Dismemberment is not an act of love

I appreciate this post, because the narrative that oppressors are "being loving" and "doing what's best" for the oppressed is a standard tactic of oppression.

Although Feldt's quote isn't actually claiming that abortion is loving toward the unborn baby, she's saying it's loving toward other children. Mostly immaterial, though, as I've heard pro-choicers give the "abortion is loving toward the aborted child" line numerous times.

Sealed

Ah! 🙂 Yes, I remember 🙂 How jejune, as it were 😛

Ok — just wondering — my account is being attacked by random flaggers (read that carefully, it's not what you may have thought at first). Apparently, I offended a few 9/11 truthers, and some guy who went by the name "Proud white" referred to a regular female poster (a black woman) as a "c*mdumpster" . real charmer, that one. Anyway, they're mounting a campaign to delete or moderate all my posts they can find, so, for the first time in almost a year, I'm having to mark my comment trail "private" 🙁

It's weird, tho — as an atheist, hanging out in a right-leaning site, it took them almost a year to start the mass-delete campaign that took RH reality check about 3 hours to do. It's almost like the right-leaning sites are more tolerant than the left-leaning sites.

How have you been?

I'm familiar with that — it may just be that lefties tend to be more involved with their sites than those on the right — you can be on a right-leaning site and have the people on that site accuse you of trolling, or even moderate your comments. But I've noticed that, when dealing with right-leaning sites, that there seems to be a much slower (glacial) response to truly horrible things (like that black female college student that was being attacked by a guy named "proud white" and called horrible names). There is one thread on Clash that has over 160 comments, but less than 30 of them show up in the comment list, because someone went on a delete/moderate spree. (It was a thread critical of Islam). I have also noticed that the site was recently swarmed by a bunch of people who had, in their profile, a site called internet jihad or something like that (I won't link to it), which appears to be a gay porn site. I'm not sure who is supposed to be more offended by that, but it seems like a bad idea to me 😛

I remembered you after the "fox" thing 🙂

I'm doing ok — having a lot of fun, and posting funny things to make fun of some of the very serious / stodgy "KJV-ONLY!!!" people. I told them that I thought that Genesis had over 50 chapters, and they responded with "yur an idiot! genesis has exactly 50 chapters! derp!" (I may have misquoted him a little). Anyway, I responded with "Oh, I was talking about the Genesis Band Fan Website. Why would someone write a book about an 80's band? I think you're pulling my leg.". He went apoplectic, and nobody has seen him since 😛

Haha. Good times.

I also suspect that, for a lot of "progressives", the cause is just a vehicle to gain fame, fortune and power for themselves, and since what they are doing is in the name of something that is " just", that this excuses all sorts of bad behavior. Also, the worst leftwing sites also police their own members – if you don't stick PRECISELY to the party line, you must be publicly excoriated and punished. It is ridiculous. I abhor an echo chamber.

"she's saying it's loving toward other children. Mostly immaterial, though, as I've heard pro-choicers give the 'abortion is loving toward the aborted child' line"
Somewhat immaterial even if they don't use that line, because love for some simultaneous with dismissiveness toward others is a limited kind of love.

They oppose abortion by starvation from suicidal rape victims!!

I still think it is funny how they differentiate between a crime of commission and a crime of ommision. Letting the violinist die = ommision. Women doing literally *anything* to her body that might induce a miscarriage = crime of commission, which is especially ironic considering the fact that they go on about how the zef is an independent organism that *only* needs the woman's body for shelter and food.

myintx also would force a 12 year old rape victim to give birth. So, no 'love' for 12 year old girls. Just for brainless zefs.

IMHO, it really devalues the entire concept of 'love' to zero, when the only 'people' for who one consistently feels 'love' are those without functioning brains. But then, that pretty much goes along with devaluing the meaning of the term 'human being' to zero by insisting that it be applied to those without functioning brains.

Does gestation = love? Even if the parents really don't give a f*ck about the child once born, and they abuse it, like many pro life evangelicals?

You're also playing the usual force gestationer game of pretending the zef exists in a vacuum, and that there are no other people to be considered. Such as a sibling, who the mother may barely have the money to feed. Why is 'love' for the born sibling handwaved away?

Let me guess, the proportion of their head to their body is smaller than that of a very small fetus, so they aren't as cute. Either that, or else myintx caught them masturbating, so their genitals aren't pure enough any more to warrant still having a right to life, or love, or anything else.

Myintx still hasn't made it clear exactly how she would prevent women who are good at biofeedback like me from doing something like inducing a high fever in themselves that the widdle embwyo is unlikely to survive. Probably once she grasps the principles, she will demand that all pregnant women be given prefrontal lobotomies, lest they use their brains to do such a thing to the pwecious zef.

And this justifies abortion HOW?

I appreciate this post, because the narrative that oppressors are "being
loving" and "doing what's best" for the oppressed is a standard tactic
of oppression.

Yep. It's why prolifers so frequently try to claim they're only forcing girls and women through pregnancy and childbirth against their will because they're "being loving" and "doing what's best", and make up stories about how abortion damages women's health and forced pregnancy is so good for women.

*nods*

Most support for prolife ideology comes from the myth that most unwanted pregnancies ending in abortion are conceived by young healthy sluts who ought to be forced through pregnancy and childbirth and then have the baby taken away from her to be adopted to "better" parents: most prolifers yearn for the Magdalen Houses.

That the majority of abortions are performed at the request of respectable married women with children who simply know they cannot have another child, is not something that fits this myth, but also – mothers with children making a decision not to have a third or fourth child for health or family or career or financial reasons? You'd have to be a totally-absorbed member of the Quiverful movement to sling mud at a woman like that and expect your target to look like the bad guy.

Yeah. we don't give a fuck. That's why three of my pro-life friends are foster parents and I give food every month to the food pantry, volunteered at a homeless shelter for years, and donate to the red cross whenever I can. Is your claim based on any studies or statistics? or is it just pulled out of the standard "pro-choice slogans" book?

You are, as most pro-choicers do, attacking a straw man. I have friends who have had abortions I do not look down on them and see them as unfit. I see them as basically good people who made a choice that seemed like the best (or only) one at the time, but who later realized they should have done something different. If anything, isee women who society failed, and who pro-lifers like me failed, because they were put in that position. . I see a woman struggling with the abortion decision as a woman who needs help. If she needs emotional support, medical care, a place to live, money, baby items- whatever she needs, I would like to domy best to give it to her so she no longer needs an abortion. That is why I give to prolife groups that help women.

The vast majority of abortions are still done by dismemberment. But if we got rid of those and only did abortions by pill, in the first seven weeks (the FDA recommends against doing them later than this) would you be willing to ban all abortions not by pill?

A whole year? Wow. Because after one year, prolifers think the infant is old enough to look after itself/get a job?

The prolife movement is notably certain that private charity for a short period is sufficient to provide completely for the life of an unwanted child. This is so ignorantly stupid I can only suppose it's driven by the Christian Right.

As for the reproductive-health clinics that provide abortions to women who need them, unless prolife terrorism has required local healthcare to hermetically seal off abortion provision from all other aspects of healthcare, obviously they'll be seeing their patient again: for contraception, if for nothing else.

I'm talking about elective abortion, and I think you know that, actually.

Society did not fail a woman who had an abortion. Society fails if they force a woman to carry a pregnancy she does not want to term because it is going to have negative impacts on her life in some way.

Sometimes there is nothing that you people can do to help a woman with an unwanted pregnancy. No amount of money, baby items, etc would make me change my mind about having an abortion. I would know in my heart that an abortion is the only decision I could make that would be right for my life and if society did not allow me the freedom to make that choice then society has failed me.

In the study you listed you are probably forgetting that a huge number of women took the morning after pill if they were raped. This way there was no pregnancy and they did not have to worry about needing an abortion.

If a woman is raped she should be able to decide for herself what she needs. I know if I was raped I could not live with being punished by a pregnancy and could not live being forced to relive the rape every single day. It would make me feel disgusted with myself.

Interesting, Ann – myintx has blocked me but not you. Apparently more afraid of civil factual challenge than emotional argument, if you'll excuse me saying so…

What? Massive straw man hello!

I am saying that gestation and birth isn't necessarily done out of love. I know one woman who loves being pregnant, but once the kids are born, she abandons them so she can party. Simply choosing to gestate is not necessarily an act of love.

Animals have hearts and appendages. As do beating heart cadavers – living body, but essentially braindead. Add anencephalic babies and parasitic twins to that list.

Should all of the above, by your standards, have an absolute right to life?

Would you say the same about a woman who dismembers her toddler? Generally good, if confused!?

I don't need your "help."

You are talking to the author.

Oh my. How embarrassing for her.

