Dismemberment is not an act of love
[Today’s guest post by Sarah Terzo is part of our paid blogging program. Sarah is a pro-life atheist, a frequent contributor to Live Action News, a board member of the Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians, and the force behind ClinicQuotes.com.]
Sometimes when talking to pro-choice leaders and reading what they write, one is reminded of George Orwell’s novel 1984. Words have their opposite meanings; black is white, slavery is freedom, and abortion is a social good and moral choice instead of a brutal act that kills a baby and, quite often, scars a woman.
|Above: Gloria Feldt|
Gloria Feldt, former President of Planned Parenthood, says the following in her book The War on Choice:*
I have spoken and read letters from hundreds of women about their experiences with abortion, and one thing I know is that abortion is almost always a profoundly moral choice. Women and men plan their families because they have respect and reverence for human life. Women who choose abortions do so because they love children…
It is not an act of love to kill a baby. Choosing to give birth to an unwanted pregnancy leads to a living, intact, usually healthy child. Abortion leads to a baby poisoned or torn apart and extracted in bloody pieces. Statistics on when in pregnancy abortions take place are notoriously unreliable, but evidence suggests that most abortions take place between the sixth and tenth week of pregnancy. By seven weeks after conception, the baby already has fully developed hands and feet—hands and feet that are torn from her body in the most commonly used suction abortion procedure.
Former clinic worker Catherine Anthony Adair described first trimester abortions as follows:
I was a medical assistant in the room for hundreds of abortions. I witnessed the baby being suctioned out of the uterus and watched blood and tissue work it’s [sic] way through the tube into a metal bowl. The baby was dismembered during the process. The nurse would account for the baby parts and put it into a baggy, which I then put in a box with the other aborted babies. We then had to count them at the end of the day to ensure we had all of them to go to the lab.
Dismemberment is not an act of love or kindness. We don’t brutally murder our loved ones. Criminals do not commit their violent crimes out of love and concern for either their victims or society as a whole. These statements seem so obvious that it’s absurd to make them, and yet we have to bring it up because of extreme comments from pro-choicers like Gloria Feldt.
Too many Americans are ignorant as to what abortion actually does to a baby. Oh, on some intellectual level, they may be aware that abortion ends a life or potential life—but they have no idea how developed the babies are, how brutal and bloody abortion really is. They have not thought about the life of the child, the unseen victim who is growing within his mother’s womb, secure and safe, with a beating heart and developing brain, only to be suddenly, brutally killed.
Pro-lifers must educate the American public. The fact that Gloria Feldt was able to make such a statement to her supporters and be taken seriously shows the ignorance and denial that is epidemic in the United States when it comes to the abortion issue. We have our work cut out for us. But if we continue to state the truth on the Internet and in other uncensored forums, perhaps one day statements like Feldt’s will be seen for the absurdities they are.
*Gloria Feldt. The War on Choice: the Right-Wing Attack on Women’s Rights and How to Fight Back (New York: Bantam Books, 2004) 103
One big appeal to emotion. I guess that abortion opponents would be OK with abortion if every abortion was simply performed by c section? Disconnection of placenta from the uterine wall? After all, many abortion opponents think that it is totes morally permissible to disconnect the violinist and "let him die" – so why should embryonic death from a placental-uterine disconnection be any different?
BTW, this is what the average abortion looks like:
And "how brutal" abortion may or may not be is irrelevant, as embryos are non sentient, ie, they lack the capacity for even basic awareness.
And if you want to use the argument "its gross so ban it", I would have to point out that many many surgeries are gross, and birth itself and c sections are very gross and unsettling. Ban birth?
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.
Why have you followed my account? I don't see you on any of the sites that I post to…
What did the fox say, remember :p
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?
That sucks, sorry.
And yes, lefties can be VERY authoritarian. I have been on some right wing sites that accuse anyone who even mildly disagrees, of being a troll, and sad to say, many left wing sites are no different.
It is the authoritarian mindset, IMO. If the intolerant lefties had grown up in a different environment, they might be intolerant righties, and vice versa
I put you on follow after the good discussion we had about disqus and certain "visages" on that blog about the snowman:p
I have been OK, nothing to report, how about you?
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 😛
Evangelical Christian here, glad to be in this movement with you. Thank you for saying the hard things.
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.
Thanks for a statement of moral principle that is reasoned, yet stays close to the ultimate source of all correct moral principles, the heart.
"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.
This is not a winning strategy. Most of you folks are against abortion even done by medication where no "dismemberment" is involved. At least be honest, now. It's not about "dismemberment" for you people. That's an appeal to emotion. It's about forcing women to carry every pregnancy to term, which can be a loving act, or not so much.
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.
Your precious 'pro-life' myintx would have an innocent human being dismembered so she could steal their kidney.
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.
But Night Porter! That little flake of tissue is a real person for sure, that 'squirms away' from a suction tube! Even though it doesn't have a functioning brain to even realize the suction tube is there. And it feels real pain and fear! Even though you need a functioning brain to feel that.
Now, a 12 year old rape victim? She's just mindless meat to keep the precious embwyo alive. She doesn't really FEEL things like the widdle embwyo does.
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?
At any rate, I fail to understand the point of the title. So 'dismemberment' of a brainless zef is 'not an act of love'. There's a lot of things like that. Cutting an apple in half, or smashing rocks, is 'not an act of love'. You're playing the usual forced gestationer game of trying to make other people fill in the blanks with sad feelies, and think -without your saying so, so that you can leave yourself wiggle room – that the widdle zef somehow feels emotions or pain, or has a 'right' to life, love, and whatever other blank check you want to give it.
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.
A question for MYINTX:
Tell me something, myintx. Suppose I put a computer chip in YOUR brain, and controlled your body so that you went out, entirely against your own will, kidnapped pregnant women, and performed abortions on them.
WHO should be held responsible for this and prosecuted under any laws prohibitting late-term abortions, or abortions against the mother's will, or whatever other laws might exist regarding the matter?
3. The mothers
4. Any surviving fetuses
5. Morbius the Living Vampire.
Answer with one or more of the above, not irrelevencies like 'bs' or 'sick', or your other handwaving evasions.
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.
This subject has been broached here before.
If it *was* possible to monitor women and prevent them from simply willing an abortion, would it be ethical to prevent, or punish women for doing so?
When you follow pro life beliefs down the rabbit hole, there is absolutely no denying that it is about controlling and subjugating women. You literally cannot protect the prenate without violating most of the woman's rights. This is one reason they try so hard to pretend that:
Pro life is actually feminist
Pro life protects women
These same women are psychopaths who must be prevented from murdering innocent baybeez
The woman's rights are not actually being abrogated, because life trumps liberty
The woman's rights *are* being abrogated, but that's OK, because she is a slut who had sex
Pregnancy is just like a teen eating doritos on a sofa, so they really arent asking much, why are women such selfish sloots?
I just had a thought.
Why do they freak out if the woman smokes or drinks during pregnancy – bad for fetal health- then handwave away the very long list of pregnancy side effects and pretend that birth is a minor inconvenience? Why does a fetus have a blank cheque to hurt a woman?
And this justifies abortion HOW?
You can lift a teen eating Doritos off the sofa and propel them to the table where eating is supposed to be done.
I appreciate this post, because the narrative that oppressors are "being
loving" and "doing what's best" for the oppressed is a standard tactic
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.
Don't get me wrong, there are far worse things prolifers do to pregnant girls and women – including of course the act of force which is intrinsic to prolife ideology.
But the lie that prolifers claim to believe, that a woman who has an abortion is an unfit mother, that she cannot love her children and never did, is if not the worst thing prolifers do, certainly the most sickening.
Most women who have abortions have them because they have already had all the children they can care for. The disgusting lie that prolifers fling at those women, that they don't love their children because they chose to abort an unwanted pregnancy, is – well, disgusting is the only word for it.
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.
