and investigator could get to the root of her problem – an abusive boyfriend – an evil person who should be charged with abuse and fetal homicide if he caused the death of an unborn child.

  116. says:

    Slaves weren't considered full people in the eyes of the law a long time ago. Laws had to be changed to recognize them as people.

    The unborn after viability aren't considered people. But we are allowed to protect them. We should be allowed to protect them before viability too – they are the same human being one day before viability as they are one day after. Killing week them at 23 weeks or 25 weeks has the same result.

    Abortion is wrong.

  117. says:

    Murder is illegal and some people resort to trying to make a murder look like suicide or other natural death. As a society, we discourage murder. We should be discouraging killing unborn children so that no one does it – whether legal or not. I already do… do you?

  118. says:

    But many don't consider early fetuses to be children, and I think the reasons why are at least worthy of consideration, considering that the more educated you are, the more likely you are to support the pro-choice position, and the scientific community, while accepting fetuses are alive and are human, still overwhelmingly supports the pro-choice position as well. That should tell you that the claim "unborn children" is not so cut and dry.

    I've already told you why I don't think early abortion is killing of an unborn child, as I don't think you can legitimately have significant life experiences without a functioning brain, and denying "the potential" for a future to something which doesn't care about this potential, doesn't feel pain, to me is a moot point. This "unborn child" never has had hopes or dreams, and never will. Nothing goes to nothing. I'm sorry if I can't find value in that, but I simply can't.

  119. says:

    Those 1 million made the choice that was right for them.

    I'm talking about the long term trend here, the fact that abortions will decrease in a society with a reasonable socioeconomic health, tells me that even if abortion were legal, given good societal conditions, women would not choose them. Japan is an example. Even though almost 90% of the populace approve of abortion, abortions still have decreased steadily over the years. Infanticides were common right after the war, which is why abortion became (practically) legal, and as Japanese economy improved and the position of women in society improve, abortion naturally decreased. Yet 90% of the populace doesn't find any moral problems with the procedure. How do you explain such a sociological condition?

  120. says:

    Hi Purple Slurpy:

    This is absolutely a good point, and one that I hear often as my interests lay heavily in scientific skepticism–and this happens all the time!

  121. says:

    Hi Purple: again, you and I are actually in complete agreement. For purposes of the blog entry, I have to simplify arguments and keep them focused on one thing. The point of that statement here is to only look at it when it is used as a logical fallacy, in this case the appeal to authority. Whether it be stated directly ("You should be pro-choice because most pro-choicers are pro-choice") or internally ("I feel comfortable knowing that I'm on the side of most scientists"), it will always be a logical fallacy if it is used to dismiss an unrelated argument.

    I actually think that the statement of "there are many reasons for being pro-choice" is valid here, as you go on to give examples of how people often become pro-choice when exposed to progressive educations and other factors. My point is that abortion is not merely a scientific issue–say like climate change–but also a moral one. Scientists may well look at scientific evidence as a basis for their position on abortion, but they must (I presume) also make some moral conclusions that are outside of the scope of their expertise. And, as pointed out before, just because one is a scientist does not mean that they are an expert in the fields of science relevant to the abortion debate. While they may be less likely to make a scientific error compared to a lay person such as myself, they are still at risk. Again, I don't think that the issue with the abortion debate is different interpretations on the science, but rather the moral conclusions that we draw from the science.

  122. says:

    Then I guess you think that all of the people who say that this happened to them or their loved ones are lying? Their "source" is more primary than yours. It may not have happened at the hospitals where you worked. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

  123. says:

    I've rebutted you repeatedly, with facts and figures. You just stick your fingers in your ears and pretend that those facts don't matter … which is how you double down on the stupid.

    You are constitutionally incapable of accepting the wrongheadedness of your position, and we all know why: you "selflessly" had a kid you don't want, and you're pissed that baby-daddy didn't stick around.

  124. says:

    Yeah, actually, I do think they are lying … because there would be *legitimate news articles* (not just some blog) if hospitals all over the place were just pulling the plug absent prior permission.

  125. says:

    Hi Nate:

    Agreed. And I am not a scientist that works in anything related to abortion or women's health, so I don't claim to be an expert.

    The point I wanted to make is that there is a correlation in the kinds of issues one holds certain opinions about. There is no denying that the majority of people who hold pro-life positions in the US also tend to hold many opinions that are quite frankly completely ignorant of science and evidence, ie. man made climate change is BS, evolution is BS, gay marriage is BS.

    Of course we are not all robot clones, so one can sometimes be surprised that a seemingly rational individual has 1 crazy position on a certain issue. However, I think the fact that people who tend to hold rational, science and evidence-based views on a whole range of issues tend to be pro-choice tells you something. As Kelsey pointed out, it could be because these people are just economically well-off, and the well-off are just detached from the true horrors of abortion. Could be.

    I don't know whether this kind of appeal to authority – that rational people also tend to be pro-choice. I'm not saying these people are experts, but that they possess reasoning skills that allows them to at least make informed stances on positions. Is that an argument from authority? I don't know.

  126. says:

    And I agree, abortion is not a scientific debate, I'd say at all, but is one that requires one to recognize a conflict. I do believe abortion of an early term fetus (the kind I think should be allowed) is not completely ethically neutral, something definitely is being killed. Its just that when weighed against the interests of the mother and society, at that stage I think the better decision is to allow the mother to decide whether to allow the fetus to continue development, or to terminate, and I have various reasons for that. How one comes to this decision is highly dependent on one's world view, and quite frankly I don't think there is a "right" answer. And this is why I think it is best left to the individual.

    BTW, I do think climate change is a moral question as well. Do you ignore likely future calamity for economic growth now, or does a society have responsibility for the well-being of future generations.

  127. says:

    And they get oh so offended when you point that out. Because really, PL isn't misogynist at all, they deeply deeply love and care (baby killing) women, and just want to extend human rights to *all* humans. And no, they aren't *really* advocating for the subjugation of women to single cell zygotes, because pregnancy is what women were made for , besides, if she spread hers legs, she had better take responsibility for her negligent actions.