Yes, having a baby is exactly like playing with a doll. (Head desk, head desk, head desk!) This is EXACTLY why children don't get to make decisions like that! I'm for choice too. But let's get real. No 12 year old can consent to sex. So any given 12 year old who's pregnant is a victim of rape. If it's MY 12 year old, it's off to the abortion clinic we go. A kid that age has no business making decisions beyond what she'll wear to school that day, or what to write he term paper about.

I'm happy you donate to a food pantry. Excuse me, but whoop-de-doo! That qualifies you to manage the life of a stranger?

I haven't blocked you…

Am I the only one missing something here? What is the connection between this whole strange scenario and real abortion? (This is CristinaVenturi – "CV" per purple slurpy- but my email was accessed by some hacker in Romania… Go figure… So I decided to go all anonymous…oh wait)

Does your 'help' consist of giving $250,000 to each woman? Otherwise, your 'help' consists of giving a bandaid to someone who just got shot in the lung. It makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside, but doesn't really help to any meaningful degree.

I don't care if you think it's irrelevent. Which really means you are being evasive again. I want YOU to answer the question and stop evading.

If I put a computer chip in your brain, and force you to kidnap pregnant women and perform abortions on them, who should be held responsible and prosecuted under any laws prohibitting abortions:

1. You
2. Me.
3. The mothers
4. Any surviving fetuses
5. Morbius the Living Vampire.

In your fantasy world, you are forgetting that the pro-life faction is vehemently opposed to the morning after pill, because they WANT that pregnancy to happen, so the woman can be punished for sex.

To say you are seriously disturbed is not "handwaving."

More of your sick fantasies?

Then you agree that there should be no parental notification laws that apply to 12-year-olds.

Ad hominem attacks? Yeah, that's about all you've got, pro-abortion zealot!

I didn't say that.

How does that large developed fetus fit through a suction cannula?
Have you ever seen a suction cannula?

More of your ad hominem evasions?

Sarah, you are someday going to learn some day, the hard way, that there is a really big difference between FEELING compassionate, and actually BEING compassionate. Lot's of people want to FEEL compassionate, and all warm and fuzzy inside. The problem with this is, the things you do to feel all warm and fuzzy inside are very often NOT the best things to do in a given situation. The best, most compassionate thing to do, in certain situations, may make you feel like a shitty asshole inside.

The least shitty example – if you're an adult on an airplane that has depressurized, the most compassionate thing to do is to get the oxygen mask on your OWN face FIRST, while ignoring the screams and panic of the pwecious widdle suffocating childwen around you. There are reasons for that. Probably you can't handle them, and other situations that exist in this world can and will be far less pleasant than that one.

Sober up and read my post. It goes on at considerable length past calling her an idiot, and actually explains why bodily appendages possessed by rats and salamanders do not make magical rights fall out of the sky. This, being rather unlike myintx, who refuses to answer my questions AT ALL, because she wants to evade the hard moral issues, and merely calls me 'sick'.

Exactly. If you become unconscious due to depressurization, you will be of no use to other passengers who actually need assistance. If your mask is on, you can help others.

Do you have a magic angel living with you, who will tell all women (including those who might get their periods only every 2-3 months) the INSTANT they are pregnant? Will this magic angel remove all birth defects, and all complications of pregnancy?

Send me a photo of this magic angel. Otherwise you're whining.

But! But! The widdle pwecious childwen! And cute! And the magic angels who will somehow keep you conscious, contrary to the laws of physiology, so long as you are RESPONSIBLE!!

Yeah? I wouldn't count on it.

The end result is still the same,the method doesn't matter as much as the fact that you are stopping a beating heart.I hear Pro-choicers make the justification that a late term abortion is painless and without cruelty,yet how many stories have i read about some unborn babies surviving injections into the heart.The descriptions of a viable baby thrashing about in the womb is enough to bring tears to anyone's eyes.Yet Pro-choicers act like this is a victimless procedure and part of a woman's healthcare.

Sarah is so right.A relative of mine worked at a pregnancy Care Center and there is much they do for women and children!!

Wrong!!Pro-lifers are concerned with education,daycare,job training,and affordable housing.many of us are consistently pro-life and are concerned with the whole person,not just with unborn babies.

Honest question here. What exactly are you talking about?

So she had a choice, and you want other women not to have a choice.

You referred to pro-lifers as Terrorists when you pro-choicers are the ones killing babies.I don't think so!!

Well,many of us actually do volunteer work.pro-choicers are big at pointing fingers,but what do they actually do?

women have a choice.it is called using birth control or remaining celibate.

So what are you implying ?Because college is expensive,that women should abort?You're an idiot!!

Average abortion at 10 weeks,a lot more that what you are showing.

Abortion at 10 weeks

Another thing here, stop the whining about my being a 'bully' who is 'demanding answers to questions'. Nobody is forcing anybody to be on this forum, defending their particular viewpoint. Everyone here, is here to voluntarily defend their point of view.

Part of defending your point of view is to answer questions. If someone like myintx doesn't want to answer the hard questions, because they expose her as an immature, hypocritical liar, too bad. Just because she doesn't want to answer a question doesn't make the question, or me, 'sick' and the repeated whines about 'sick' and 'disturbed' in order to avoid answering the hard questions simply present myintx, and by extension, the entire forced gestationer side, as being immature hypocrites who cry 'sick' and 'disturbed' and 'bully' in order to avoid answering the hard questions.

Here's the thing: Myintx has claimed that the fetus has a special right to harm the mother, based on this great moral principle of 'can't help it'. Then she turns around, and says she would kill a mind controlled rapist, despite KNOWING that he was mind controlled, and therefore 'can't help it'.

This means she is a provable hypocrite. Either 'can't help it' gets you a pass, or it doesn't. You can't apply it in one case, and not the other, and then claim that it is some great moral principle that should be abided by.

ladyblack says she would kill a mind controlled rapist. Fair enough. She has the right to do so. 'Can't help it' does not, in fact, get anyone a blank check to violate another person's body. This btw, makes ladyblack a bit of an asshole to me, as I would personally tolerate such a rape, rather than killing the mind controlled rapist, but ladyblack, unlike myintx, is NOT a hypocrite, because she is not claiming this great moral principle of 'can't help it' for the fetus, but not for mind controlled adult men.

Mind you, myintx ALSO has the right to defend herself from mind controlled rapists, which she apparently wants to do. But she cannot do that, and at the same time, claim 'can't help it gets you a pass' as a great moral principle. She is apparently giving fetuses a pass based on cuteness.

That's her PERSONAL right to do so. She can't require it of anyone else, any more than I can require either her or ladyblack to tolerate a rape by a mind controlled man, simply because I would, and myintx lacks the honesty to admit that the real reason she wants to give a pass to the fetus is because it's cute, and instead tries to claim some great moral principle that she abandons the moment something isn't cute or is inconvenient to her.

So?

20 weeks isnt viable.

You're the ones harassing women outside clinics, bombing clinics, setting fire to clinics, stalking women who visit PP, and murdering abortion doctors and their staff.

You are generalizing and misleading.The majority of Pro-lifers are peaceful people.You are trying to pin a negative label on a whole movement because of a few fanatics.I don't know anyone who harasses women.

Do you want people to suffer unnecessarily? Is that your goal? How loving

Sure you are. And behind the scenes, you complain about how Tiller's killer was bad for public relations, then you are all happy faced because the end result is fantastic – one less abortionist.

That's what you want to believe when in fact no one I know condones violence.

Condic doesn't know what she is talking about. Prior to 25 weeks the fetus lacks the brain structures necessary for any sort of cortical processing

I have yet to see you offer an argument of any substance. Just random insults.

Are you 8 years old?

So she was pressured into giving birth by her well meaning friends. They should be incarcerated.

If she had aborted, then she could have had a wanted child at a later date. The law of preclusion states that a forced birth precludes a wanted birth. You need to understand the laws that control abortion.

It is the truth. You are following the same path as the innocent German citizenry. Perhaps you will win a "pro life" medal for denying women their rights.

You have a choice sarah5775, you can save innocent born babies or you can let them die and save a fetus instead. What is your choice. My bet is that you murder babies. Answer please.

That's right. A well respected neonatologist who studied medicine doesn't know what she's talking about and you do. You know better than her because you read stuff on a few pro-choice sites.

I did not say that having fingers and toes is what gives someone a right to live. Honestly, I think we are all talking past each other and not really engaging what the other is saying. Maybe this is my fault too, so let me be very clear.

Science teaches that life begins at conception. From the moment of conception, the zygote has its own dna distinct from the mother. This is the point at which a new life begins. As it grows into an embryo, it develops more and more human characteristics. These all point to the fact that is human (i.e. if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck. etc) But the reality is, the embryo is a growing organism. It is clearly alive (not dead) and clearly separate from the mother as it has its own circulatory system, its own body, etc. Just like an embryo in a test tube is not part of the test tube, it is not part of the mother.

It is clearly human. Human women pregnant by human men give birth to human babies. They don't conceive cats or dogs. or any other animal. Horses have horses, cows have cows, humans have humans.