Answer the question with choices 1 through 5, myintx, not your evasions. The question is not whether the abortions are justified, the question is who should be held responsible for the abortions in the situation I described.
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?
OK. Basically, you guys are lying.
The average abortion takes place between seven and nine weeks. At this stage the embryo already has developing hands with fingers and toes. Do a google search for the Alan Guttmacher's statistics. Then go to http://www.ehd.org where you can see a baby under seven weeks moving around and see her heart beating. At seven weeks, a female baby has OVARIES, dear. Not everything you hear on pro-choice blogs is true.
The site I directed you to is not a pro-life site. It's backed by a University, I forget which one but I'm sure it says so on the site.
THe videos are not ultrasounds, they are done by inserting a camera into the uterus of a pregnant woman.
Maybe what you posted IS what an early abortion (before seven weeks) looks like. Because the baby is torn to shreds by the suction. That doesn't mean it was a living organism
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.
Why do you keep assuming that the twelve year old rape victim WANTS an abortion? or that abortion would be in her best interests? There have been two studies done on rape victims who become pregnant. In each study 70% of them chose AGAINST abortions. I have a friend who was raped and had her baby. She was almost pressured into having an abortion by the "well-meaning" people around her. She has expressed great anger that pro-choicers use people like her for a point in an argument. She ir pro-life and has told me a dozen times that she is glad to have had her little girl
I too have been a victim or rape. And I can tell you, abortion would have been the absolute worst thing that ever I could have done. I was sixteen, If my parents had forced me to get an abortion (in my best interest, of course I would devastated about it to this day. I can live with the rape. I was an innocent victim. I could NOT live with having killed my baby. Going through my life knowing I killed my baby would have been worse than the rape.
Don't tell people like me what we need.
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?
yeah. that's why cpcs, like the 2000 plus that exist, do clothing drives for infants and children. Why they follow the family for at least one year after the birth. Why they offer free parenting classes and help women with children get jobs. Why they help women do the paperwork to get on goverment assistance if that is what they need. They translate the forms for them and fill them out. Yeah. Because wen want to take their babies away. You just get more and more ridiculous. Maybe you just are ignorant, or maybe you just don't want to believe that pro-life people are usually basically good, not horrible monsters. It's sad. My crisis pregnancy center in town even arragnes to offer free day care. All for women who KEEP their babies.
All for FREE. Did you hear that? Free.
Your friendly neighborhood abortion clinic will happily take their 400 dollars, suck that baby right out of them, and send them on their way never to see them again.
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.
Ah, another prolifer who makes no secret of wanting women to die pregnant. The claim that prolifers support life-saving abortions is clearly not even meant to be believed, when we have Sarah wanting to make sure – for example – that all women in pre-eclampsia die in eclampsia by banning abortions after 7 weeks.
I'm talking about elective abortion, and I think you know that, actually.
Because the vast majority of 12-year-old rape victims do want an abortion, and are quite capable of saying so, Sarah. The rare exceptions do need special counselling because a 12-year-old is not old enough to have a baby – not physically ready for the huge strain of pregnancy and childbirth (this is a leading cause of death for teenage girls worldwide) and obviously, not able to provide for or care for a baby and certainly not mentally/emotionally able to handle the trauma of adoption.
But what do prolifers care about child welfare or caring for rape victims, when a chance to force a vulnerable child is available? Nothing, of course. Prolife is all about force and abuse.
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.
No, Sarah, I don't. If you meant you'd support all abortions that a doctor agreed were a health necessity, you need to go back and edit in some humane compromise to your (typically prolife) ruthless and brutal remarks about banning abortion.
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.
If you're that nastily patronising to the women you know who chose to terminate unwanted pregnancies, and dismissive of their reasons for doing so, you're really not their 'friend'.
If you didn't mean the nastily abusive remarks you made in your OP about how women who have abortions don't love their children, then go back and tone them down a bit.
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…
The average age of a woman having an abortion in the US is early-20s. I can assure you a woman that age also has fingers and toes, if that's all thst you require to know to care about her as a human being – a human who deserves better than to have the use of her body forced against her will.
Your ignorance about embryonic development is beyond my power to remedy: I learned the hard way not to argue with prolifers about science. The proper grounds of opposition to prolife ideology are ethical and moral, not scientific: forced use of another human being is plain wrong.
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?
What is wrong with letting the 12 year old decide for herself?
Would you say the same about a woman who dismembers her toddler? Generally good, if confused!?
Actually, I pay attention to what actual doctors say, not what the FDA says. Medication abortions are safe further into gestation than 7 weeks. You must remember that the FDA isn't on the cutting edge of medicine, and any information they have dates back to clinical trials done way back when they approved the procedure. The more experience gained, the more we know. Would I be willing to ban all abortions other than medication abortions? OF COURSE NOT. Are you out of your mind? That's a "one size fits nobody" solution. I trust women and their doctors to do what's safest for the woman, depending upon her individual condition and the status of the pregnancy. It seems you missed the entire point of my comment. I'm not hung up on the method of abortion. The author seems to be, and believes you are too. She's counting on the fact that you don't know much, medically speaking. You're proving her right.
I don't need your "help."
In my opinion? EVERYTHING.
You are talking to the author.
Was she 12??? Look in the mirror and repeat after me. "A 12yo child has no business giving birth or being a parent." Keep repeating that until it sinks in.
Oh my. How embarrassing for her.
I am for choice, but I see your point. A few months ago, an 11 year old rape victim in Chile (where abortion is illegal under all circumstances) "chose" to gestate – she said, to interviewers, that having a baby would be like playing with a doll.
BTW, do you notice how most countries that deny abortion under every circumstance are either a dictatorship, or former dictatorship?
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 believe those who support CPCs to be generally well-meaning. But you know the old saying about the road to hell. right? Someone planning for an infant needs a lot more than a few baby clothes, a pack of diapers and a gently used crib, you know? And they need daycare for a lot longer than a year. What she needs most (not what the baby needs most!) is a clear plan to move on with her life. The means to further her education, not some job catching and de-beaking chickens, or waiting tables. She needs tools to care for herself and her child for the rest of her life, not a year of daycare and life as a charity case. I doubt you people think much beyond just getting the baby born. That's not sufficient.
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?
It has fingers and toes. And it's heart beats! Well surely that means I owe something to it. Guess what? I have fingers and toes, too. And my heart beats without depending on the organs of another. Guess what else I have? I have a mind.
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)
ok. Basically you're an idiot. Rats have 'fingers and toes. And ovaries. And a beating heart'. So do salamanders. 'Fingers and toes. And ovaries. And a beating heart' do not equate to 'being a real person' or having brain function.
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.
Stop running damage control for myintx. I have reasons for my questions and the fact that you forced gestationers don't like my reasons is too bad for you.
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:
3. The mothers
4. Any surviving fetuses
5. Morbius the Living Vampire.
Sarah: Sober up and read what I have written. What I wrote was that myintx would force a 12 year old rape victim to give birth. That sentence sort of implies that the 12 year old does not WANT to give birth. It has no implications for one that does not want to give birth.
**There have been two studies done on rape victims who become pregnant. In each study 70% of them chose AGAINST abortions.**
Uh huh. Hate to tell you this, sweetling, but I was trained to analyze statistics. Your statistic does NOT HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION to support your claim. Specifically, it does not state what the age ranges of the 'rape victims' in your study are. If it includes only rape victims above the age of 18 or 21, it really doesn't say anything about 12 year olds, does it?
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.
**All for FREE. Did you hear that? Free.**
All of which does not come close to beginning to solve all the problems and expense of raising a child. You do live in a fantasy world, don't you?
To say you are seriously disturbed is not "handwaving."
You're little more than a pathetic Internet bully with your silly attempts to order people to answer your silly questions.
More of your sick fantasies?
You? Trained to analyze statistics? ROFLMAO!
Then you agree that there should be no parental notification laws that apply to 12-year-olds.
So now you're claiming to be smarter than the FDA, huh? Laughable, at best.