  128. says:

    Dorothy Roberts writes in Killing the Black Body: Race, Reproduction and the Meaning of Liberty, “[t]he essence of Black women’s experience during slavery was the brutal denial of autonomy over reproduction.” Female slaves’ ability to produce more slaves was central to the economic interests of slaveowners and, once the importation of slaves was banned, to the perpetuation of the institution of slavery. A woman’s reproductive capacity figured into her price on the market and was as valuable as labor in the fields. As Thomas Jefferson wrote, “I consider a woman who brings a child every two years as more profitable than the best man on the farm.”

    Slaveowners beat women who did not reproduce or sold them, separating them from their families. Some engaged in slave-breeding, forcing slaves considered “prime stock” to mate in order to produce particularly valuable new slaves for labor or sale. Evidence exists that slaves resisted slaveowners’ demands that they reproduce by using herbal and other makeshift contraceptive and abortive methods. Slaveowners were free to rape slaves with impunity and the children who resulted increased their wealth. A slave women’s child was not her own, but the property of her master. Even prior to conception, a slaveowner held a property interest in a woman’s future children that could be bequeathed by will.

    Slavery separated black women from their future children at the moment of conception, treating the interests of the fetus as separate and conflicting with that of the mother. Though this conception of the fetus as having distinct interests to be protected from the mother is a familiar part of our discourse and legal framework today, this division did not exist for white women at the time. Professor Roberts describes one method of whipping pregnant women that illustrates this early conception of the maternal-fetal conflict. The mother would be forced to lay with her stomach in a hole dug in the ground so the mother could be beaten while the fetus was protected. “It is the most striking metaphor I know for the evils of policies that seek to protect the fetus while disregarding the humanity of the mother,” she writes.

    Professor Koppelman has previously argued, on the basis of Supreme Court precedent interpreting the Thirteenth Amendment’s prohibition of slavery and involuntary servitude to protect individual liberty and equality, that the government may not prohibit abortion. To do so would be to require physical service from a woman for the benefit of a fetus.

  129. says:

    So, if this were true it would be in the news. And everything that's in the news is true. Okay…

    The cases of Sun Hudson, Emilio Gonzalez, and Andre Clark received considerable news coverage.

    Why do you think all of these people are lying? I would think that if you care about patient's rights then you wouldn't assume that patients who say their rights were violated are lying. You might want to contact disability advocacy groups such as Not Dead Yet

    and the Council of Canadians With Disabilities

    and let them know that they are wasting their time fighting futile care policies because such policies don't actually exist.

  130. says:

    When there are ZERO legitimate news reports on something, that is an indicator to *thinking people* that the allegations just might be a little fishy — especially something as serious as this.

  131. says:

    Girls and women are human beings: we should not be forced through pregnancy and childbirth against our health and wellbeing, our will and conscience, just because some prolifer deems girls and women to be objects existing merely to be used.

  132. says:

    Wow! Two squares on the Mathilde BINGO drinking game, all at once!

    I wonder if we should make this more like Scrabble, with triple scores possible when the "talking points" are nothing but bumper sticker bee-ess like this …

    Nah, we'd all have to go into rehab.

  133. says:

    The only liar here is you, Mathilde. CPCs have been caught out repeatedly for lying to women; I've provided the citations to you repeatedly. And so what if Catholic Charities provides the bus that takes women to hear those lies? You think that's helpful, but that's because you're about as bright as a small appliance bulb.

  134. says:

    Aw, a blog commentary by the man who's pissed that his "resource centers" (where, as I recall from a previous blog, you happen to volunteer) got caught out for lying to people. Boo hoo.

  135. says:

    Why is it that you use "human being" interchangeably with "person," as though they are synonymous? They are not.

    BTW, the actual dictionary definition of "human being" differs from yours significantly:

    hu·man be·ing


    noun: human being; plural noun: human beings; noun: human being; plural noun: human beings

    a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance.

    Please note that there is not a single mention of the zygote, embryo or fetus here. All children, everywhere, are born entities.

    Really, this isn't a difficult concept.

  136. says:

    Perhaps you are unaware of this; in 31 states rapists can pursue visitation rights for children conceived via their crime. That means that they have continued access to their victims. I am a survivor of rape,and I will tell you with absolute certainty that, had I been impregnated, I would have had an abortion. When you force someone to remain pregnant against her will, you are taking away her right to self-determination just as much as the rapist did.

    Perhaps you are like another anti-choicer who told me that "once a woman held that precious baby in her arms, she would forget all about being raped." If so, I can tell you that you are wrong. You don't forget it, ever. You just learn how to live afterward. For some women, that may include deciding to have an abortion. Another woman might decide to gestate. In either case, I support their decision — but that decision is NOT my call any more than it is yours.

  137. says:

    This is what another poster suggested, counseling that emphasizes only
    the positive aspects of carrying your rapist's baby and not the

    Ye gods. I am sure I know who this was, and her concepts of what constitutes "counseling" are pretty bizarre.

    Another poster, on another board, said that genetic counseling should consist solely of discussing "positive aspects of gestating, for example, an anencephalic fetus." It was mind-boggling.

  138. says:

    you clearly support the right of a rapist, with government approval
    (abortion ban) to force the woman of his choice to birth his child.

    It's downright Biblical. Deuteronomy 22:28-29, in fact.

  139. says:

    Girls, women AND unborn children are human beings.

    If a woman's life is truly endangered than she should be able to have an abortion to save her life. The FACT is that most abortions have NOTHING to do with health. And you know it. No human being should be killed because someone wants 15 minutes of fame, or to hide the results of an affair or because someone cannot afford to take care of them.

  140. says:

    Early fetuses aren't children, but they are human beings… at 23 weeks AND 25 weeks. Killing an unborn child at either one of these times has the same result – a human being is denied a chance at a full and productive life. In most cases, the unborn child aborted at 23 to 25 weeks will have his or her limbs dismembered in the process of being killed – even if he or she cannot feel pain or even knows what is going on, it's wrong. I think secretly many pro-aborts support abortion after viability but don't want to admit it, so they say "oh no.. i don't support abortion after fetal pain". and of course, they side with the doctors that say unborn children cant feel pain until after viability instead of the ones that say 20 weeks.

  141. says:

    I downloaded that and read about half of it. "Cabin in the blizzard" is just eff'd up and wrong. What sicko makes up a story about this as an example. I think they should read about the Donner Party when they got trapped in a cabin in a blizzard.