There is nothing about traveling a few inches down a birth canal that makes an inert nonliving being suddenly become a human life with rights. There is nothing different about the baby before and after birth.

Now, lest you think I don't care about the mother, I would like to note that abortion is not in her best interest either. Abortion is at heart an unnatural act. It is the forcing open of a woman's cervix, the inserting of metal instruments into her womb, which was never meant to be invaded, and the killing of something she knows deep down is her child. The rates of miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy, and even breast cancer go up after an abortion. The rates of depression and suicide too. I would be more than happy to provide evidence of these claims if you ask for it (and if you will honestly look at it rather than just deciding that because I am pro-life, I MUST be lying)

Abortion does not help women.Clinics are businesses that are run for profit, and often run poorly. Pro-choicers oppose any effort to regulate them, even though women have been and continue to die of legal abortions in america, and suffer injuries. I will provide ample documentation of this too.

These are the reasons why abortion is wrong

It is not up to me to judge the morals of women who have abortions.

After a year they pass them on to other agencies.

And abortion clinics don't even help them for a year. If a woman goes to an abortion clinics ambivalent, and while talkign to the abortion counselors (who are often, in effect abortion salespeople) but anyway lets assume she gets real counseling, and talks it over with the counselor, and decides she does NOT want the abortion after all? What does the clinic do for her? nothing. All they do is provide abortions. They don't take the time to give any help- except to kill h er baby for moneyh

And exactly why can't I help both born babies AND unborn ones? I don't think you are being rational. Who says a person can't be involved in more than one cause?

Actually, I know a number of pro-lifers who are not against hte morning after pill.

Time is your enemy. You could save both if it were scientifically possible. But it is not. There are 57 million people that you could add years to their lives. And there are 50 million induced abortion and hundreds of millions of wanted naturally aborted fetuses. If you spend 1 second saving induced abortions for occurring, that is a second you cannot spend saving born babies or wanted naturally aborted fetuses. Logically speaking if you want to save fetuses, you should save the wanted fetuses. But then again to save wanted fetuses you must let born babies die.

I need to leave for work now. I will check online occasionally and see your response.

Thanks for the questions.

Sarah, you know that if "Live Action News" allowed open debate, there would be no pro life movement. Pro life movement is only in this for the money. They could care less about babies as shown by the fact that following scientific laws will lead to an increase in life and following pro life ideas lead to a decrease in life.

Why not open up "Live Action News" to debate and stop the Nazi style dictatorship?

I look at that picture and see a human fetus. The scientific fact is that not all fetuses become babies. And to force the birth of that fetus, one must choose to let innocent babies die. When I look at a picture like that and the argument that it supports, I see Nazis style "big lie" tactics. This is about money and power, not babies.

It is a twisted viewpoint that can look at a charity that provides MANY s of services for free and works with women for a year and then look at a money making business that merely does an operation for pay and sends the women home and think the second is more compassionate than the first.

Russell, since you tell me that the few hours a day that I spend working on pro-life stuff and not trying to save born babies is "killing babies" then how many hours a day do YOU waste killing babies? Do you go to the movies? That's two hours you just spent killing babies. Go to dinner? Another few hours you spent killing babies. By your own logic, you are a murderer because you spend time doing things other than saving babies yourself. Why is it wrong of me to take a break from saving born babies to do pro-life work but ok if you take a break from saving born babies to watch a movie or go to dinner or read a book?

There is a difference in us. Murder by omission requires that a person have a duty to save life. I have no duty, you do. Yet I am the one that saves life and you are the one that kills life.

You claim to save babies by choose to let them die.

You murder innocent babies to save fetuses. You are a murderer and you are looking for excuses. This question of hers is the most important question in your lifetime. A failure to answer is an admission you have no basis in fact in your own argument.

You're right Rose… There is no connection. She's got another line of 'reasoning' where the end result is she's trying to compare a rapist to an unborn child.

Yeah… in the anti-choice fantasy world even a woman that is raped should be forced to stay pregnant.
Some of them have even gone as far to say they should view the pregnancy as a blessing.

I just do not understand why anti-choicers can want a rape victim to suffer.

Would you say the same about a woman who tears the legs off a toddler?

The adoption industry makes billions off women who are forced to gestate and birth children that they cannot care for.

Nope. PP workers always ask women if they are sure that abortion is what they want, makes sure that they are not being pressured to abort, and even puts women into contact with reputable adoption agencies if that is the route that the woman chooses to take.

Also, some PPs even provide diapers, formula and other goods, just like your CPCs.

If abortion is wrong because it is "unnatural" then so is going to a doctor for anything, or even typing on the computer.

And no, abortion does NOT cause depression, suicide, and rates of breast cancer to go up. All of those claims have been repeatedly debunked. Abortion is simply an induced miscarriage.

And in fact, pregnancy can cause depression and psychosis, from all of the hormone shifts, and it can also make bipolar women go off the deep end – months or weeks after birth, the woman commits suicide, because pregnancy exacerbated her condition.

She is asking a leading question with an obvious answer. It is a sign she is NOT disturbed.

I measure you by what you claim to do and I measure everyone else the same way. You claim to save babies, but you kill babies. I claim to be pro choice and yet I save life.

Do you understand why you are a murderer and I am not?

I'm not. Doctors are. Doctors OTHER than just the abortionist who gets paid to do her abortion.

So why do I have a duty and you dont? Because I am pro-life? REALLY? THat makes no sense. I"m sorry, but I really can't argue with you about this anymore.

No, doctors and obgyns really do consider pregnancy to be a medical condition, because it *is*.

Pregnancy is not the default state of women.

Tell me, do you believe that pregnancy is just like breathing?

The op made no judgment about the women not loving their other children, nor was she at all patronizing. She simply stated that dismembering an unborn human is not an act of love. That is true, and most Americans are ignorant about the facts of what abortion really is.

Regarding society failing women, that is also true, but has been for centuries. Women in crisis pregnancies need support, not judgment.

But a c section to remove said prenate would be an act of love?

The force of the nature of sex and pregnancy is what drives the unborn human to live and grow, not "forced gestationers," the clever semantic you are trying to pin on us.

As a pro-lifer, I disapprove of murder of born humans, so am I am I guilty of forcing the world to put up with your living and posting here because I refuse to allow that you should be murdered because I would rather not have people in this world believe like you do? No–I support your right to life and will engage in a civil discussion with you because I support your right to life.

The only case in which your argument makes sense is if the mother of the unborn is a victim of rape. In all other cases, the mother took a (hopefully) knowledgeable risk of having sex with the natural result of getting pregnant, and the man also took a similar risk. Sex without consequence is not natural and is not a constitutional right. Even if it does become a "right" enshrined in law, the law is wrong, just like Jim Crow.

So you would permit abortion in the case of rape?

"Sex without consequence is not natural and is not a constitutional right."

Please, elaborate. Why should women be held strictly liable for having sex? And why should 'nature' have a say?

So women are just mindless incubators for infertile couples?

In the vast majority of cases, the unborn child does not harm the mother! Morning sickness, inconvenience for 9 months, and labor and delivery (which is the safest it's been for centuries) does not compare with dismembering an unborn baby. The mother (except in cases of rape), HAD a choice to have sex, but the unborn child did not have a choice and is given no choice as to whether she would like to live or not.

Pregnancy, by its very nature, is a harmful assault on the woman's body.

And don't try to am handwave away birth and labour – hours to days of intense pain, along with having to push a very large object out of a tiny hole. If someone did to you what a prenate does to a woman, you would definitely be calling it an assault on your body.

So, you think that abortion should be permitted in the case of rape?

This is pretty cynical. As a mother of three, the first year is a particularly difficult time for a mother, and a vulnerable time for the baby. What Sarah (and many prolifers) does is fantastic. Kudos!

Why don't you value human female life?

Oh? So clinic bombings and murders don't happen then, because you don't know any?

The
first study linking cigarettes to lung cancer was published in 1928, and the
first Surgeon General’s warning, without the support of the AMA was announced in 1964. It took 50 years and absolutely overpowering evidence to get the AMA to admit smoking caused cancer. this was because the tobacco industries were so powerful and it was there were politics. Do you really think its different for abortion?

also, the theory behind abortion and breast cancer has to do with hormones. In the first few weeks of pregnancy, hormones are released so cells in the breasts begin to convert to milk producing cells. They enter an undifferentiated state. In the third trimester, soon before birth, more hormones trigger them to complete the transformation. The theory says that the cells in an intermediate state are more susceptible to breast cancer.

Whereas many miscarriages happen because of hormonal problems which may have prevented the cells to start changing in the first place.

This is a fair argument. My blood still boils when I think about partial birth abortion–the unnatural widening of the woman's cervix, turning the baby around to breech position, birthing the child feet first up to the neck, then inserting a metal instrument into the head and sucking out the brains while the baby's legs and arms flail.