Ad hominem attacks? Yeah, that's about all you've got, pro-abortion zealot!
This has nothing to do with the intelligence of the FDA. The FDA is a regulatory body, not an organization of obstetricians and gynecologists. The FDA doesn't even REGULATE the practice of medicine. The practice of medicine is regulated by the various State Boards of Professional Affairs. And what every state board says (in essence) is that doctors may practice in any area where they are prepared by education and experience. The FDA is the Food and Drug Administration. In case you didn't know this, these are two different roles. The federal government has no authority over medical practice.
I didn't say that.
Sorry, when I specifically say I want an answer, to refuse to give an answer, and instead comment on my supposed mental state, is an ad hominem fallacy, and constitutes handwaving. And I've told you before to stop running damage control for myintx.
How does that large developed fetus fit through a suction cannula?
Have you ever seen a suction cannula?
**You're little more than a pathetic Internet bully with your silly attempts to order people to answer your silly questions.**
Forced gestationers don't want to answer the hard questions about morality, so we will resort to ad hominem insults.
There. Fixed it for you.
More of your ad hominem evasions?
BA in biology. We studied statistics, experimental method, and what claims could or could not be made, given certain types of information. What are you qualifications?
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.
I don't think she's disturbed. She's asking good questions.
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'.
Their objection to the morning after pill is irrelevant. It's available OTC for any age and I don't particularly care if they "want" pregnancy to happen or not.
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.
It's relevent in the sense that the pro-life faction takes the contradictory stance of saying 'People should just use birth control or the morning after pill', while simultaneously hypocritically opposing the availability and use of such pills, because they cause a pwecious widdle zef to fail to implant. They also spread and encourage others to spread false information about birth control, presenting it as far less effective than it actually is, with the twin goals of on the one hand, trying to force people to remain celibate, and on the other hand, convincing people not to bother with forms of birth control they erroneously believe are ineffective, thus resulting in unwanted pregnancies and more abortions for the pro-lifers to bitch about.
Trust me, I've met people like this before, they actually WANT problems to exist, so that they will have something to bitch about.
Case in point, a customer on a newspaper route I couldn't find for several days. Every day, they called up bitching that they weren't getting their newspaper (since I couldn't find their house). Finally, I located their house (on a different street than their address indicated) and put a piece of yellow tape with their address on their newspaper tube. The following day, the tape was gone. I put up another peice of tape. They then expressed their displeasure at the fact that the problem was actually solved, and they were actually getting their paper, and therefore could not enjoy their daily bitch, by letting the papers pile up in their tube for 4 days. Yeah, they really wanted that paper real bad, didn't they.
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.
Well you do have to admit that "fingers and toes" is a pretty dumb argument. Suppose the fetus has developed abnormally and doesn't have fingers and toes? Does that change it's value in your mind? Suppose it has polydactyly and has extra fingers and toes. Does that add to it's value? It STILL, at seven weeks, cannot live without the use of the organs of another. It is still mindless.
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!!
Well I agree that they aren't particularly fond of contraception either. That's fine. Nobody is forcing them to use it.
Yeah? I wouldn't count on it.
There are people in Africa in a particular tribe who commonly have something resembling a lobster claw, instead of normal fingers and toes. Are they therefore not human, according to sarah?
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.
Women are not the victims here.An unborn child has no say in whether or not it is conceived.There is something called birth control.And there is nothing respectable about taking the life of one's child.It is called family spacing for a reason.
Sarah is so right.A relative of mine worked at a pregnancy Care Center and there is much they do for women and children!!
I chose life at 19 when my Mother offered me an illegal abortion. I WAS horrified – kill my baby? Not me.
After I gave birth, I knew two things:
1. that I never wanted to do that again
2. that I made one of the stupidest decisions of my lifetime.
Have you given birth? I have three children.
Did you know that childbirth is the leading cause of death of girls 15-19 in Africa? Did you know that childbirth can kill a 12 year old?
I would abort the spawn of a rapist in a New York minute. I would drag any 12 year old of mine to the clinic – by her hair if necessary.
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.
I would like to be present when you told this Father what you said above. I bet i
Honest question here. What exactly are you talking about?
No it is better to"kill"the child in your opinion because its family may have to struggle.What a cop out.My Mom was a single Parent,and worked as much as she could before she got sick.She provided my brother and I with all of the essentials and also received some help from private and government agencies.She was advised to have a therapeutic abortion,but decided against it.
So she had a choice, and you want other women not to have a choice.
Being "concerned" about it means nothing. That and two bucks will buy a Sunday paper.
You referred to pro-lifers as Terrorists when you pro-choicers are the ones killing babies.I don't think so!!
Infanticide is a crime. If you know of anyone killing a baby, it's your civic duty to notify authorities.
Well,many of us actually do volunteer work.pro-choicers are big at pointing fingers,but what do they actually do?
You are giving voluntary college education? Excuse me while I finish laughing.
women have a choice.it is called using birth control or remaining celibate.
No thank you. I will have lots of hot sex.
I will use birth control.
If I become pregnant, I will give birth or abort as I see fit.
Not as YOU see fit.
So what are you implying ?Because college is expensive,that women should abort?You're an idiot!!
Killing a viable baby is infanticide,lady.Why don't you Google pictures of aborted 20 week babies.Stop hiding your head in the sand.
Average abortion at 10 weeks,a lot more that what you are showing.
Average abortion at 10 weeks.
Abortion at 10 weeks
An 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.
How embarrassing for you!!
Pregnancy is not a state of health. And don't try to handwave away labour and birth.
20 weeks isnt viable.
Wow… judging by the dime next to the head, it's brain is smaller than that of a fish. Based on what we know of brain function, the fish is smarter by several orders of magnitude.
Am I supposed to be sad?
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.
And you can show me picture of a dead 'child' resulting from an abortion? Or just a dead fetus?
As for you sob story, not impressed. Boo hoo, your poor mummy worked and later got government assistance. Pretty much of a fairy tale compared to the situation some people are in. I know people where the parents can't work, and don't get governnment help, I know people where both parents work, and still have no insurance for themselves or their born children, and despite what they might earn from their jobs, have to look for road kill, food in dumpsters, and/or go poaching to find food for their born children.
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.
And again,life is hard for many people.it is unpredictable.So because life is difficult and we all face challenges,we should all go out and abort?Your argument is an absurd and ignorant one.Try to come up with a better argument next time.You are making a fool of yourself!!
Do you want people to suffer unnecessarily? Is that your goal? How loving
An embryo can't suffer. A woman, however, can.
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.
Google Dr Condic's testimony before Congress.She discussed how unborn babies feel pain at a much earlier stage than thought.And most abortions occur at the fetal stage.Do your research!!
That's what you want to believe when in fact no one I know condones violence.
Funny,I have seen pictures describing how they have all of their organs in tact,can feel pain,can swallow,breathe,blink their eyes,have a beating heart.The literature also describes 20 week fetuses as six and a half inches long.That You can't say it's not a living breathing human.I wish you could stand and watch a late term abortion.Let's see if you still felt the same way.
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?
You understand that no matter the effort used cpc's they can do not meet the standards set by the Nazis when they set up their pro life system In order to come up to Nazi standards from the point you are now you would have to take care of all the children produced and all the mothers as well. Then you would have to award National metals of honor to the woman whom you force to give birth.
The pro life system you have set up is simply a carbon copy of the early Nazi system. Hitler after being helped to attain dictator status by the Catholic Centre Party set up a pro life system you are mimicking. In his system women had a specific purpose for mankind. There duty was to become pregnant and produce good conservative Christian babies. People that aborted were given the death penalty. Abortion was considered murder.
I see the same sentiments in you that I see in the Nazi system. You are building a base just like them and you will soon be in complete power. You will then completely take away the rights of women and criminalize the thoughts and actions of the pro choice side. You see yourself just as the German citizenry saw itself. You envision forcing birth and furnishing what women need in the way of goods and services. You, like Hitler have the perfect plan.