  142. says:

    Several of my friends have been raped. Two women I know where kidnapped and raped. One of these women was forceable held against her will beaten and raped repeatedly. I don't know if they got pregnant but after being violently assaulted they should not face more violence by being forced to gestate a pregnancy. That's cruel.

  143. says:

    If you support abortion, you have to be able to defend them all – for any reason the woman chooses (even sex selection). If you support abortion up until viability, you have to face the reality the unborn child doesn't turn from a 'clump of cells' into an unborn baby (with all of his/her limbs, organs, etc) overnight and that if you support abortion 1 day before viability, you're likely supporting the dismemberment of a tiny human being in the womb. If someone doesn't support all abortions for any reason, up until viability, they need to admit they have a fundamental disagreement with Roe V Wade and that RvW should be overturned so that states can make laws protecting unborn children.

  144. says:

    50 to 70 percent of fertilized eggs fail to implant. If these are persons as you say then why doesn't science solve this problem? Why then are thee not mass funerals for these dead fertilized eggs?

  145. says:

    There are places that are doing research to reduce miscarriages.

    Many people die from natural causes. It doesn't make it right to shoot someone because you think they are inconvenient or unwanted.

  146. says:

    Sex selection abortion is a reality… killing an unborn child for 15 minutes of fame is a reality… killing an unborn child to hide the results of an affair is a reality…Killing an unborn child after weeks for reasons not related to health of the woman or the child is a reality.

  147. says:

    Once again, there is no pregnancy if an egg doesn't implant. Therefore no miscarriage. Fertilized eggs are not people. Most fertilized eggs fail to implant. According to you this would be a catastrophic loss of life. When in reality fertilized eggs are not people.

  148. says:

    Poorer women will be more likely to obey the law – or more apt to be caught – as they have fewer resources to do anything else. Wealthier and middle-class women can more easily circumvent anti laws, and they make up a huge segment of the population; so these laws must by necessity be as restrictive as possible as far as free travel is concerned.

    I think it's not so much that someone might 'get hurt' as it is that many women will simply travel elsewhere and 'get away' with having a safe and discrete abortion. Having access to only punish the low-hanging fruit, so to speak, will ultimately not be enough. If you're going to do this right, you're really going to have to make it a priority to round up everybody, not just the ones who are easy to catch.

  149. says:

    1. There is no 'unborn child' any more than there is an 'unborn senior citizen'.

    2. Eating meat is never safe for the cattle. Is there a point to your sad feelies?

  150. says:

    **Unborn children are human beings. They should have rights too.**

    3 year olds are human beings. They should be able to work as hookers at the Mustang ranch.

  151. says:

    **Oxford Dictionaries disagrees with you on your 'unborn child' claim. I'll trust them over you. :)**

    In other words, you cherry pick through multiple definitions in the dictionary to support your equivocation fallacies. How about this: 'Children' don't exist inside other people's bodies. If you think the embryo is a 'child', then you should have no problem with the mother removing it.

    **You're comparing a cow to an unborn child? reallly? we don't eat children – born or unborn.**

    In other words, you're pretending to be obtuse again.

  152. says:

    **Girls, women AND unborn children are human beings.**

    Exactly what quality possessed by ALL human beings in ALL stages of development, grants them rights? You can bibble babble the word 'human beings' all you want, and give all the circular definitions of the term that you like, but only a complete idiot is going to fail to notice that you are deliberately dancing around the elephant in the livingroom and refusing to explain exactly WHY humans should have rights, but not cattle.

  153. says:

    ** Every innocent human being has an equal right to life.**

    And yet, you claim that the unborn, and ONLY the unborn have some sacred, extra-special 'right to life' that allows them to use another person's organs, and that other people, like dialysis patients, don't have this special right.

    That doesn't sound very 'equal' to me.

  154. says:

    **A zygote is the beginning of a new human being**

    So, the sperm and egg didn't ever exist in our universe, and the zygote just popped into existence from nowhere, is that what you are saying?

  155. says:

    Pretty much all people dying of natural causes have SOME sort of investigation into the matter. It's illegal to NOT report a death, and simply flush the body down a toilet, or wherever. So, who is going to be investigating all the non-implanted tampon babies?

  156. says:

    I hate to be the one to inform you of how the law in our society works, sweetie, but ALL human deaths, regardless of how they occur, regardless of whether they are suspected to be 'natural' or not, have to be reported. You can't simply take dead gramma who died of a heart attack and bury her in the backyard without reporting it, or you will get into trouble. Now, who is going to be investigating tampons every month to make sure that there was no drug involved preventing a precious little zef from implanting?

  157. says:

    Exactly which born people can die, and of what causes, which would make it legal in our society to simply not report their death and throw their body into a garbage can?

  158. says:

    **. We should be allowed to protect them before viability too – they are the same human being one day before viability as they are one day after. **

    We should be allowed to have sex with 3 year olds – they are the same human being 15 years before the legal ages of consent as they are the day after.

  159. says:

    So, because I answered "no", I'm a crazy zealot. If I had answered "yes", then you would say that proves I don't really think abortion is the taking of a human life. Another one of those "heads I win, tails you lose" arguments.

    You might want to check out the largest survey ever done of women who became pregnant through sexual assault.

    Out of the 192 women in the study, those who aborted their pregnancies expressed regret in nearly 80% of the cases. Most said that the abortion increased the trauma they experienced. None of the women who gave birth wished they had aborted instead. In many cases, the rape survivors experienced strong pressures or demands to abort. In some cases, especially those involving teenage girls, the victim was forced to have the abortion by others. In cases of incest or ongoing sexual abuse, the perpetrator often arranged the abortion, which was given with no questions asked and the victim returned to the abusive situation. You assume that no woman or girl would ever be driven to suicide because she was forced into an abortion, or because she had regrets. Studies such as

    show that post-abortive women have a suicide rate 4 to 6 times higher than women who give birth. The correlation does not prove causation, to be sure, and more studies need to be done, but there is no evidence to support your claim that giving birth to a child conceived by sexual assault is usually an overwhelmingly negative experience.
    If the woman or girl was actually threatening to commit suicide, I would want her to get professional help, including support from women who had been in the same situation. And no, I do not think she should be tied down and force fed.