I do not have the same visceral reaction to the morning after pill, but on principle, it's still killing a human life that would naturally live. Not society's place to do so.

For me personally, I don't even use the pill, because if it fails and pregnancy occurs, it can prevent implantation. This would be a ridiculous standard for all because the pill actually reduces the number of spontaneous abortions that occur, but I believe morally that if a spontaneous abortion happens, that's fine, because that was what was going to happen anyway–I just won't have my hand be a part in it.

For more obviously abortifacient pills, while I disagree, I find it harder to argue against if an abortion is to happen anyway, it's better to happen sooner than later. I would prefer a society where every baby conceived was born into a safe family, but we live in a diverse society, and can't have everything we want.

I HOPE that you, as an abortion advocate, would want to reduce unplanned, unwanted pregnancies, as well as abortions, AND increase the quality of life for all born humans as well. That is something we can all agree on, I think.

As far as calling us "forced gestationers." That is disingenuous. The force of life itself is growing inside a woman's womb, without any help from me. Should I approve of killing that life just because the woman doesn't want it? I don't think so. The only case, as I mentioned above, where this would be arguable, would be in the case of rape, where the woman had no choice in the matter of sex.

I actually don't want to punish women who have abortions. I would prefer the abortionist pay a fine for it, or possibly go to jail.

"I see what you are saying now. the only thing I can say is that that argument is such that any activist could use it against any other activist."

No, you are terribly confused or attempting a straw man fallacy. Either way let me help you understand.

In all your examples below, the comparison is between two living humans that can be saved. There is no difference in saving one or the other.

In my example to you,, I am speaking of two forms of life, born life or unborn life. There is a scientific difference in the two types of life. The born life is confirmed to be human life and the unborn fetal life is not. It is scientifically impossible to prove that any fetus will become a born human life. At conception there is only a 30 percent chance the life will become a born human and a 42 percent chance it is not human and incapable of becoming a born human life. In fact 70 percent of conceptions do not become human life.

" I could tell a person raising money for a charity to fight AIDs that they are guilty of letting children starve in Ethiopia, because they aren't active in THAT cause."

In your example above, there is no difference in saving a born human with AIDS and a child starving in Ethiopia. Either choice saves human life. However, if one attempts to save a fetus instead of the AIDS patient and starving child, both could die and the zef could die as well. The odds of the AIDS patient and starving child living 9 months longer are much greater than the odds of the zef living 9 months.

"I could tell gay rights activists that they are killing kids in Africa because they are not donating their money to provide mosquito netting. It is an argument that could be used to stop people from ANY cause."

A gay rights activist, and child in Africa are both human beings. The fetus cannot be proved to be human life until birth. Most zefs will not become human life. So an attempt to force birth will lead to the loss of life of the child and the Gay rights activist will lose his cause as well simply because you have chosen not to care for them.

You have a real choice, you can save innocent babies or you can let them die and attempt to save a fetus. If you attempt to save the fetus, you are guilty of "murder by omission."

And I don't want you to take this the wrong way, but since you are so concerned with my not helping born babies enough (because I DO do things to help born babies) what are YOU doing to help born babies?.

What if the woman does it herself, using herbs or poisons?

The is a tenet of law called "Murder by Omission." I has recently been used in Texas to go after dead beat dads and moms.

If a person has a duty to take care of a child or other person and neglects his duty, that person has committed "murder by omission."
For example if a person starves their child to death, they have murdered their child by omission. But if I do not feed their child and have no duty to feed their child, then I have not murdered their child.

You claim to be pro life and to save babies. You therefore have a duty to save babies. If you instead save fetuses and let babies die, then you have committed murder.

Does that help you understand?

At this present time, no woman is forced to gestate her baby because the law permits her to abort if she wants to.

The adoption agencies I know struggle to stay alive financially, and it is expensive and complicated to adopt a child.

Abortion, however, is a hugely profitable business.

Adoption agencies sell white babies for up to 60k, and birth costs anywhere from 10k to 30k. Often 20k for a c section alone, compared to 400$ to 800$ for an abortion.

Also, your hysterics upthread about partial birth abortion were ridiculous. A third trimester abortion is done out of medical necessity. Such "abortions", are in fact deliveries, and they run anywhere from 8k to 30k depending on the nature of the pregnancy and how far along the woman is. Women aren't running around having non medically necessary partial birth abortions at 8 months because they just love spending 30k that they probably don't even have.

I have not said that abortion prevents siblings from dying. I have said that more humans are dying than can be saved and that you have a choice to save one of the dying humans or a fetus. If you don't choose to save the human, it dies.

Overall abortion is proved to lead to more life and pro life ideas are proved to lead to less life. Look at my avatar, it is a graph of births before Roe and after Roe. Before Roe, when abortion was illegal, there was a decrease of millions of babies. After Roe when abortion was legal, there was an increase of millions of babies.

The pro life movement is responsible form more deaths that any other cause in the history of mankind.

I think your argument that the fetus harms the mother is incorrect, except in the case of ectopic pregnancies or other rare conditions.

Pregnancy is not a bad medical condition, and it is safer now than it ever has been in history.
Whatever the mother endures in the 40 weeks of preganancy and delivery is nothing compared to being dismembered and killed. It's comparing apples and oranges.

ZERO fetuses are viable at 20 weeks. A 20 week fetus is about 6 inches long. How many 6 inch long "viable babies" have you ever seen?

That abortionist make money is among the dumbest of "pro-life" arguments. Of course they make money. Do you work at a profession for free? Have you priced pregnancy lately? have you priced adoption lately?

Who says "human life" has value? If you eat anything at all, even if you are a vegan, you kill to eat. That carrot was alive before you ripped it out of the ground and chopped it up for your salad. That's ok. Many species on earth kill to eat. Humans kill for sport. Who are you to say that human life, and only human life has "value?" You are a speciesist. The world would do well with a whole lot less breeding of human beings, by whatever means. The Native Americans will tell you to remember the earth is our mother. Her resources are not limitless. And if we keep doing what we're doing, nature will pay us back in spades.

Sex IS only for my pleasure and has been for a very long time. Get over it. I had a tubal ligation at age 26. The result of that is that I denied life to (anyone's guess how many) possible human beings. That's the same result that happens if the embryo doesn't implant. implants and is lost anyway, or is aborted by induction. Human reproduction is very wasteful. That's how we're wired by evolution. We still manage to breed in sufficient (and some might say more sufficient than necessary) numbers.

Abortion isn't murder. It never has been. It doesn't fit the definition of murder.

I AM and I WILL are the only justification needed for abortion.

So you consider mental illness not to be "real." How special and privileged you are. Recently, in Ireland, a mentally ill rape victim who wanted an abortion was strapped down and force-fed because she stopped eating in a suicide attempt. She was strapped down, force-fed and subjected to a forced C-section at 25 weeks. Under any definition of torture, THAT'S TORTURE. It's inhumane treatment inflicted on a human female with human rights simply because she was female, pregnant, and vulnerable. Her illness was not imaginary. Her illness is a genuine medical condition, and according to Irish law, she was entitled to an abortion. Please explain to me exactly HOW violating her human rights is of any benefit to her, or helpful in any way regarding her real, physical illness of depression?

Cynicism is the only appropriate response to the sugary private charity of prolifers who want to kid themselves they may talk hate and contempt towards women, but look at all they do for them.

Sorry, but they are doctors just like any other doctors. When have YOU ever had a procedure where the doctor wasn't paid?

I said abortion was not a loving act. I'm sorry, but I stand by that.

So, it was more "loving" of the doctors in Galway hospital to stand by while Savita Halappanavar died in agony, her husband (and she herself, when coherent) begging for the abortion that would have saved her life.

Prolifers "love" women to death.

My bf told me about this last night, and I really would like to find the study referenced, but apparently pregnancy worsens bipolar and can actually lead to suicide *after* birth. And, these suicides are not listed as pregnancy related deaths, when in fact the pregnancy exacerbated the existing condition. And it is easy to say "don't have sex if you are bipolar" except that many people are bipolare *and don't know it*.
http://m.bjp.rcpsych.org/content/186/6/453.full

The study was referenced in a Steven Fry documentary about bipolar, so I need to find that as well.

Prolifers have bombed and burned hundreds of clinics that provided abortions, murdered medical personnel and other clinic staff, and carried on a campaign of violent terror against safe legal abortion provision that was begun with the modern prolife movement in 1979 and continues to the present day. The prolife movement is a successful terrorist movement.

It was notable, by the way, that some at least of Kermit Gosnell's clients went to his clinic because they were scared off by the prolife mob outside the Planned Parenthood clinic a few blocks away. The prolife mob in Philadelphia never bothered Kermit Gosnell.