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.
That's nuts. I mean really, that's batshit crazy talk.
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.
What are you talking about? where on earth are you getting this stuff? Why does the fact that I care about unborn babies and want to help pregnant women find alternatives to aborting them have to do with killing born babies? OF COURSE i don't want to kill born babies either. Why would I want to kill born babies? You are twisting reality. Giving women maternity clothes and baby formula and sharing the truth about abortion makes me Nazi? Really? I can't even argue with you because you are so irrational. I think you may be a troll whose trying to get a rise out of me.
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.
The issue of abortion falls under the control of scientific laws. Any claim that is not in comport with what nature dictates is false.
The scientific fact is that 70 percent of conceptions abort naturally in the first trimester. Another 25% of those remaining abort in the 2nd and 3rd trimesters. So the fetus that is shown as an example is an early term induced abortion. It also graphically represents a natural abortion that would look exactly the same.
A 2nd and 3rd term induced abortion would be with medical care that would assist in the abortion.
A 2nd and 3rd term natural abortion could be without medical care and does often lead to the death of the mother as well as the fetus.
Any choice to have sex is consent to abortion. We know statistically that 70 percent of conceptions abort naturally, therefore if one consents to sex they have consented to natural abortion. A natural abortion is life threating for the woman and is also more damaging to the possibly living fetus that is aborted.
So your whole spiel is based upon the idea that a woman that intentionally aborts, has killed a baby. But scientifically speaking and consent to sex is consent to abort a fetus under the most deadly conditions for both the mother and the fetus.
I hope you will take time to understand the impact of what this means. It means that there is no way to have sex, to become pregnant or to give birth without giving consent to a late term or other abortion.
The claims you make about abortion are the same claims made by the Nazis when they set up the pro life movement that you are modeling. Hitler had Jewish women raped and forced their gestation so that he could later kill them in an effort to prove "life at conception" and to protect the innocent babies. He failed as you will fail.
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
I said abortion was not a loving act. I'm sorry, but I stand by that. If you think that means I am "dismissive" of women and "nasty"I'm sorry you feel that way, but I do not retract what I have said
It is not up to me to judge the morals of women who have abortions.
I'm sorry, I misread your post. I thought you were saying it was evangelical pro-lifers who don't' give a fuck. Were you instead saying pro-lifers are abusive parents? I dont' really see any evidence to back up that claim.
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
"What are you talking about?"
I am talking about the choice you have to save babies or to let them die and save fetuses instead. You cannot save both fetuses and born babies, children and adults. Why, because life is dying faster than it can be saved. All life dies, so you must choose which you will save for a period of time.
"where on earth are you getting this stuff?"
I scientifically observe what nature allows me to see. And I report what I see. I see 57 million people dying this year and I see that 70 percent of conceptions die. Those are observations of what is occurring in nature. They are fact.
"Why does the fact that I care about unborn babies and want to help pregnant women find alternatives to aborting them have to do with killing born babies?"
I don't mind if you murder innocent babies to save fetuses. But don't claim you are saving life. You are not saving life. You are letting living babies die and attempting to save fetuses.
"OF COURSE i don't want to kill born babies either."
Well, it is your choice. You may choose to save babies or let them die and save fetuses. It is totally up to you whom you save.
Why would I want to kill born babies? You are twisting reality. Giving women maternity clothes and baby formula and sharing the truth about abortion makes me Nazi? Really? I can't even argue with you because you are so irrational. I think you may be a troll whose trying to get a rise out of me.
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?
If a woman's life or health is in danger because of her pregnancy, i would not oppose her abortion. The problem with the health exception in legislation is that in the case of Doe vs .Bolton in 1973, the Supreme court defined "health" as it related to abortion rights in such broad terms, that it really allows for abortion on demand. Its' a loophole. Under the standards set up by the Surpeme Court, a woman could say she was emotionally bothered by her pregnancy and get an abortion, no further questions asked. If she has a genuine medical condition, a REAL one, that's a different story. But the health exception is law as it is written now is a loophole.
Actually, I know a number of pro-lifers who are not against hte morning after pill.
I don't know how you can look at that picture and not see a human being.
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.
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. 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. 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.
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?.
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 see debates on LA all the time. And I'm not in charge of their website.
And really. Abortionists make millions off abortion. NO pro-life activist makes millions. 99% of pro-life activists make no money at all. They provide all their services for free. I have a pro-life website. Not only do i NOT make money on it, I PAY to have it online. It is really ridiculous to say pro-lifers are in it for the money. how many pro-life millionaires do you know? who in the pro-life movement is making money?
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.
I dare you to ask them to allow me to debate the science of abortion. They are not in this to hear the truth. They have fabricated a series of lies that support what they say and only allow debate that they can counter. They are murdering innocent babies to save fetuses and the know it.
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.
There have been infighting attacks where one side of the pro life movement sued the other side of millions of dollars. A Texas pro life Catholic ministry supposedly mishandled millions of dollars.
There are at least a 2 billion pro lifers in the world. If each spend a dollar to support the cause, there would be billions of dollars.
CPC's spend millions of dollars each year encouraging the death of babies and the forced birth of fetuses.
You need to take you head out of the sand.
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?
maybe you should judge yourself by the same yardstick you are judging me.
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 do the research and tell me.
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 do the research and you tell me…. It's your question. Did you even TRY to figure out what the answer might be, or do you (again) want someone else to do all the work?
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.
So, what's the answer Russell?
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.
Actually, I have peer reviewed citations and 50+ years of neuroscience to back up the claim that there can be no cortical processing and thus no way to experience pain, or anything else, if the capacity for basic sentience/awareness is absent.
Would you say the same about a woman who tears the legs off a toddler?
Yeah, many hardcore pro life evangelicals love the fetus, and abuse the child. Specifically the people involved in the homeschooling movement, and those who live by the book "How to Train up a Child". Abuse is rampant in these circles, as are cases where children have been literally beaten to death, out of " love", mind you.
The adoption industry makes billions off women who are forced to gestate and birth children that they cannot care for.
Except that pregnancy *is* a medical condition, and no one but the person who is facing the very real risks and side effects of this decision should have a say.
What, exactly, makes you qualified to make medical and mental health decisions for others?
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.
You need to answer, not me.
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.
Hey Sarah, if a woman doesn't have insurance, are pro life organizations going to cover her million dollar hospital bills if things go wrong?
What if she suffers from eclampsia and is confined to bed for many weeks and loses her job, and as a result her insurance, and perhaps even her home? Are pro lifer's going to pay her hospital bills, find her a new job, and buy her a new house?
She is asking a leading question with an obvious answer. It is a sign she is NOT disturbed.
Not sure what you mean. You initiated a post that made an absurd although interesting claim, bu that had nothing to do with the article. I was just wondering if you had a point.
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?
Well, I can show you the testimonies of about hundred former patients of planned parenthood and several former employees who say different.
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.
Yeah..PP is all about "killing" so they can laugh all the way to the bank.
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 American Cancer Society disagrees with you;
And here is what is wrong with your "abortion causes cancer" theory..abortion is simply an induced miscarriage. In fact, the correct medical term for a miscarriage is *spontaneous abortion*. And if your studies were actually true, women who have miscarried would have higher rates of cancer. They do not.
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.
An unborn human is not equal to an apple or a rock. If left alone, the apple will rot, and the stone will stay a stone. If left alone naturally, an unborn human will most likely grow into a human such as yourself and myself.
But a c section to remove said prenate would be an act of love?
"If left Alone" – so if left alone in a petri dish it will grow a brain in 9 months, doesn't need a woman's organs at all?
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.
As a former music teacher, I fully subscribe to the idea that if one person is mocked or belittled, all of us are brought down a level lower. When we protect all of us because we assign intrinsic value, we become more human and live up to our potential more fully. My middle school students were able to accomplish amazing things, regardless of innate talent, because the atmosphere we had was safe for all.