  160. says:

    If I found an abandoned infant I would have a responsibility to care for it until the care could be turned over to someone else. That doesn't mean I support the right to abandon infants.

  161. says:

    I'm sorry that happened to you. Yes, I know about the legal loophole that allows rapists to seek parental rights. There is a group of rape survivor mothers who are working to have that loophole closed. I think that anyone, whether they are prolife or prochoice, would agree that something has to be done to prevent rapists from being part of their victim's and her child's life forever.
    Please don't put words in other people's mouths. I don't think having a baby will make a woman forget all about being raped, just because another prolifer said that (if she actually said that). I don't fault you for your feelings. There is no right or wrong way to feel about what happened to you.

  162. says:

    Regarding the right to die: Active euthanasia or assisted suicide is NOT "pulling the plug" or stopping aggressive treatment to allow death to take place naturally. It is administering a drug with the intention of causing death. You seem to be unclear on the difference or else you are deliberately conflating the two. No one is arguing that patients should not have the right to refuse any medical treatment for any reason. Brittany Maynard is not seeking the right to refuse treatment. She already has that right. She is seeking the right to be given a lethal drug.

  163. says:

    Hi Ms. Spacecat

    Sorry to refer to you as "tinfoil hat wearing", but I think to be of the position of forcing women to give birth even in rape situations is an extreme position to hold. Even if 80% regret their decision, there are women who do not, which means that for them, they REALLY wanted an abortion in a case they were not responsible, yet you would still deny these cases.

    Now, onto: 80% regret? I don't know if I'd take that figure without question for two reasons.

    1) Do a similar percentage of abortion "survivors" of non-rape abortions (PNR) also experience a similar percentage of regret? Or is the percentage higher for those abortion "survivors" of rape abortions (PR)? If the percentage PNR > PR or PNR = PR, I'd find the results of the survey goes directly against my intuition, because it'd imply I'm more likely to want to keep a rape baby than a non-rape baby, or that rape doesn't factor at all in to my emotions. If PNR < PR, this is in line with what I'd expect, but if PR is already 80%, PNR would have to be like 90% or more, which also seems at odds with what I understand about abortion. Almost ALL women regret their abortions? Really?

    2) Who did this "survey", and how were the participants chosen? I sounds more like an informal survey rather than an actual study from what I gather from the website.

  164. says:

    Not all of these are new articles, and those that are don't seem to imply doctors are doing things behind the patients backs, but that their professional opinion of the course of actions to be taken are at odds with what the patients want.

    As for what the patient wants, regarding just baby Emilio, mom wants baby to die "naturally, the way God intended.", and not by pulling the plug? To me that seems like the natural way to die instead of being hooked up to a ventilator and being constantly on morphine. To me it sounds like "keep him alive with maximum of medical technology regardless of the costs and drain on the system, his quality of life be damned." Didn't read the article in depth, but that's what I got from it. If I was in a similar situation, I'd want to have the plug pulled or given a lethal dose of something. But that's just me.

  165. says:

    Girls, women AND unborn children are human beings.

    So you knowingly advocate the forced use of human bodies against their will, to gestate offspring, just so long as the gestation doesn't actually kill them?

    You do realise this makes you the ethical heir to the slaveowners who also thought they owned the use of other human beings bodies?

  166. says:

    Hi Ms. Spacecat.

    Didn't really appreciate the difference between pulling the plug and being given a lethal drug. Now that you mention it, … I still don't think the difference is important. If the drug is going to let me go peacefully and without pain, I'm all for it! If just mere unplugging may keep me in pain, why not give me some drugs to help me along? I'd want it for myself, so I think it should be a viable option.

  167. says:

    Take it up with the dictionaries. There are MANY examples, not just one dictionary using "unborn child", "unborn baby", "unborn children" or "child in utero" in their examples. No 'cherry picking' going on. Too bad if the terms make you THINK about what you support.

  168. says:

    If you want to start a movement that cattle can have rights, go right ahead.

    No, I think all pro-abort TROLLS compare cattle to unborn children. If you're going to compare cattle to unborn children, you should compare them to born children too – one minute before birth vs one minute after there is no difference in that tiny human being, except location. No, go ahead and use cattle to justify killing a newborn.

  169. says:

    No one is intentionally KILLING a dialysis patient. Abortion intentionally kills a human being. This has been explained to you many times before. I'm thinking you're trolling now.

  170. says:

    Autopsies aren't done on every death in the US. If there is a suspicious death then an autopsy is done.

    And, what about the woman who has a baby, kills it and buries it in the back yard without reporting it? Does that mean her baby was not worth anything? No one ever knew he or she existed…. Guess you support that woman CHOOSING to kill her newborn and bury it in the backyard so she can go on with her life and not have to worry about the human being she killed?

  171. says:

    I don't think something that people think is wrong should be kept legal just because some might do it anyway- regardless of if it's rich people or poor people. If a state bans buying a certain kind of gun but rich people can go to another state to buy it, does that mean we need to keep it legal so the poor people who can't travel to another state can get it?

    A majority of people in this country think abortion after viability is wrong, so most states have laws restricting it. Most people think abortion after 12 weeks is wrong – we should be able to have laws restricting it.

    Abortion is never save for the unborn child.

  172. says:

    We have different rules for different ages for born people, but one thing that stays the same is that no person should be killed simply because they were deemed inconvenient or unwanted. That same rule should apply for unborn children too. They are human beings, just like a born child.

  173. says:

    My point still stands. A rapist can forcibly impregnate a woman at any time. With no abortion exceptions, you are essentially saying that the government will ensure that the woman has the rapist's baby. Pure rape apology is what it is. Also add torture and slavery.

  174. says:

    Lots of reasons, including every reason a woman has an abortion, except for if her life is truly endangered from the pregnancy. Do you think a woman should be able to kill her unborn child because she wanted a girl instead of a boy (or vice versa)?

  175. says:

    Yes, one of you fellow travelers actually said that to me.

    You're correct; there is no right or wrong way to feel about rape, just as there is no right or wrong way to feel about a given pregnancy.

    Thank you for your kind words.