My sister is bi-polar, and I mean to the extent she has made me cry and worry about her all the time, because like a lot of bi-polar folks, she engaged in conduct that was highly illegal during her manic periods, and when she was depressed she would let her cats shit all over the house and not clean it up. I mean to the point where you couldn't walk anyplace without stepping in it. She improved a whole lot after having kids (THANKFULLY!) but that doesn't mean she won't ever deteriorate again. If you find that study, I'd love to read it.

I simply don't understand why you advocate giving birth to unwanted children at all, only to pass them off to someone else and leave them to their fate. Don't we have enough children who need homes already? Why add to their numbers?

My blood still boils when I think about partial birth abortion–the unnatural widening of the woman's cervix, turning the baby around to breech position, birthing the child feet first up to the neck, then inserting a metal instrument into the head and sucking out the brains while the baby's legs and arms flail.

Ah, so unlike Sarah, you actively prefer abortions where the foetus is dismembered inside the uterus and brought out piecemeal?

You don't like IDX – the medical term for "partial birth abortion" because the foetus dies more-or-less intact and – this is a late-term abortion, usually performed for medical emergency reasons, on a woman who's just discovered she's lost a wanted baby – because the woman who had to have an abortion will then have an intact body to mourn over, and you think it better if the doctor has to dismember the foetus inside her uterus?

Wow, prolifers make no secret of how much they loathe women.

No. A 20 week fetus CANNOT breathe. That's why they aren't viable. NONE of them, EVER.

and talks it over with the counselor, and decides she does NOT want the abortion after all? What does the clinic do for her?

Well, in one instance that I know of – a little girl from Ireland, age 12, who'd flown over with her parents to have an abortion, but who stuck it out to all the clinic staff that she didn't want to have an abortion – the Marie Stopes director told her parents that under the circumstances they could not perform the abortion (a 12-year-old girl is really too young to have a baby, but obviously it would be wrong to perform an abortion on an unwilling patient) but that if the girl changed her mind, any time up to 24 weeks, Marie Stopes would cover the cost of the plane fares back to the UK and the difference between the cost of the later abortion and the one the girl could have had then.

Both Marie Stopes and BUPA offer reduced rates to women from Ireland, in the knowledge that Irish women have to pay the cost of travel as well as abortion, as the Republic of Ireland outsources virtually all its abortions to the UK at the patients' difficulty and expense.

Another clinic anecdote: a woman who admitted in counselling that she did not want to have an abortion, but she literally could not afford the cost of childbirth. The clinic director rang a local prolife gynaecologist she knew of, and quite literally browbeat and blackmailed him into taking the woman on as a patient for free. (Anecdotally, the woman said the doctor complained no end about being "forced" to take on a pro bono patient, but provided decent care if with grumbling.)

Prolifer clinics by definition are run and staffed by people with no concern for the human needs of the pregnant women, only for forcing women with unwanted pregnancies to give birth. You've expressed contempt for women yourself, Sarah, and expressed a desire to ban abortions without making any exceptions for health, life, and wellbeing.

Clinics for reproductive healthcare, by contrast, are staffed by people who care for women: who went into this line of medicine because they care for women.

"I would say that if I starve my child to death intentionally, that is a murder of commission. If I neglect my child, and that child dies, then that is murder of omission."

And if you are obligated to save babies but instead let them die, that is murder by omission.

"If a man and woman conceive a child, they have the shared responsibility to that unborn human, from conception, to care for that child."

In order to conceive a child they must consent to abortion. Why, because 70 percent of all conceptions abort naturally. So they have the obligation to take into consideration all aspects of their lives and if the considered opinion is that there should be an abortion, they should abort.
It is unwise to bring into the world an unwanted child.

" If they kill that child, whether by abortion or neglect, it's still wrong, and abortion is clearly a murder of commission, while neglect will be a murder of omission."

There is no proof that there is a child until birth. Until the DNA of the genotype expresses the correct phenotype at birth, there is no human life. There is no proof that any specific zygote will produce a human life.

"If the government says that murdering the baby inside the womb is okay, that doesn't make it a good choice–it is still taking the life of an innocent human."

Look, all I want is for you to prove that there is a baby in the womb that is more valuable than the baby outside the womb. One should not be allowed to procreate until they are certain that all living humans are secure and saved. There is no honor or ethical reason to let born people die to save fetuses.

"I personally do not have a responsibility anyone else's born or unborn except that of basic care for my neighbor. "

If you claim to have the right to force another person to gestate, and if you claim to be pro life and to save babies, then you have a duty to save babies. You must save real babies or be guilty of their murder.

" So I will oppose a law that says taking of unborn and born human life is okay, and I will support laws that make this world a better place to live, as best as I see fit. In all cases, I support life."

What you support is the murder of innocent born babies to save fetuses. What you are doing today is letting innocent babies die for no good reason. You are in fact a murderer by omission.
z

Women in crisis pregnancies need support, not judgment.

Agreed. But if you really believed that, you'd be prochoice, because you'd accept that quite often the support needed is to have a safe, legal abortion.

I don't know a single pro-lifer who supports bombing clinics!

But you yourself were advocating having all the safe legal clinics shut down by legal means. The prolife terrorist movement, while still active enough to cause concern, has largely turned into a movement to shut down clinics by political means.

Your accusation is the same as if we compared all abortionists to Gosnell.

Yet you yourself are advocating a world where the only abortion providers a woman could go to would be men like Gosnell, and worse.

Calvin is in charge at LAN. I'm banned there. Calvin is a jerk. He allows no opposing views and if he does he throws out insults.

Drilling into your blood vessels
Injecting your body with hormones in order to extract a maximum amount of sugar and iron
Taking calcium from your bones
Loosening your joints
Suppressing your immune system
Pushing your metabolism to its very limit
Dumping toxic biowastes into your body
Raising your blood pressure

Torturing you for hours or days with painful contractions, and if you are lucky, not literally ripping your vagina right down to your anus, or causing you to bleed to death…

Yeah. If Joe Blow was to walk up to you and do what the prenate does to a woman, you would have him arrested for assault.

Er, Sarah? If you'd read these studies, instead of just looking at the titles, you'd know that the claiimed link between breast cancer and abortion has been very thoroughly debunked.

The Danish whole-population study which you cite was particularly telling – it showed not only no evidence for any causal link between abortion and breast cancer – as other studies, many of whicn you have cited, also demonstrated – but also no statistical link: because that study looked at a whole population of women, it was able to show that a woman who had had an abortion was no more likely to develop breast cancer than a woman who had never had an abortion. Nor was there any statistical linkage for women who'd had several abortions.

Science, Sarah, is about data. It's not about reading (and misunderstanding) a whole bunch of study report titles.

No, actually nobody has a responsibility toward a conceptus.

That's what she wants to do. Leave it alone, without access to her organs.

Yes, I fought against nature by taking birth control pills and then having a tubal ligation. It was utterly 'natural' for me to avoid pregnancy, as I had known since I was 7 y.o. that motherhood was simply out of the question.

Women who don't want children shouldn't have them.

'Sex without consequence is not natural and is not a constitutional right.'

I've had sex without 'consequences' my entire married life. Of course it was my absolute right to reject motherhood. And, really, there's nothing society can do about that absolute right.

Tell me, is the fetus, kicking the woman in the ribs for 9 months, usually causing great and constant pain, occasionally actually *breaking* her ribs, does that count as "harm" or not?
http://community.babycenter.com/post/a21789865/can_you_get_fractured_ribs_from_baby_kicks

I mean, if someone was to walk up to you and punch you in the ribs, breaking them, you would just shrug and say no harm done, right?

No, I have been on many a rightwing pro life board where they condemned the murder, but talked about how happy they were that fewer "babies" would die now that he is dead.

Any citations for that claim?

Please explain how failure to answer proves i have no basis for my argument…

So, you're claiming here that we live in a world of unlimitted resources, and that angels fly around dropping food and money from the sky for everyone who needs it?

The same way I can look at a brain dead motorcycle accident victim, a corpse, or an anencephalic infant and not see a human being. Because without a functioning mind, you do not have a 'human being'. You have meat, regardless of how cute the meat is, or how many sad feelies you have about it.

**,the method doesn't matter as much as the fact that you are stopping a beating heart**

Stop the babbling about 'beating hearts', once and for all. A heart is a pump, no matter how many sad feelies you have about hearts, and how cute they might look on a valentine. A fish has a heart, as does a worm. There are people who have been kept alive on artificial machines for a fairly long time, when their own heart has stopped beating. What if a precious 8 month preemie is hooked up to such a machine? Do I get to kill it, because a 'beating heart' equals a human being, so it's not a 'human being' any more? Or are you just babbling anything you think might cause sad feelies?

**The descriptions of a viable baby thrashing about in the womb is enough to bring tears to anyone's eyes**

Descriptions of 12 year old girls who have been raped are enough to bring tears to someone's eyes. Except forced gestationers. Why do you think your sad feelies are valid, but not other people's?