When we say that a human life is intrinsically not valuable for whatever reason (life will be hard, her brain is not fully functioning, she's not wanted), then all of us are brought a little lower. The pressure increases for us to prove that we are worthwhile. Unconditional love becomes a little harder to achieve.
You are also not considering the siblings of aborted children. I recently read a story of the pain one child expressed when she found out her mother had aborted a sibling. This child had to grieve for the baby and wonder why she was the one who lived.
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?
Gestation does not always equal love, but giving an unborn human a chance to live, to dance, to achieve through adoption IS an act of selfless love that ends with life for the mother AND the child.
Dismembering that child and erasing that life from this world is NEVER an act of love, anymore than dismembering all toddlers of poverty stricken parents.
I will be fair and say that I could see someone might abort a baby and BELIEVE it's an act of love.
So women are just mindless incubators for infertile couples?
You have a duty because your whole argument to force birth, deny civil rights and cause the death of born people is that you are saving babies. If you are claiming to save babies, but instead save unborn fetuses, then you are guilty of murder by omission.
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.
Nobody is slinging mud! We don't agree with you that aborting a baby is a kind thing to do. I won't pretend, ever, that it is. You don't value unborn human life. I do. Period.
You're allowed to do it, legally. I don't have a desire to see women who have abortions put in jail. I would like them to be educated on what abortion is, to get help to see all their options, to be helped to keep their baby if they want, to give the baby up for adoption if they don't.
I would rather see abortionists not getting rich off of abortions, and not receiving my tax dollars. I wouldn't like to see them in jail, but would be content with them not getting rich or paying a fine for doing abortions.
Having sex is RELATED naturally to getting pregnant. Nowadays, we have all kinds of contraceptions that can prevent a pregnancy, so there really isn't much of an excuse (although these fail at times) for unplanned pregnancies.
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?
PP has been guilty of allowing rapists bring in their pregnant victims, with no questions asked. They have allowed minors to continue in abusive relationships for years without blowing any whistles. Many women who report on their abortions were rushed along quickly so they wouldn't have time to think about it, and nothing was said about the risks of abortion, or the adoption option or support services if they want to keep their babies.
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?
I don't know a single pro-lifer who supports bombing clinics! Your accusation is the same as if we compared all abortionists to Gosnell.
Oh? So clinic bombings and murders don't happen then, because you don't know any?
A society who doesn't provide parental examples of a father faithfully loving his wife and mother of his children has failed young women.
A society who promotes the sexualization of girls and stirs up lust in every venue and sells promiscuous-promoting clothing to two-year-old girls has failed young women.
A society who does not relate sexual activity to the natural result of pregnancy and inform its populace of the seriousness of that act, they have failed young girls.
A society that teaches men that they can have sex when they want and ditch the girl has failed girls.
A society that teaches that sex is for one's own pleasure without concern for the economic, human, and social effects has failed everyone.
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?
Like I said, abortion is just an induced miscarriage
So, by your logic, miscarriage causes breast cancer
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.
Thanks for your reply. When you wrote "You are also not considering," did you mean that I am not considering, or that Gloria Feldt of Planned Parenthood was not considering?
I'm not sure if you understood me correctly. I had written:
"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."
Another way to put this: "The fact that Gloria Feldt of Planned Parenthood did not claim that aborting a child was an act of love for that child (she said it was an act of love for its older siblings) is somewhat immaterial, because love for the siblings simultaneous with dismissiveness toward the unborn would be a limited kind of love."
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 don't find the distinction funny, but important.
If I cut a human up into pieces, that is murder.
If I prevent someone from cutting you into pieces, that is saving your life.
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.
Pregnancy is a natural state. You are fighting against nature.
"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?.
Natural does not = good.
Ever been to a doctor? If so, you have "fought against nature"
What if the woman does it herself, using herbs or poisons?
So if you cut your torturer into pieces, to protect your body from harm, you are a murderer?
Also, if a woman hired a hitman to chop up her toddler, would you ONLY advise that the hitman be charged with murder? If so, why?
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?
Yes, that is the theory, and it has been discredited. Usually miscarriages happen because something is wrong with the placenta, and even then, it is often a mystery, as there are many confounding factors.
For the sake of argument, however, even IF abortion had a role in greater risk for breast cancer, it would NOT matter because only the person facing the risk gets to choose what level of risk they will expose themselves to.
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.
Where is your data that proves that having an abortion prevents the siblings or anyone else from dying? It might make the mom's life more convenient, provide more financial resources, but overall, abortion demeans us all because it places conditions on the value of human life.
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 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.
If a man and woman conceive a child, they have the shared responsibility to that unborn human, from conception, to care for that 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.
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.
I personally do not have a responsibility anyone else's born or unborn except that of basic care for my neighbor. 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.
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.
Let me get this straight. In your book,
1. "Me" is the pro-life movement who is raping, impregnating the woman and aborting the fetus? Really?
2. "You" is the woman who is the victim?
This is a false comparison, and moral judgments can't be fairly made from it.
The pro-life community did not force any woman to get pregnant. The pro-life movement did not put the baby there, nor do we make it grow, cause labor pains, delivery, etc. It is (except in the case of rape) a choice of the woman AND man to have sex, the force of nature that causes life to grow inside the woman's body. Your argument is against nature, not the prolife movement.
We simply affirm that all human life is intrinsically valuable. Any other approach has and will cause incredible atrocities to be committed. Any time one vulnerable group of humans can be counted as less than a person, humans have a history of vile tragedies that now cause us shame. If brain activity is the measure of personhood, what about my brain damaged nephew, now 21, who can barely string a sentence together but has a laser-like awareness of people who love him and respect him and those who don't? What about people who are on life support and have little brain activity but later say they were aware of what was going on in the hospital room? Can we kill them? What about people with alzheimers? Can we kill them, too, dismembering and ripping them to shreds? I would say not.
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.
The second half of your comment contradicts the first half, dear. All contraceptive pills work the same way, including the "morning after" pill. The only difference is the matter of dosage. Of course, an emergency contraceptive needs to be a high dose to raise the hormone levels quickly. More recent studies show that these pills are effective only before ovulation. If ovulation has already occurred, the woman has the same risk of pregnancy as any other act of unprotected intercourse. An ovum that doesn't implant isn't an abortion. That results in a menstrual period. One of the things I find ludicrous is that you claim to be against unplanned pregnancies, yet you are uncomfortable with how unplanned pregnancies are prevented. The other thing that confuses me is that you are so hung up on naturalistic fallacies, though I sincerely doubt you apply this to anything but how women's bodies work. 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. Trust me, as a non-pill user (also applies to any other hormonal method), you have lost more precious fertilized ovum than I have as a pill user (and later tubal ligation). That's the bug in your argument. As for "partial birth abortion" you should know a few things. First, that procedure is unlawful. Second, all fetal movement is reflexive, so I'm so NOT impressed by flailing arms and legs. Fetuses do that all the time, and you may or may not feel it. Third, there is no such procedure as "partial birth abortion" in the first place. It's called an intact D&X. The alternative, which is still legal, is D&E, which is much more gruesome.
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?
I'm not "implying." I'm saying frankly that education is extremely important, and forced derailing of women's education because of a pregnancy is criminal.
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?
Russell isn't complaining that unwanted fetuses need to be "saved." For what, I have no idea. he's merely pointing out that "pro-life" isn't limited to forcing women to carry a pregnancy they don't want. That's a very cheap way to be pro-life. An unwanted fetus will always be someone else's problem. I AM PRO-LIFE, so naturally, I am pro-choice.
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.
No. That is NOT a ten week pregnancy. A ten week pregnancy is 1.33 inches long.
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.
Speaking as someone who's fetus did harm her, you're so full of it your eyeballs should be popping out. EVERY pregnancy results in harm to the mother. Some much more than others. The mother, who is aware and sentient should not have her actual suffering compared to the non-existent suffering of a mindless animal organism. You have an overweening sense of concern for the fetus while you erase it's mother. There's nothing "pro-life" about that.