  176. says:

    I'm not the one making assertions; it's not incumbent upon me to look things up on your behalf. I thank you for the source materials; if you had provided this in the first place, you would not have appeared so ridiculous.

  177. says:

    Viability isn't mentioned in the 14th amendment. Neither is privacy or abortion. Roe V Wade was a horrible misinterpretation of the Constitution.

    From Alan Dershowiz:
    Roe v. Wade and Bush v. Gore “represent opposite sides of the same currency of judicial activism in areas more appropriately left to the political processes… Judges have no special competence, qualifications, or mandate to decide between equally compelling moral claims (as in the abortion controversy)… [C]lear governing constitutional principles … are not present in either case."

  178. says:

    Sorry, the English language is imprecise. I can cherry pick through the dictionary and prove all sorts of nonsense. It's called an 'equivocation fallacy'. I don't need to 'think about it', 'thinking about it' does not turn a zygote into a toddler, and it seems to me that you are the one who doesn't want to 'think about' what you support, since you have a fit every time I give an accurate assessment of your actions in life as a rape and extortion of babydaddy.

  179. says:

    **We have different rules for different ages for born people**. Sorry you don't get to play that game. Either it's the 'same human being' regardless of age or the stage of development, or it isn't. If you want one rule to be the same because 'it's the same human being', then ALL the rules will be the same. You don't get to play the game of 'it's the same human being regardless of age' but only the rules myintx wants will be the same, but other rules will be different depending on age.

    **no person should be killed simply because they were deemed inconvenient or unwanted.**

    It's being 'killed' because it doesn't have a right to another person's organs, and the other people have a right to kill it for THAT reason, not because it's 'unwanted'. We also don't play your game of gerrymandering supposed 'human rights' down to your pre-selected group of sacred embryos. Either a human 'right' exists, or it doesn't exist. If it exists, then ALL people have that right, regardless of their circumstance or the technology used to carry out that right, or their relation to other people. If you want to claim that a 'need' for a 'very life' gives a 'human' a claim on another person's organs, without their consent, then ALL people have that right. That means – a dialysis patient has a 'right' to your kidney, without your consent, for their 'very life'. It doesn't matter if transplants are 'natural' or not, or if you are 'related' to the dialyis patient or not. You don't get to claim that an embryo has a 'human right' to other people's organs for it's 'very life', then gerrymander away that supposed 'human right' in every other human being because it might inconvenience poor widdle you.

    "Human being" is NOT synonymous with "person". Sorry. Your life is miserable because babydaddy ran out after you raped and extorted him. That doesn't give you the right to make other people equally miserable and pretend it's your sad feelies about the widdle precious zefs rather than your own jealousy of their happiness as a motivation.

  180. says:

    Did you read the story "cabin in the blizzard?" Refruits posted a link upthread. The subject of the story Mary is kidnapped. It sounds like a sick sadistic fantasy.

  181. says:

    **Autopsies aren't done on every death in the US. If there is a suspicious death then an autopsy is done.**

    You're handwaving to avoid the issue. ALL human deaths are legally required to be reported, and paperwork filled out. This process is, in fact, an investigation, however superficial it might be. Under no circumstances whatsoever is it legal to simply take a dead human body and throw it in the trash without reporting it to the police. In fact, it is not legal to not report it to the police if you think there is a high probability that a human being might have been killed, even if you are not 100% certain. For instance, if you find an arm, you have to report it to the police, even though the person whose arm it might have been, could possibly still be alive.

    If you want to treat precious widdle zefs as 'real babies for sure', a woman is going to have to turn in all her tampons every month, to make sure there is no precious widdle unimplanted zef in it, and no drugs were used to prevent it from implanting, and the police are going to have to file paperwork reports on every woman's periods every month. Otherwise you're just handwaving and pretending that the zef is a 'real baby for sure' only under the circumstances that you want.

  182. says:

    1. **No, go ahead and use cattle to justify killing a newborn.** You're evading. You have deliberately not answered my question as to WHY human beings should have a 'right to life' but not cattle. You can't simply make unsupported assertions. If you want to claim 'human beings' have a 'right to life', you need to explain WHY, and in a non-circular fashion.

    2. **one minute before birth vs one minute after there is no difference in that tiny human being, except location.** So, basically you're playing the forced gestationer game of handwaving away the birth process and pretending a mother goes to the hospital, has tea and cookied, and 'poof' out comes a cute widdle baby in a magical painless puff of smoke.

  183. says:

    So if the embryo is removed intact, so that it is still alive at the time it is removed, would that be acceptable to you?

    I don't think so. Guess what? I don't fucking care about your sad feelies. If the only way to remove a pwecious widdle embwyo from the body of someone who doesn't want it in them is to kill it, too fucking bad. If the only way to keep a dialysis patient from stealing someone else's kidney is to kill them, too fucking bad, as well. Grow up and fucking deal with it.

  184. says:

    Did the egg exist before it was fertilized? Yes or no? Was it alive? Yes or no? Were all born human beings once eggs, yes or no?

    If the egg existed and was alive prior to becoming a zygote, then the zygote is NOT the 'beginning of a new human being', the egg and sperm are. The fact that this doesn't suit you is too fucking bad.

    Calling me a troll doesn't change the fact that you're evading.

  185. says:

    **Not all deaths have autopsies. Not all are investigated.**

    You're either a complete idiot who knows nothing about the law in this country, or a liar. ALL deaths of ALL born human beings in this country are investigated, even if that investigation is extremely superficial, and simply consists of the police and a coroner looking at the body and signing a form. Under no circumstances whatsoever can someone legally NOT report the death of a human being to the authorities and simply throw the body into the trash or a toilet the way they would a tampon.

    Which is it? Are you an idiot, or a liar? Can you explain why an idiot or a liar should get to dictate morality?

  186. says:

    You're handwaving and trying to equate autopsies with investigations, and pretend that since not all bodies are autopsied, not all deaths are investigated. You're full of shit. It is AGAINST THE LAW to NOT REPORT a human death in this country. ALL HUMAN DEATHS ARE INVESTIGATED, even if it is very superficial.

    Lying does not make your forced gestationer position look good.

  187. says:

    Nope, I'm saying that you need to make the laws as restrictive and draconian as you possibly can so that everyone can be more equally affected. I absolutely think 'pro-life' should fully flesh out its ideals to their logical conclusions. Less ambiguity, not more, is what's called for in this situation.