So, basically you're admitting here that you think sex is evil, and pregnancy is a punishment for it. Honesty, at least.

Lori:
1. My question was not addressed to you.
2. Go sober up and take a remedial reading course.

**The person who implanted the chip is culpable,**

Oh really? Well, that's real interesting, because according to myintx, if a MAN is so unfortunate as to get such a chip put into his head, and rape her, HE is the one who is evil, and should be killed, not the one who put the chip there and directed him to rape her.

Or is culpability here dependent on who gets the chip put in their head, and how cute they are?

**pro-lifers are not forcing anyone to get pregnant, nor are they forcing the life to grow.**

You want to force people to remain pregnant. A cancer grows by itself too, but you don't have a right to prevent people from having it removed.

**It is growing naturally without our help, and will likely continue to grow naturally unless killed**

You don't have a right to 'grow' by feeding off others without their consent.

**We hold that is not a loving act**

I am not required to adhere to whatever standard of 'loving' you have imagined in your fairytale world. Neither is anyone else.

Actually, I agree with some of what you say – that there is a big difference between feeling compassionate and being compassionate, and that "the best, most compassionate thing to do, in certain situations, may make you feel like a shitty asshole inside".

I think, however, that it can apply also to people who are pro life. I know that asking a woman to carry a baby to term and deliver to raise or place the child for adoption is huge. Painful. Very difficult. I still wrestle with where I stand on the issue. Feeling warm and fuzzy inside are not what would make me lean toward pro life (indeed, I'm not sure where I stand on the issue – but I recognize the validity of BOTH sides of the argument and think that unwanted or unplanned pregnancies are tremendously challenging issues).

I'm kind of tired of your "pwecious widdle childwen" bit. As I say to my preschooler, stop baby-talking. It doesn't help.

That's nice. That says nothing about whether you know any pro-lifers who are against the morning after pill, or whether the pro-lifers you DON'T know are or aren't against the pill, and what the percentages are.

**For more obviously abortifacient pills, while I disagree, I find it harder to argue against if an abortion is to happen anyway, it's better to happen sooner than later.**

Well, most people agree that sooner is better than later. However, forced gestationers like to pass laws that do things like make abortions inconvenient, expensive, available only at a few locations, and requiring waiting periods, in hopes of preventing abortion, but with the real effect of making it later rather than sooner.

And, btw, if you think 'sooner is better than later' this is contradictory to the forced gestationer belief that a zygote is the same thing as newborn infant, since if they are, in fact, the same, then it would necessarily follow that it was irrelevent when the abortion occured, no time would be 'better' than any other.

**Having sex is RELATED naturally to getting pregnant.**

Opening and closing your mouth and moving your tongue around is RELATED to eating.

That does not mean that EATING is the main purpose for which human beings use their mouths. It is the case in a lot of animals, but it is not the case with us. With most people, unless the person is very anti-social, or weighs about 600 lbs, they use their mouths for TALKING far more than for EATING.

The mouth has been evolutionarily repurposed in human beings.

Sex has been repurposed, as well. Most animals have sex when, and only when, the female is fertile, at certain times of the year. In those animals, the 'purpose' of sex is arguably reproduction. Human beings do not go into heat. We can and do have sex many, many more times than we can possibly reproduce, and at times when we CAN'T reproduce, because the woman isn't fertile at the time. In human beings, the 'purpose' of sex is pleasure, whether some people like it or not.

And at any rate, the 'purpose' of the mouth, or sex, or anything else is irrelevent to what I have a right to do. If I want to use my mouth as a wrench (bearing in mind this will probably end up with dentist bills) or use my vagina to put marbles in, that's nobody's business but my own.

Of, course what you are evading, is that the money used for government assistance, that let your mother feel holier than thou about not getting an abortion, does not fall out of the sky, or get delivered to them by angels.

It is forcibly stolen from other people, who have earned it, before it can be used for 'assistance'.

It's also a very inefficient form of 'assistance', precisely because it is forcibly stolen, so enough money must be stolen not only for the 'assistance' but to support a whole network of bureaucrats, auditors, police, judges, and jails, with which to threaten and punish people who do not pay their taxes.

Probably, for every $1 that goes to 'assistance', $10 must go to pay for this huge enforcement and punishment network.

That means that for every $1 of government assistance your mother got, $10 was stolen.

What does that mean in terms of abortion? It means that in order for your mother to get sufficient government assistance that she could afford to feel holier-than-thou by NOT getting an abortion, and having children she couldn't afford to raise herself, another 10 families were probably put in a position where, due to the taxes stolen from them, they could not afford to have children they might have wanted, and had to get an abortion for financial reasons.

Ei, the 'government assistance' that let your mother NOT have an abortion, probably caused 10 abortions, somewhere else, instead.

But economic facts probably make you all sad feelie or something.

And here we go with the sad feelies about a pump again.

I have a pump in my basement I use to empty out a swimming pool. Is it a 'human being'?

What if I induce a high fever in myself than kills the embryo, just by concentrating. I can do that (give myself a fever), you know. What do you propose here? Should pregnant women all be given prefrontal lobotomies?

in order to force the birth of a 20 week fetus you must make the choice to let an innocent baby die. You cannot save both born babies and fetuses. So your choice to force the birth of a 20 week fetus is a choice to murder an innocent born baby, child or adult.

Further, because seventy percent of all conceptions die in the first trimester, any consent to sex is consent to abortion. If you are willing to let fetuses die so you can get off sexually or to pro create, why not let the fetus die so you can save a baby. Seems like a reasonable swap.

**I did not say that having fingers and toes is what gives someone a right to live**

Then why mention them, other than to try and induce sad feelies?

**Science teaches that life begins at conception.**

So, what are you claiming here? Are you claiming that neither the egg and sperm are alive? Or that the unfertilized egg doesn't exist in our universe, and simply pops into being from the twilight zone, a split second before the sperm comes along to fertilize it?

** It is clearly alive (not dead) and clearly separate from the mother as it has its own circulatory system, its own body, etc**

Same is true of a pig. What's you're point?

**It is clearly human.**

Being 'human' with no other qualities does not cause ANY rights to magically fall out of the sky, let alone special rights that you want to give the fetus.

** I would like to note that abortion is not in her best interest either.**

So, you're claiming that all the gravestones of women who died in childbirth are fakes? Or are you claiming that dying is in the woman's best interest?

**Abortion is at heart an unnatural act.** So's surgery. So is a ceasarean delivery to save the infant's life. So is living past the age of 29. How old are you?

** the killing of something she knows deep down is her child.**

So, now you're claiming to have psychic powers, that you know what someone else knows 'deep down'. Have you taken that up with the Amazing Randi? I believe he has a standing $1,000,000 reward for anyone who can prove supernatural abilities.

**Clinics are businesses that are run for profit, and often run poorly.** Same thing with Walmart, and the local YMCA.

**Pro-choicers oppose any effort to regulate them,** Because you know damn well that 'regulation' means make it so difficult and expensive to jump through as many hoops as we can put into place, that they'll be forced to shut their doors.

**women have been and continue to die of legal abortions in america, and suffer injuries. I will provide ample documentation of this too.** Women are still dying in childbirth in America, too. What's your point?

**These are the reasons why abortion is wrong** Your reasons are nonsense.

Hint here. Profit is not always measured in money. Some people measure profit in terms of how miserable they can make other people, and they will actually pay money, or make themselves miserable, in order to do so.

Forced gestationer sad feelies are an excuse for making REAL people miserable for the sake of brainless zefs.

**Sex is powerful and has effects, both tangible and intangible.**

Oh yeah? What are these 'powerful tangible and intangible' effects? Can I hook a generator up to people having sex and light up a small city? Will it summon Beelzebub?

**When we protect all of us because we assign intrinsic value, we become more human and live up to our potential more fully.**

No, sorry, no. There is no way to turn an idiot into a genius. 'No student left behind' does not and cannot work. All the attempt will accomplish is to turn a potential genius into an idiot.

**My middle school students were able to accomplish amazing things, regardless of innate talent, because the atmosphere we had was safe for all.**

In other words, you destroyed the potential of any future Beethoven or Mozart you might have, for the sake of those who simply will never be future musical geniuses, so that they could 'feel safe'.

The capacity for sentience yes. However, fetuses are sedated and anaesthetized whilst in utero, which is why a baby born within the amniotic sac doesn't wake up until first breath, even after having its skull squeezed and crushed during birth. And believe me, you would wake up if that happened to your head.

There is a very good reason that fetuses in *all* mammals are unconscious in utero. If they were awake and capable of reacting to stimuli they would kill their their mothers and themselves. Just think about what a horse fetus could do if it tried to gallop in utero – it would rip the amniotic sac, killing itself and mom.