Abortion isn't murder. It never has been. It doesn't fit the definition of murder.
A choice to have sex isn't a contract to gestate.
I AM and I WILL are the only justification needed for abortion.
No. I'm afraid not. Anyone who would suggest that all abortions not induced by medication should be "banned" and asks if I would agree, ought to be embarrassed. That's someone who clearly doesn't understand the issue, or a sadist who wants women to die for their pregnancies.
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?
Women are not the victims here.
That's what oppressors always say of their victims.
Most unwanted pregnancies were unplanned. Abortion could be minimised if all girls and women – indeed, if everyone – had free access to whatever form of contraception suited them best, and strong encouragement to use it.
Unfortunately for the logic of your argument, the prolife movement is the biggest political opposition to successful prevention of abortion by free provision of contraception.
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.
So, you like the idea of women who need abortions being unable to have abortions performed by qualified medical practitioners, and instead having to go to criminal profiteers who regard the fines as the price of doing business? You think Kermit Gosnell is the goal towards which the prolife movement should be working?
Sorry, but they are doctors just like any other doctors. When have YOU ever had a procedure where the doctor wasn't paid?
What a complete hypocrite you are. If you really believed that, you'd be prochoice.
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.
Appeal to authority fallacy. Unfortunately for Dr. Condic, the science of neurology and the overwhelming majority of physicians and scientists don't agree with this assessment. The structures needed to perceive pain aren't physically there yet.
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*.
The study was referenced in a Steven Fry documentary about bipolar, so I need to find that as well.
Even if they are, too damn bad. Oppose emergency contraception? By all means, don't use it.
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.
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?
Wow – your standard of morality is seriously "I'm a good person because I don't want to have you assassinated"?
It hadn't actually occurred to me until you brought it up – though I suppose it should have – that in a violent terrorist movement like the prolife movement, there are undoubtedly fanatics who would have me killed merely for arguing for the human rights of girls and women on a "prolife" site.
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.
Nobody is slinging mud! We don't agree with you that aborting a baby is a kind thing to do.
Yeah, yeah, you prolifers think the kindest thing to do to a woman in need of an abortion is to force her to breed against her will. It's arguments like that which remind me how closely linked politically the prolife movement is to the pro-slavery movement of 150 years ago: from 1861 to 1979 is a mere four generations from the white slaveowners who believed they owned the right to a woman's body and could force her to breed, to the white right-wing Christians who … believed they owned the right to a woman's body and could force her to breed.
Denial of safe legal abortion to a woman who needs one is cruelty: when done to the victim of rape, Amnesty International says abortion denial amounts to torture.
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?
Right, because doctors who perform operations to save a woman's health or preserve her life are only doing it because they get paid. And besides, surgical operations are "deeply unnatural": I bet you'd rather die than pay a doctor to take your appendix out, right?
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.
Nope. That is NOT true. Planned Parenthood directs women who want to keep their babies to community resources that will help them. In fact, Dr. Wicklund called a CPC and told them she had a patient who didn't really want an abortion, but had no insurance and couldn't afford to have a baby. The response of the CPC to Dr. Wicklund? "What do you want us to do?"
No. A 20 week fetus CANNOT breathe. That's why they aren't viable. NONE of them, EVER.
Yeah, I'll try to track it down next week once I get my computer fixed. Stuck on mobile for the time being.
I also believe that a bipolar Italian woman was forcibly sedated and c-sectioned whilst working in the UK. They shipped her back to Italy and kept the kid. Very dispiriting.
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.
Funny,I have seen pictures describing how they have all of their organs intact,can feel pain,can swallow,breathe,blink their eyes,have a beating heart.
I'm sure you have, but they were lying to you. There's a window of argument between say 24-28 weeks, when a premature baby might survive or might die: 20-24 weeks odds of viability go from "nil to very unlikely", and below 20 weeks, no: not a chance.
"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.
What demeans us is the murder of innocent born babies, children and adults and wanted fetuses by the pro life movement. You have a choice, you can save innocent born babies or you can murder them and save an unwanted fetus instead. Pro lifers choose to let innocent born babies, children and adults die.
There are 1.8 born babies, children and adults, 10 wanted fetuses and 1.4 unwanted fetuses that die each second. Any second spent saving an unwanted fetus is a second that a pro lifer chooses to let 1.8 innocent babies and 10 wanted fetuses die.
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 anyone who harasses women.
I'd be surprised if the regular commenters and posters on this site didn't include at least a few types who like to mob outside a clinic to abuse the patients going in and out.
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.
Totally agree. I'm banned at LAN and NRO. I posted about my NRO banning at my blog.
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.
I love that man!!
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.
Sarah, I don't have time right now to deconstruct all your arguments, but I feel I have to say this:
The rates of miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy, and even breast cancer go up after an abortion.
This is false. It's contrary to all the evidence. You would know it was false, if you were the least bit interested in medical facts about pregnancy, miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy, and breast cancer.
But you're not and you don't. Still. People should know that you're merely pushing a set of anti-science lies promoted by the prolife movement.
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.
Sarah, you keep prattling on about the value of human life, as though human life has inherent value. That's a religious idea, and a cultural idea. It isn't science. You probably think a diamond has value, and a hundred dollar bill has value. If you were on a deserted island, a diamond would be just another stone, and you might as well wipe your bum with the hundred dollar bill. Nature doesn't see humans as inherently valuable. If we don't manage to destroy ourselves first, we'll fall to disease, natural disaster or asteroid strike, just like the dinosaurs who once ruled the earth did. We're insignificant and small. In the grand scheme of things, nothing has inherent value. We're no exception.
No, actually nobody has a responsibility toward a conceptus.
Please… do not "love" me.
That's what she wants to do. Leave it alone, without access to her organs.
Yeah, that's the kind of 'love' I can well do without.
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.
A man forcing his woman to gestate against her will is not loving. It is pure evil.
Consent to sex is not consent to the misery of pregnancy and a society that claims otherwise is reducing women to inferior incubators.
Sex is for pleasure when you want a child free life. If a society sayd it is only for reproduction it fails anyone who wants to be child free.
'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.
Again. The person who implanted the chip is culpable, but pro-lifers are not forcing anyone to get pregnant, nor are they forcing the life to grow. It is growing naturally without our help, and will likely continue to grow naturally unless killed. An abortionist has to kill the human life in order to stop it from growing. We hold that is not a loving act–not to the unborn child, and in general not kind to humanity.
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?
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?
The minute you start attempting to read someone's mind, the minute I start thinking you are not a logical person.
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.
Many anti-choice propaganda photos like this are fake or a misrepresentation of gestational age of an embryo or fetus. See – http://www.lifeandlibertyforwomen.org/truth_about_photos.html
Accurately labeling the fetus in a picture is a testament to the source's credibility. Unfortunately, a collection of pro-life web sites and brochures label their pictures through a method inconsistent with medical practices. Gestational age can be labeled by the date of conception or by the last menstrual cycle. The medical establishment goes by the latter. However, when I asked Willke which method he used, he replied in an email, "This all depends on the picture, the source references and the use in reference." Willke labeled the picture to the right as a 10-week-old fetus in his book, Handbook on Abortion. However, it was later identified as a 12- to 14-week-old fetus by Dr. Andrew Ross, Denver ob-gyn. Apparently, consistency was not a priority in the identification of this photo, nor were the standards of the medical community."
Any citations for that claim?
Nope. No one should be able to kill an unborn child just because he or she is unwanted.
Please explain how failure to answer proves i have no basis for my argument…
sarah: open a dictionary and look up the word 'hypocrite'. Then look in the mirror.
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?
In other words, you're living in a fairytale fantasy.
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.
I didn't say it "proves it", I said it is. And in my opinion it is.
**,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?
** She simply stated that dismembering an unborn human is not an act of love.**
There's a lot of things like that. Changing the point in a solder gun isn't an 'act of love'. Unless you prove that a zef is somehow entitled to love, the statement is meaningless.