  188. says:

    Hehe, they are delusional or else lying when they say that once zef's gain personhood status that everything will be hunkydory just like it was in the 1950s, when mom was Donna Reed and popped out as many kids as dad wanted.

  189. says:

    When you save a fetus, you are making a choice to let an innocent born baby die. Any time you allocate to fetuses is time you cannot spend saving babies.

  190. says:

    No 'cherry picking' going on. ACCURATE examples of the use of "unborn child" or "unborn baby".

    No extortion going on… how does your made up extortion b s justify abortion?

  191. says:

    1. A newborn has a right to life. THAT SAME HUMAN BEING should have a right to life 1 minute before birth too.

    2. Not handwaving anything. But a newborn is the SAME HUMAN BEING one second before birth and one second after birth. Don't you agree?

  192. says:

    If you cut off someone's life support, you are killing them, and that is wrong.

    People who want to kill unborn children simply because they are unwanted should grow up and CARE about someone other than themselves.

  193. says:

    An unfertilized egg is NOT a human being.

    "Zygote: This cell results from the union of an oocyte
    and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).
    The expression fertilized ovum refers to a secondary oocyte that is impregnated
    by a sperm; when fertilization is complete, the oocyte becomes a zygote."
    Keith L. Moore and T.V.N. Persaud, The Developing Human (Philadelphia: W.B.
    Saunders Company, 1998). (FYI: Keith Moore is an embryologist)

    Jerome LeJeune, professor of genetics at the University of Descartes in Paris,
    was the discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down syndrome: “after
    fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being.” He stated
    that this “is no longer a matter of taste or opinion,” and “not a metaphysical
    contention, it is plain experimental evidence.” He added, “Each individual has
    a very neat beginning, at conception.”

    I'll trust SCIENTISTS over you any day of the week.

  194. says:

    It's not your uterus killed in an abortion – it's a human being that is killed. And, after viability states can restrict abortion, so states do have a 'say'. They should be able to have a 'say' before viability also.

  195. says:

    Sorry, no. It is an embryo, not a 'baby' or a 'child'. The fact that the english language is inaccurate doesn't alter biological reality

    **No extortion going on.**

    'Oopsing' babydaddy on purpose to trap him and try to get money is extortion. The fact that your extortion scheme failed doesn't justify turning everyone else into incubators so they can be as miserable as you.

  196. says:

    ** A newborn has a right to life. THAT SAME HUMAN BEING should have a right to life 1 minute before birth too.**

    Sorry, no. There is no right to mutilate the mother during the birth process for someone's 'very life'.

    **But a newborn is the SAME HUMAN BEING one second before birth and one second after birth. Don't you agree?**

    A penis is the same penis one moment before and one moment after it gets stuck into your vagina. So you're just fine with rape? Don't you agree"

    A three year old is the SAME HUMAN BEING as an 18 year old. So people should be able to have sex with it. Don't you agree?

  197. says:

    I said UNBORN child… check out the definition of UNBORN 🙂

    I'm not miserable. I'm quite happy.

    Every innocent human being should have equal rights. A woman cannot kill her newborn if she is miserable and if the thought of putting her child in the system makes her miserable. She HAS to figure out how to make it work – either by finding a way to keep her newborn and be less miserable or finding a way to cope with putting her child in the system. Feeling 'miserable' is no excuse to kill a born child. It's a lame excuse to kill an unborn child.

  198. says:

    A human being is the same human being their entire life. NO innocent human being at any age should be killed simply because he or she is deemed inconvenient or unwanted.

    If a woman is so paranoid about getting 'mutiliated' during childlbirth she should have her uterus removed before she ever has consensual sex and seek mental health evaluation. It's a sorry and selfish excuse to kill another human being.

  199. says:

    If anyone is acting like a slave owner, it's a pregnant woman who choses to discard her unborn child like trash because that child (slave) was deemed inconvenient or unwanted.

    Rape is a horrible thing. Killing an innocent human being is even worse.

  200. says:

    Right, so you are stating that female slaves who aborted their rape pregnancies werr more evil than the slaveowners, who merely owned, beat and raped other people.

    You are fucked up.

  201. says:

    Read a little of it. It frankly creeps me the f*ck out that guys are writing this, and are thinking WAY too hard about women getting raped, pregnant, lactating and trying to find justifications to force her to carry her rapist's baby. Just imagining two men ("Steve" and "Jason" or something) animatedly discussing this together is CREEPY. And it said something like the "woman's moral obligation" in cases of rape. That just got me pissed. In my view, her moral obligation is to make sure that the rapist's garbage DNA doesn't make it into the gene pool.

  202. says:

    I did answer the question, myintx: you just didn't like the answer.

    I oppose anyone who isn't the pregnant woman or her doctor getting to make the decision of whether, or when, or how to terminate the pregnancy, right up to delivery.

    Naturally, because prolifers are obsessive about abortion and forcing women, you read this as "abortion for any reason up to delivery".

    And naturally, because prolifers hold pregnant women in contempt, your assumption is that a woman who decides to have an abortion late in pregnancy is doing so for bad reasons.

    As Doctor George Tiller said: "Trust women."

  203. says:

    How many abortions occur in the US today by women who were raped by their slave owners – ZERO. How many abortions are due to rape – less than 1%. Even so, the unborn child is a victim of the crime and should not be killed for something he or she did not do. The woman should get HELP – Planned Parenthood offers unlimited free counseling to rape victims don't they? Or do they just take money for killing unborn children?

    Is hiding the result of an affair worth killing another human being for? NO! How about 15 minutes of fame? NO! How about the ever so lame "it's not the right time for a child" excuse? NO

  204. says:

    That has nothing to do with the point I made. Nice try at deflection.

    so tell me, were the female slaves who aborted their pregnancies more objectively EVIL than the slaves who raped them and forced them to give birth from the age of 12 until 40? Would you have enjoyed being forced to give birth every year for your entire fertile life, Mathilde?

  205. says:

    Some women do have abortions after viability for reasons other than her health being truly endangered by the pregnancy (or even fatal fetal defects).