Oh, can I take it that since you still think 'Beating heart' constitutes 'person' that you would advocate that resuscitation should not be attempted on winter drowning victims, because their pwecious heart has stopped beating, never mind that the effects of cold water mean that they can often be revived for up to a few hours after their (gasp) HEART has stopped. After all, the pwecious heart = real person for sure.

So, people have strong emotions about sex… This justifies your telling them what to do with their bodies how, exactly?

If you are intent on sex solely for your pleasure, then your tubal ligation will prevent conception of human beings, which I think is more responsible than using abortion as birth control. You denied potential life, but you haven't killed existing life. Good for you!

I think sex is phenomenal! Are you kidding??? The natural parameters for sex are that I will not have sex with anyone who will not love and raise a child with me.

I didn't invent pregnancy! It's not a punishment–it's a natural result! The force you are railing against is the Force of Nature. If it's okay to kill an unborn human life, then it's okay to kill a born human life. Your life is intrinsically valuable, and it was so since your conception. I don't think your life or any life should be taken if that life becomes a burden for others.

Tell me the 'logic' behind that

Actually, my parents did that for me, and it's my job to take it from there. There is a massive social suffering and economic fallout from the sexual revolution from the 60s, and parents are not doing their jobs. The public school has the capacity to mitigate some of these problems. There are secular nations in Europe which have teen pregnancy rates at a fraction of ours, and the last 20 years have shown society can make a difference to these social outcomes.

I have provided for myself since I was 18, so my concern here is not for myself by for the massive poverty cycle I see daily that is deeply affected by the sexual attitudes you tout. Massive numbers of abortions have not reduced poverty in my city, so I don't think it's the answer.

It is the sexually irresponsible people who are creating a burden on society, but mostly thy are creating a burden for themselves and their children. I can see why abortiin would seem like an easy out, but since it's the killing of human life, I don't think it's the answer, and cannot agree, because I think humans are intrinsically valuable.

Not if human life is intrinsically valuable. Many women who were planning to has an abortion but chose not to (due to those harassers who stand outside pregnancy centers) now consider their children their greatest joy. I know raising kids is hard, and desperately hard if you are alone, but what's done is done. Doing what is right is very, very hard, but it is always the best course of action. Killing a human life is not a wise course of action because it demeans us all. Standing with a woman, giving her the emotional, material, medical support she needs through her pregnancy is the rational thing to do if you are pro-life. We know we can't really stop anyone from aborting her child, but many women don't really want to abort, but feel they have no choice. If someone comes by her side and helps her find her way, then we CAN take care of both the woman AND the child. That is a choice worth celebrating.

Use BC does fail but that does not mean I woman deserves to be punished for that. She should not have her life destroyed because she was unlucky.
For me abortion is the obvious response to avoid having my life ruined by the misery of pregnancy.

You just mentioned that society owes me nothing, and then likewise, society owes nothing to the woman who got pregnant. Nonetheless, since we irrationally care for others, we give what we can. The first year is a very vulnerable time, and unlike you, I commend Sarah for her efforts. Ultimately, the mother and father who conceived the life are responsible for the child, not Sarah, not I. But we care because we are human.

You can't erase the conviction that killing an unborn human is a very wrong thing to do. I can't support it, and won't. That doesn't mean I go around judging women who have had abortions, imagining that I am somehow better than they are. I'm not the judge. But we all have to acquire a moral construct individually, and live by it. In a democracy, we will have this tension always. I can't believe that it is good for a society to have unrestrained sex and abortion. I think we have tested this hypothesis in the last 50 years, and the outcome is very costly, personally and economically.

You have to kill it to separate it from her organs.

If the woman consented to sex, then there is no debate–she consented to the possibility of getting pregnant. The unborn child is a living human, and deserves the right to live.

If the woman was raped, then my argument doesn't stand.

But, pregnancy vs dismemberment? It's ludicrous that you even consider it an equation. For a woman to give ten months of her life to allow a human to live–is a whole lot different than stealing an entire life from another human. 10 mos vs 80 years? Does not compute. The first ten months are the easiest. She can give her up for adoption and let her have a chance at life, too. They both win.

Wow! I'm truly sorry I offended you! Please forgive me.

My point is that I value your life because you are human. I value unborn human life, too. My value of human life is unconditional.

Comparing the prolife movement to terrorism is wrong. Although abortion kills 3500 babies a day, I will not call you terrorists, but can we come up with ways to improve this nation with any common ground?

You do the research. too lazy or something?

Women should absolutely not be solely liable for the child. The father has, IMO, a serious moral obligation to the mother and child. I think we can agree on that.

"Why should nature have a say?" Ummmmm…. When sperm and egg no longer procreate, nature will no longer have a say.

STDs are also a natural result of sex, along with urinary tract infections. You are "fighting nature" if you take antibiotics to kill your syphillis.

If you force a woman to gestate you are putting ONLY her life and health at risk and depriving ONLY her bodily autonomy.

Having sex while female is not a crime, and to prohibit abortion is to treat women like criminals.

That is an evasion.

Some pro-lifers insist that I 'aborted' who knows how many zygotes when I was on hormonal birth control, so it seems now, just lately, being responsible is classified as not actually being responsible at all. Now, zygotes failing to implant is nothing I'm likely to ever lose any sleep over, but I do believe that it's *highly, highly* irresponsible to *discourage* use of the most effective forms of contraception.

There is a post on this blog explaining tort law for unintentional tort. It explains clearly how pregnancy is not punishment. Sometimes our perspective, while valid, is incorrect, in the case of viewing pregnancy as punishment.

And that post is demolished by a professional lawyer, as tort law would hold women strictly liable for having sex – treating it as a negligent act. Furthermore, tort is only applicable when actual harm is caused, and the victim must be restored to their default condition. So, now you have to make a case that conception = harm.

Good luck.

You're right. But in an imperfect world, we can look for common ground, and I foolishly thought that dismemberment of an unborn human being would find it.

I think "he" is her sock puppet.

No, because if it is out of medical necessity, a c section could KILL THE WOMAN.

So if a cannibal eats you or someone you love, do you have similar outrage as to when someone eats a carrot?

I suppose this is the heart of our difference–the value of human life is held in different esteem.

a partial birth abortion took too long to open the cervix.

Lady Black, are you valuable? Would you be offended if someone tried to kill you? If humans are not valuable, why would you bother to advocate for women to be able to abort their babies or argue that it is a travesty for a woman to have to go through a pregnancy? If human life isn't valuable, why do you care??? If you and a pregnant woman are valuable, how did you get that way? When did you start being valuable? If all your life, your loves, sorrows, triumphs, successes mean something to you, then that little embryo that used to be you, had SOME value. If that life had been snuffed out, and that's okay, then your life is meaningless–all that you've done means nothing, because it wouldn't have mattered if your mother had aborted you. I disagree with that fact. I'm glad you're here (honest). If we can't understand that we were all embryos once, and have a smidgen of empathy, then it's a very sad, meaningless existence.

We will just have to disagree.

In order to conceive a child they must consent to abortion. Why, because 70 percent of all conceptions abort naturally. So they have the obligation to take into consideration all aspects of their lives and if the considered opinion is that there should be an abortion, they should abort.
It is unwise to bring into the world an unwanted child.

I believe that there is a difference between natural death and death by my hand. If procreation results in a spontaneous abortion, then that is not murder.

We will disagree: I believe that if a couple thinks they should not bring a child into the world, they need to either not engage in sexual activity, or they should be very careful and use birth control. If there is an "accident", then they can give the baby up for adoption, and the guy had better be there for the lady during the pregnancy.

Look, all I want is for you to prove that there is a baby in the womb that is more valuable than the baby outside the womb. One should not be allowed to procreate until they are certain that all living humans are secure and saved. There is no honor or ethical reason to let born people die to save fetuses.

Look I can't prove to you that the baby in the womb is more valuable, hence the tension. But like I said to Lady Black. Are YOU valuable? Would you be offended if someone tried to kill you or your loved ones? Why? Why? Why? Because you have accomplished something with your life? Because you value your life? At one time you were an embryo–if that embryo had been snuffed out–would it have mattered? And if it wouldn't have, then you don't matter, either. If you do matter, then that zygote had some value, as does every other living human embryo out there.

I am not going to cheat to help you. If you can't answer the question, just say so.

What you support is the murder of innocent born babies to save fetuses. What you are doing today is letting innocent babies die for no good reason. You are in fact a murderer by omission.

This is a false dichotomy.

Shame on the pro-life community for not being more careful in their labeling (truly). But does this gruesome picture change the reality that abortion dismembered abortions–even in the early second trimester?

Yes–we also weep at the rape of 12-year-olds, so I'm glad we have some common ground!