**That is true, and most Americans are ignorant about the facts of what abortion really is.**
True. Most Americans have been sold a line by forced gestationers that a month old embryo is curled up in the mother and thinking lovey-cute thoughts. I'm glad you agree ignorance is a bad thing, we should definitely relieve them of their ignorance and explain the FACTS that the precious zef has no organized brain function until at least month 6.
So, basically you're admitting here that you think sex is evil, and pregnancy is a punishment for it. Honesty, at least.
Evading again. And again.
1. My question was not addressed to you.
2. Go sober up and take a remedial reading course.
**I think your argument that the fetus harms the mother is incorrect, except in the case of ectopic pregnancies or other rare conditions.**
I think you're an idiot who knows nothing about the effects of pregnancy on the body.
**Whatever the mother endures in the 40 weeks of preganancy and delivery is nothing compared to being dismembered and killed.**
Too bad. A person has a right to kill to defend their rights. Whatever sad feelies you have for the person violating their rights is just too bad. Learn to live with the disappointment.
**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.
An unfertilized egg may eventually grow into a human being. Why does the fertilized egg have a right to gestation, without the woman's consent, but the unfertilized egg doesn't have a right to fertilization, without the woman's consent.
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.
Not related in any way to abortion. Putting on your own mask first is very different than slaughtering the child beside you and then putting it on.
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.
An embryo can't, maybe.
A fetus can. I believe 24 weeks is where response to pain has been detected?
**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.
Not even an implication. Sex is powerful and has effects, both tangible and intangible. Doesn't mean evil.
**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.
**And exactly why can't I help both born babies AND unborn ones?**
Because you do not have an unlimitted amount of resources and time or magical powers. If you have only X amount of money, for every fetus you spend it on to 'save', you are necessarily NOT saving some born child, somewhere.
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.
Of course you are correct. But in the final analysis, resources do not really matter. What matters is that she can't help born life because she makes the intentional choice to let it die. She could choose to save born life. If she does in fact make that choice to save babies, fetuses will die instead of babies.
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'?
Umm, no. If I have a gangrenous leg, cutting me into pieces saves my life, and preventing someone from doing that will kill me.
Stop playing the sad feelie game about dismemberment. I don't have sad feelies about something with no brain, or whether it dies, or how it dies.
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?
Cancer is a natural state. What's your point?
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.
You murder real babies to save fetuses, so what is your point? You commit "real" infanticide and pro choicers don't. Do you understand that?
**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.
Those are not in support of your claim. You are making a general claim about specific details.
You understand that most abortions are natural. 70 percent of conceptions abort naturally in the first trimester and 25 percent of the remainder abort naturally before birth. Of those that remain 25 percent are lost by induced abortion. So of all abortions only a few are induced. Any study about abortion that does not correct for that fact is useless. And none of your sources are corrected for natural abortion.
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.
btw, it isn't 'societys' job to 'provide' anything, promote anything, inform anyone of anything, teach anything, or tell anything.
It's YOUR own job to provide for and inform yourself. If you aren't up to that, tough. You've just defined yourself as unfit to survive. It isn't anyone else's job to make goodies fall from the sky for you, at their own expense, so you can go on living and babbling about what you think 'society' should magically make appear for you. At most, 'society' should make sure that false information is not allowed to be labelled as true.
**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?
Because if you HAD a basis, you would tell us what it was. Your failure to answer proves you have no basis.
**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'.
Wow aren't you one cold lady.I feel sorry for you!!But you can't change the fact that abortions kill living beings.And it is because of callous detached women like you,that pro-lifers will fight even harder!!
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.
Yeah. I'm so (gasp) cold. Unlike forced gestationers, I actually have compassion for real people who have real brains, and therefore are capable of experiencing real suffering, rather than having sad feelies for a cute piece of meat with no brain, no ability to feel pain, but it can serve as a convenient excuse for you and your sad feelies to ruin the lives of real people.
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.
Tangible effects: taking or changing life (STIs), and creating life (pregnancy).
Intangible effects: creating intimacy and furthering relationship; destroying a relationship (as in affairs); making it difficult to have a long term and intimate relationship (pornography – there are studies out that show this).
I should think that being the only act by which human life is created would make it qualify as powerful.
So, people have strong emotions about sex… This justifies your telling them what to do with their bodies how, exactly?
Got a question for you, Franna. Suppose there is an 8 month preemie, in the ICU. Which seems to be, according to forced gestationers, the most specialty-special preemie there is.
Said preemie, sadly, has a major health problem. Poor preemie has a hole it it's heart that's going to kill it in a week, if it doesn't have surgery to fix it.
You have your choice of two surgeons. Surgeon 1 is all full of cutesy feelings, they tell you at length how extra-special and cute 'beating hearts' are, and when you ask questions about how the surgery might be done, and what might go wrong, they answer you with such things as that your questions are 'sick', or to go look it up for yourself, and they are done talking to you 'buh-bye'.
Surgeon 2 is (sob) COLD. They explain exactly how the heart is a pump, how the heart in a premature infant differs from that of an older child or adult, how they can stop the heart safely for several hours and replace it with a machine while the surgery is performed, and actually answers your questions rather than giving evasions and complaints of 'sick' and cute little 'buh-byes'.
Now you tell me, which surgeon do you want operating on the beating heart of that precious preemie?
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 contraception is completely fine! I use it myself. But, I must always keep in mind that sometimes it fails, and if it does, then I might get pregnant and will be responsible for this life we've created. It's the obvious response to what is natural.
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.
Sex is social. There is a great book called Love and Economics: Why the Laisse Faire Family Doesn't Work. Also, Finding Love in a Hookup Culture, both by Jennifer Roback Morse. These explain the social and economic outcomes of various sexual behaviors and attitudes well.
Tell me the 'logic' behind that
I haven't told anyone what to do with their bodies. If I did, they wouldn't listen anyway. I am simply pointing out the obvious fact that sex and pregnancy are connected. I am also pointing out that if you do get pregnant, the natural result is usually a baby. You have to kill that human life in order to prevent it from being born. The act of force here is the one killing the child. Leaving the child grow is not an act of force.
We have a divided culture. We are all concerned about the masses of uncared for chilldren and single moms struggling to care for them. We are concerned for the human suffering and economic burden this has created.
What are points we can agree on?
Delaying age of sexual activity is a good educational outcome
Teaching kinds of contraceptions and the efficacy of it.
Do like in france, show videos of live births so that people understand the connection between sex and pregnancy.
Hold fathers accountable, not just legally, but socially, to the responsibility of fathering.
Teach young men and women about the massive impact parenting has on children, and the awesome impact they can have in posterity by choosing their mates wisely and carefully.
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.
That is an outlier, and if true, rank negligence. If a woman's life is in danger, you take the baby out csection, stat.
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.
What does it mean to you to be human? Are you intrinsically valuable? Or not? At conception, the human embryo is genetically complete, and unlike you, I find myself amazed at embryonic development. You are imagining the cute sir aspect of our commitment to life. There is a $50,000 fine for destroying a bald eagle egg. It's because we realize the value of that type of life. It's because my embryo is human that I value it. If left alone, it will most likely be a living, breathing human child that will have thoughts. All that is there in the zygote, just waiting to unfold. Obviously this means nothing to you, and I suppose I will agree to disagree.
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.
At the moment of when I knew I had conceived, I have loved my babies. I began eating better and preparing for their entry into this world. Why? If I had killed him, my life would never have known my child, who now is my greatest joy. Why is my zygote more important than anyone else's. Because he's wanted? That is a very slippery slope as a basis for defending
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.
Why is it not okay to dismember a toddler, but its okay to dismember an unborn child?
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.
I would also be horrified.
You have to kill it to separate it from her organs.
And I am still not the judge.
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.
There is a massive amount of abortion in my city, and the children left behind are not being saved. There is another way, and we need to find it.