    If we could always trust women, EVERY LAW EVER would only apply to men. The fact is that women do make bad decisions sometimes – like kill their unborn children to hide the result of an affair, or because "it's not the right time for a child". Maybe it's because they don't know there is help out there.

  206. says:

    Having an abortion after 24 weeks (the viability line) is a major medical undertaking. The arrogant heartlessness of prolifers, who assume that they know better than the pregnant woman and her doctor what she should do, is breathtaking in its triumph of ignorance and contempt.

  207. says:

    Canada has no limits on abortion, and guess what, women do not have frivolous abortions post viability.

    I still think its funny that pro lifers spend a lot of time talking about post viability abortion, since, if you believe that a zygote is the same as a toddler, it should make no difference when the abortion is performed. Zygote killing should be just as horrifying as baby killing.

  208. says:

    Well, it makes perfect sense, if you consider that it is in a man's best *genetic* interests to propagate his genes any way he can. One way is through rape. Rape is a reproductive strategy, to put it bluntly, and it suits a male just fine as he can spread his genes without actually having to waste any of *his* resources. And if you look at history, men have put a lot of effort into controlling female sexuality – which is why the pill was such a huge breakthrough. Without control of their fertility, women will always be subservient to men, because who can have a life if they are pregnant all of the time? Just look at places like Afghanistan – girls are married off at 9 or 12, immediately impregnated, and forced to do housework. A girl doesn't even have time to think of any sort of future if she is constantly working + having babies.

  209. says:

    Particularly as simple "I don't want this pregnancy" abortions, which are the kind prolifers claim to hate worst, are most often carried out before 8 weeks. Abortions for children who've been raped, abortions for major healthcare crisis – these tend to be the abortions performed late, and those are the abortions prolifers claim to be sympathetic to.

  210. says:

    Well, you saw what happened in Ireland, after all, the ant-choicers there opposed the 'life of the mother' exception that would have saved Savita Halappanavar – because they were worried about a 'slippery slope' – once you offer a life/rape exception, well then hell, women will start having 'frivolous' abortions at any stage!

  211. says:

    It's not your uterus that is killed by an abortion, it's an unborn child. You cannot kill your children because you think they are yours. You shouldn't be able to kill your unborn child either.

  212. says:

    If you were on life support and asked to be disconnected, you would be given sedatives or painkillers beforehand so your death would be easier. Administering those drugs would not be euthanasia, since the intent of administering the drugs is to ease suffering, not to cause death.

    If you don't see any morally relevant difference between euthanasia/assisted suicide and refusing medical treatment, then do you think physician assisted suicide should be available to anyone who asks for it, regardless of their health status? Any competent adult has the right to refuse any medical treatment for any reason. Should any competent adult have the right to assisted suicide, by whatever means they choose, for any reason they wish? Should there be suicide hotlines or suicide prevention programs? Why are some suicides regarded as preventable tragedies and others regarded as an exercise of bodily autonomy?

    Every disability rights/advocacy group run by disabled people themselves that has taken a position on assisted suicide strongly opposes it.

    Many of these people have severe disabilities, including disabilities that are considered terminal. Some have experienced and overcome suicidal depression. They believe that legalizing assisted suicide is a serious mistake with a profit -driven health care system in which people with disabilities often have great difficulty accessing long-term care services and they are already often pressured into not taking life-sustaining treatment. Is assisted suicide really a "choice" when the alternative is having to go into a nursing home or being forced to live in poverty to qualify for home care services? Support for euthanasia/assisted suicide is strongly correlated with socioeconomic status. The people who advocate publically for assisted suicide, like Brittany Maynard, are invariably well-to-do people who are used to being in control of their lives and don't think they could ever be pressured into choosing death. Ms. Maynard hopes she will get to see the Grand Canyon before she dies. I think the average person who receives a terminal diagnosis is more concerned about which treatments their health insurance will or will not cover. See below for a disabled activist and scholar's take on the Maynard case.

  213. says:

    Hi Ms. Spacecat

    Truth be told, I don't really care about suicide prevention or assisted suicide one way or the other. Its just not even on my radar. I just know my own wish, if I ever fall into a coma with little chance of recovering, or become paralyzed from the neck down or something, I wish to be killed. The first kinda goes without saying, and the second because I get so much joy out of being active and outdoors, I'd truthfully rather be dead than be unable to move. If someone wanted to commit suicide, I say let them. If they however reach out, then I'd say counsel them, but honestly this issue is I know nothing about and don't feel I can make any contribution by talking about it.

  214. says:

    Pro-choicers bash pregnancy resource centers and Catholic Charities – groups that help families.

    Pro-aborts bash adoption agencies and try to justify killing unborn children by saying it's ok to kill them because there are already kids in foster care.

  215. says:

    Interestingly enough, Japan has practically legal abortion and a near 90% approval of the practice. And a dropping abortion rate, and no one does it for frivolous reasons either. Some how the pro-life movement seems to miss these sociological facts.

  216. says:

    My God you are stupid. I am not justifying killing babies, you are. You are attempting to save a non human zygote, embryo or fetus and killing babies. You are a murderer looking for an excuse.

  217. says:

    No such thing as Pro-'Aborts', 'sweetie'. That would make me anti-choice like you, that would make me anti-choice like HITLER.

    Nope we don't bash adoption agencies. We just point out that adoption agencies (particularly PRIVATE ones) make a LOT more money out of providing their 'services' (that's not bashing, since a LOT of private agencies charge for more than just the service) than you reportedly CLAIM that abortion clinics make from performing abortions.

    We also point out the TRUTH, that so called 'pregnancy resource centers' and Catholic 'charities' primarily LIE, manipulate and blackmail women into giving up the resultant child for adoption. If they DON'T relinquish the child, not only are these women stigmatized by these SAME organizations for having babies out of wedlock, they also provide very FEW financial and material resources to these parenting teens and young women. On TOP of that, they prevent these women from accessing contraception and comprehensive sex ed services that would reduce the abortion rate, proving these people (kinda like YOU) are actually anti-sex, anti-women and anti-choice but NEVER Pro-'Life' or anti-abortion.

    They do NOT help families. They are simply there so they can force poor families to rely on unsustainable sources of income and material goods after your political Pro-'Life' counterparts cut funding to more sustainable and stable supports, showing us how they really think of poor families and wealthy families, meaning as the classists they (like YOU) are.