Ann–your life is meaningful. The very fact that you are arguing here means that you care deeply about life, about what is said, about what is validated by people you don't even know. Your life has value, and at one point you were one of those "pwecious widdle zegs." All of your life, even your passion to fight for abortion was wrapped up in that embryo that used to be you. Would it have mattered if your life had been snuffed out? Do your contributions to this world mean nothing? I believe they do, and I trust that somewhere in you, you realize that you do matter, and that little embryo you used to be, also mattered. Are you glad you got to live? I am!

Refreshing comment!

Well, I can't say I've avoided a great number of complications of life. There have been plenty of those; they just haven't involved parenthood.

It will die as a result of being separate from her organs.

Well, of course you value your life. And so do I. But don't make the mistake of over-valuing it. You enjoy life because you are alive and conscious, capable of experiencing enjoyment. Once you weren't, and some day you won't be again. The best thing you can hope for is that your being alive affects the lives of others in a positive way, rather than a negative way.

(:

Yeah. You think that slavery is morally justifiable.

Why mutilate the woman for a fetus that is doomed anyway?

"Your graph is very interesting, and gives me something to think about, but your interpretation is a reach, I believe."

It really does not matter what your "belief" is there is only one set of facts and they apply to us all.

"There was a little bit of a lag, there, in the population spike, after 1973, and the population rise increased along with the economic success of the 80s, and tapered off more recently as the economy has ceased to boom. There are hundreds of factors to consider, including abortion, but to insist the cause and effect is a reach and grasp."

I am entitled to state the facts and then apply my interpretation with regards to those facts. The statement of the pro life movement is that there have been 55 million babies that have been murdered after Roe. This graph makes it clear that such a claim in error and that what actually occurred is that there was an increase in births.

"Is your definition "saving lives" the same as making the population grow?""

My interpretation is that the population grew because lives were saved. "Saving lives" means extending life for a sensible period of time. No life is ever saved for eternity.

"By your argument, are we all responsible for every death that occurs because we didn't do something to prevent it?"

No, only people with a duty to save life are responsible for the murder of others he is required to save. Most people have a full time job saving themselves and their loved ones.

" Or maybe we should be growing the economy so that the population can grow again?"
My belief is that the population is not growing because pro lifers are causing the death of millions of people. Growing the economy will increase births but killing babies will decrease births.

"Unfortunately, by your standard, you have to kill millions of unborn in order to make the population grow."

No, all that has to occur is for pro lifers to stop murdering babies. The fact is that if there is an abortion of an unwanted fetus there is no loss of a wanted fetus. And a woman can become pregnant if she wishes with more babies.

"To you, they are nothing, but to me, the born and unborn are both human, and we CAN and should serve both to the best of our ability."
This is where you will have a problem. Babies, children and adults are dying at the rate of 1.8 each second. If you spend 1 second attempting to save an unwanted fetus, 1.8 born babies will die.

And there are 10 wanted fetuses that die each second. If you spend 1 second saving an unwanted fetus, then 10 wanted fetuses will die.

It is scientifically impossible to save wanted fetuses or unwanted fetuses without causing the early death of a born baby, child or adult.

I feel sorry for you that you cannot do what you want. But if you continue to murder babies to save fetuses then you are guilty of murder.

"I will respectfully disagree with you. Cheers."

We are all welcome to disagree about opinion, but we cannot disagree about facts. A fact is not subject to opinion. You may ignore the facts and continue to murder babies, but is that really what you want to do?

The "fact" is that you cannot save an unwanted fetus without causing the death of a born human or wanted fetuses.

You are only able to enjoy your life because your mother gave you the ability to get to the level you are at. Would it have been okay if she had aborted you? What about all the good things you have done? They wouldn't have been done.

Yes, because forcing a woman to carry a dead or dying fetus to term is *extremely* unhealthy for her.

A dead fetus rotting inside your body can KILL you.

Yes, a c section IS mutilation, as a knife is taken, and that knife is used to cut into the womans body. C sections have many serious complications, and they can take months to heal. Also, they can go septic, ie, your flesh starts to rot.

But hey, if you say that being cut into with a knife isn't mutilation, then I guess you would not complain if someone attacked you and cut you open with a knife eh?

Forcing a human life into existence was done at procreation. Allowing the life to live requires the least force in this situation. Abortion forces that human life out of this world.

I am not obligated to save anyone. I am obligated to tell the truth–that life is valuable, and that killing it is wrong.

There is no "right to life." There is especially no right to be gestated.

Actually, it's still an abortion (actually a delivery if past 20 weeks or viability depending upon who you ask). A delivery doesn't ensure a live birth. Ending a PREGNANCY prior to 20 weeks or viability is an abortion. It may happen because the fetus has died already. It may end the life of the fetus. Either way it's an abortion. The status of the fetus doesn't matter. Only that she's pregnant.

Babies can never be aborted.

"The number of babies aborted and the number of babies born is a fact."
The number of babies aborted is not important, that is what the graph shows. What is important is the number of babies born. What good is it to "save life" if what you are actually doing is not saving life. You actually kill babies, you attempt to save fetuses.

That is why you must make clear which life means most to you, the life of a baby or the life of a fetus.
" Your interpretation is a far reach, and not fact."

The fact is that there were more babies born during pro choice times than in pro choice times.
You leave out the greatest number of abortions, the natural abortions.

There are many more times the number of miscarriages than there are induced abortions. So it skews your numbers. For example what percent of induced abortions would have aborted naturally had the induced abortion not occurred.

The number of abortions is not really known whereas the number of births is known. The fact is that if you are concerned about abortion, then you should not waste your time on induced abortion where 1.4 abort each second, you should worry about natural abortions that occur at 10 per second.

"Too bad. A person has a right to kill to defend their rights."

Do you really believe this? Do you think this is a good basis for civil law?

A human fetus is a human life, not any life.

You equate pregnancy with being erased. It's just. not an honest comparison.

Hmmm… There is just no way that your analogy speaks to the abortion situation.

huh?

Tell that to the 300k women who die worldwide per year.

Tell that to the millions who are permanently injured

Tell that to posters on these very boards who nearly died from placental previa and eclampsia

Tell that to the women who have been ripped from vagina to anus from a breach birth

Tell that to women who have suffered broken ribs from fetal kicking

Tell that to African women who leak feces and urine uncontrollably from their vaginas because the fetus tore a hole in their vaginal wall

Tell that to women in american hospitals whose c sections went septic

Tell that to the husbands of women who killed themselves from post partum depression

Tell that to women who suffer birth trauma PTSD

You have been lucky. Good for you. But you don't speak for anyone else.

Oh my! How you can misconstrue and twist. ):

The day intact D&X was outlawed was one I fought for, and rejoiced at. If D&E is also outlawed, I will also rejoice.

Regarding the pill–I would never outlaw the pill–because as you mentioned, there is a fair argument that it actually reduces spontaneous abortions. I personally won't use it, but I don't have a problem with people who do for the reason you mentioned.

I think we all should be promoting awareness of pregnancy and teach our youth to be sexually responsible so that abortions wont' be so tempting.

You wrote: "In essence, if a blastocyst doesn't implant and it's "natural" that's "fine." If you do anything that *might* interfere with that process, you go bananas about it."

Exactly. Intent to kill is an important question when a court determines guilt, and the morning after pill is clearly an intent to kill whatever life was conceived beforehand. That is the sticking point for me.

Sex is still always the cause of pregnancy. So, you can use it however you want, but you are putting your head in the sand if you deny this.

If you seek to prohibit abortion, and you do, women will suffer, endure numerous injuries, and even die.

Why do you hate other women so much?

I have convinced myself that instead of 55 million babies being murdered, there are more babies. And when you count the born babies I am right. T he scientific fact is that there are more babies, not 55 million fewer babies. So it is the pro life side that is falsely convinced. If there are 55 million more babies that died that would not have aborted naturally, prove it.
I believe you that have convinced yourself that you are saving babies. But the scientific fact is that you are murdering babies. It is not a far jump for you to have convinced yourself that I am the one murdering babies when in fact the number of babies has increased. Why have they increased, because of the "Law of Preclusion." If a woman is forced to give birth to an unwanted fetus then she cannot give birth to a wanted fetus in the same time period. That law makes it clear that forcing birth precludes additional births. And that is a major problem for the pro life view.

It should be familiar to you. The pro life movement in the US is a carbon copy of the pro life movement of the Nazis. You murder real life in an attempt to save fetuses.

And no, simply saying that there is a false dichotomy does not prove there is a false dichotomy. You are a proved murderer until you prove there is a false dichotomy.

I have proved there is a true dichotomy. You may save a fetus or a born baby, but you cannot save both. Until you can prove you can save both, you are guilty of murder.

If the goal is to be respectful to life then you should not murder babies to save fetuses. There is no proof that a fetus is alive or will be human at birth.

http://www.mccl.org/unborn-babies-can-feel-pain.html

Studies have also been done that babies recognize voices and sounds they have heard inb utero.

My own niece stopped crying after birth after hearing my brother sing the song he always sang to her in utero.

False dichotomy.