    A fetus is not a child. Why IS it that you people have difficulty calling a spade a spade, because you KNOW that you have to use your typical emotional DRIVEL to ever have any CHANCE of convincing people that a FETUS is a human being/person? All that proves is that you really DON'T think a fetus is a human being/person, nothing more, nothing less. After all, if you DID think a fetus was a human being/person you would have NO problem using the scientific term for EVERY stage of development, not just those stages of development that occur OUTSIDE of the uterus. Because that actually means, by extension, that calling me an ADULT isn't enough to prove that I'm a human being/person, since, like fetus, it is an accurate description of a specific stage of development (even though it IS a BORN stage). You people are SO contradictory.

    Abortion doesn't kill. It terminates a pregnancy. If it killed, then abortion couldn't happen when a fetus is dead. It can. In FACT, sometimes a dead fetus CAUSES an abortion. Darn, eh?

    We're not justifying that it's okay to have fetuses die because there are already kids in foster care (seriously, antis, reading comprehension. It's NOT a privilege), we're SAYING that YOUR arguments that infertile couples need pregnant women to birth children for them to adopt is entirely FALSE, and THAT'S where our argument that there are ALREADY kids in foster care comes in. TOTALLY different argument, there. But as is typical with you, I'm sure it'll probably go in one ear and out the other. Pretty sad, though.

    Adoption handles an unwanted child, not an unwanted pregnancy. If adoption did handle it, we wouldn't be having a conversation on abortion, AT ALL. Seriously, logic, GET SOME.

  218. says:

    I never had a kid I didn't want.

    Were infanticide laws and post viability abortion laws made because people thought they were 'better than everyone else'? Nope. they were made to protect children – born and unborn. We need more laws protecting unborn children from being killed just because they are unwanted.

  219. says:

    Yes, like voting in more truly conservative Republicans and placing conservative justices on the court to replace Ruth Ginsberg and other retiring justices.

  220. says:

    What is your source? Lots of pro life people help others without wearing it on their sleeves. Why don't you name some "pro choice" homes for unwed mothers. How about posting the dollars spent by pro"choice" organizations spent on shelters? Let us know the names of scholarships and dollars spent on scholarships and the number of young women that have been given these scholarship to allow them to better their lives after you have provided them an abortion. Why don't you tell us how much your pro "choice" organizations spend for psychological counseling for women who suffer painful post abortion depression? Thankfully, your time is going to be limited and you will see greater restrictions placed on abortions because young, college women are looking at the little house you built and saying, :We don't think so". That is why you are having trouble with your protest numbers on campuses. Maybe there is more information out about the ideas of the patron saint of Planned Parenthood and these young women and older women realize how it all started. It was really a matter of whose progeny was to be aborted and why.

  221. says:

    Goats have kids. I guess it sounds a little less painful when you say "kid" rather than baby or child. Kids are a pain in the rear sometimes and they are older,

  222. says:

    I didn't say I didn't like Ann. I probably would if I knew her. That doesn't stop her from being miserable. If Myintx is miserable, which I doubt, it is probably only when conversing with Ann. Misery, enthusiasm, is contagious.

  223. says:

    Good. Offer one. Then if she choses to abort and one day sees a sonogram of a fetus at the same stage of development, and it looks like a completely formed baby, she will not have great remorse. You will be doing her a favor allowing her the tools to make the most informed choice. I'm sure you want her to have that.

  224. says:

    Oh, really, Sanger killed millions of people and started a war?

    And no, Sanger was anti-abortion, sweetie.

    I am beginning to think that you are just as miserable as myintx, as only a miserable person would suggest that 1) contraception = hitler, and that 2) forcing a rape victim to gestate = totally not sadistic and psychopathic

  225. says:

    Three year olds do not have a right to life. For example one cannot force a pro lifer to save a three year old instead of a fetus. Three year olds are left to die every day by pro lifers.

  226. says:

    Paul… let me put it this way. I would support a law that required a woman to be shown sonograms of an embryo at the same stage as her own, provided the following was true:

    1. There was no expense to her.
    2. She was ALSO shown an MRI of the brain activity (or lack thereof) of an embryo at that stage, along with MRI's of a mouse and a fish, for comparison.

    Now… do you want to go for genuinely fully informed consent, or only the information that supports your position?

  227. says:

    Girls and women should be required to read the Scientific Abortion Laws. Those laws make the viewing of a sonogram moot. The laws make it clear that by forcing birth one is simply killing a real life to save a potential life.

  228. says:

    I'm glad you agree. Then, as you say, she should have a choice of a sonogram. To the uninformed, there may in effect not be a choice because one may be unaware of the availability/possibility of a sonogram. That is why, as a matter of medical protocol and human decency, sonograms should be offered routinely to those seeking help with an unplanned pregnancy.

  229. says:

    That sounds just fine. Planned Parenthood has plenty of money for political ads. They can spend some of it on sonograms. I'm sure that congress would help appropriate money for the same. Well, maybe the Republicans wouldn't. You know how they have this war on women.
    I think the sonogram would be more useful at the later stages of pregnancy, say three months and beyond.
    See, we are pretty much in agreement.

  230. says:

    Pregnant rape victims are pretty rare, but I have seen really happy women interviewed that decided to cary the child to term. I'm sure the children are grateful.

  231. says:

    30,000 impregnated per year in the USA. Millions worldwide.

    And no, the children are not always grateful, especially if their mom was forced to gestate against her will. I know I'd feel guilty if i was such a child.

    Clearly, though, you, like myintx, do not appear to have any empathy for pregnant rape victims. Perhaps you are just as sociopathic as myintx.

  232. says:

    Since rape often goes unreported and no woman is required to give a reason for wanting an abortion, it's impossible to say how rare it is. But that's beside the point. The fact that one woman is happy with that choice doesn't mean that another woman will. That's why it should be the choice of the woman who is actually pregnant.

  233. says:

    I doubt your 30,000 number and your source does not concern me.
    You were not such a child, and you don't know how you would feel because you would have grown up in a different environment and developed divergent values.
    I don't think I called you any names.

    Is name calling a trait of sociopathic behavior?