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?
I simply said that one argument falls down in the case of rape. If a new law was written that outlawed abortion except in cases of rape, I would support it.
Personally, it's still a breach of justice because the unborn child is being punished for the sin of the rapist.
You do the research. too lazy or something?
So, it's your OPINION then…. how about you give me your OPINION on what the answer should be then.
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.
I have no disagreement with this position, if abortion was not the method of contraception. I actually appreciate people who are honest about not wanting children and then preventing them from coming into the world. My problem with abortion as contraception is that the child has already come into the world, and killing that child is not loving.
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.
1) there is no such thing as intrinsic value. You have yet to make a case as to why humans have intrinsic value and bacteria do not
2) eagle eggs are protected because the species nearly went extinct. Humans are not on the verge of extinction. Furthermore, if the production of eagle eggs involved forcing humans to gestate them for 9 months, it would not happen, because that would be slavery
3) no, the conceptus is NOT genetically complete at fertilization, far from it. The DNA has to be decoded, read, interpreted and expressed. About a million different things can affect this process, and result in a variety of outcomes – such as maternal diet, hormones, activity, and even bacteria in her gut.
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.
Ah, so you also hold women strictly liable for the crime of getting raped.
That is an evasion.
You do not value Edinburgh's life. If you did, you would not, as you just told me, force her to remain pregnant, even if raped. You don't think she has a right to her own body, or even to her own life, since that pregnancy could very well kill her. It is clear as day that you only care about unborn humans, you should just be honest and say that female lives don't matter.
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.
To be fair here, sex has never been solely for *my* pleasure. It was always very much about my husband's pleasure, as well. That's what happens in a loving, devoted marriage,
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.
No, the talented ones were safe to excel, and the less talented ones were safe to improve a without mockery. Constructive criticism in an emotionally safe atmosphere lifts everyone up.
Nowhere did I say we should attempt to turn idiots into geniuses, but we should lift everyone up to his and her best potential. Was I perfect? No. But I'm pretty darn proud of my talented kids who wrote a sonata and canon, but equally as proud of my special needs kids who wrote an ABA simple composition with basic chord accompaniment. (:
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.
I'm sorry–I THINK we are in agreement.
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 didn't see the original post to which you are responding, and don't have the time to go look for it … but it looks like Lori is woefully uninformed about the realities of gestation.
I think "he" is her sock puppet.
I can agree that adoption agencies selling babies for $60,000 (or charging based on race) is abhorrent. The adoption workers I know live on a shoestring, so I'm not sure who's making all that money.
Partial birth abortion was particularly heinous, and it took days to widen the woman's cervix so that the baby could be partially delivered. If any of those women's lives were in danger, the doc would have done a c-section and gotten the baby out quickly,l so I don't buy that argument.
No, because if it is out of medical necessity, a c section could KILL THE WOMAN.
Of course not, which is why we try to share our resources with mothers who want to keep their children and don't have the resources to do so.
This world is full of amazing people who did what is right under impossible odds, and they lift and inspire us all.
No, but I do advocate a world where people are sexually responsible and value human life.
If we can move closer to that goal, then that is great.
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.
"Overall abortion is proved to lead to more life and pro life ideas are proved to lead to less life." I don't see any evidence of this. 41 years of abortions have not improved things.
a partial birth abortion took too long to open the cervix.
C-section unnecessarily mutilates the woman.
Why do that for a fetus that is already dead or dying?
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.
I disagree–I have been responsible for my children from since before they were born–by my sexual, economic, and marital choices, I have given all my children the chance at success.
We will just have to disagree.
"And if you are obligated to save babies but instead let them die, that is murder by omission."
I'm not sure how I'm obligated to save babies–You want me to think that killing unborn is somehow akin to saving babies because the population grew after 1973. You are failing to make a reasonable case.
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.
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.
At conception, the embryo contains all the genetic information that is needed for a complete human being. There is no proof that it is not a child. That is a value judgment, which you and I obviously disagree about. To say that some life will be snuffed out so that I can have an orgasm doesn't seem quite fair to me.
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.
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.
This "Forced gestation" meme you have created is false. In order to not gestate, you have to kill an unborn human. I believe we can live with kindness to the born and unborn.
Your either/or is a false dichotomy. We can honor both born and unborn people, and the best way to do that is for each couple to be sexually responsible.
I am not going to cheat to help you. If you can't answer the question, just say so.
Your "proof" is a temporal relationship with hundreds of other factors involved, and I'm not sure that "population growth" is the goal here. The goal is to be respectful of all 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.
This is a false dichotomy.
I answered the first part in another response.
Regarding the Nazis, the claims they made that Jews were somehow not as "human" as the rest of us sounds eerily similar to the "pwecious widdle baybee" isn't a human argument.
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?
False dichotomy again.
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!
1. Why do you have value and should not be killed? Should we kill born humans who do not prove to be an asset to ourselves or the planet? Why not?
2. You have never been a slave.
3. Zygotes of multicellular organisms contain DNA derived from both parents, and this provides all the genetic information necessary to form a new individual. They need to be fed and sheltered, just like born humans.
STDs are a natural result of promiscuous sex. Antibiotics are a life-giving antidote to disease. Abortion is a life-taking antidote to natural life.
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.
"This "Forced gestation" meme you have created is false. In order to not gestate, you have to kill an unborn human."
No, no-one is forcing anyone to abort. You have your choice. If you "believe" with all your heart that it is OK to murder a born baby to save a fetus, you can do that. But many do not believe as you believe. They believe that their bodily autonomy is a Constitutional right and that they are not killing babies, but fetuses. Science supports them, not you. The fetus is not a baby scientifically speaking, it is a human fetus. And human fetuses may or may not become babies. Most in fact do not become human life, most die and many do not even have the human genome.
" I believe we can live with kindness to the born and unborn."
The scientific fact is that you kill born babies to save fetuses. That is a scientific fact, not an opinion. Now if you can figure out a way to save both, then let me know. As it stands there are 2 billion pro lifers murdering born life. You can take a trip to the next level of humanity and stop murdering babies or you can remain a murderer, the choice is yours.
"Your either/or is a false dichotomy. We can honor both born and unborn people, and the best way to do that is for each couple to be sexually responsible."
It is a true dichotomy. In a false dichotomy saving one would cause the death of the other.
This is a true dichotomy. Two are dying and one can be saved. The other cannot be saved because of the fact that there are more people dying than can be saved. If the dichotomy were false all one would have to do is save every life. And because all life dies, that would be impossible.
It is a scientific fact that you have to choose which life to save and that if you ever choose to save a fetus, a born life will die.
It will die as a result of being separate from her organs.
I do see value in human life. That doesn't mean I see value in forcing human life into existence. If every pregnancy was wanted, that would be great. There would also be a whole lot less humans than there are now. Of course I was once an embryo. But the truth is, it wouldn't have mattered if my mother had aborted me. Nobody would know the difference, including me. I got over existential angst long ago. I don't think more of myself than what's warranted, and I certainly don't think the world wouldn't have gone on without me.
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.
I was responding to your comment that Lori felt sex was evil.
You are also making proclamations based on your personal values. I've stated my case. You don't accept it. You've stated your case. I don't accept it.
Yeah. You think that slavery is morally justifiable.
What? A life-saving surgery vs. dying?
Why mutilate the woman for a fetus that is doomed anyway?
No matter how many times you tweet that photo, it won't make it be a photo of a 10-week fetus.
A human fetus at 10 weeks gestation is approximately the size of a kumquat – assuming that coin is an American nickel, the fetus you've displayed is about 24 weeks gestation.
The interesting thing for me is that these pics have apparently been up for a day, yet Sarah – for all her claims of being devoted to Science – has made no effort to point out to you that you are eithrr ignorantly promoting a false picture, or maliciously besring false witness.
"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.
If the fetus is already going to die, you would not be aborting it.
To call a c-section "mutilation" is inflammatory and false.
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.
The number of babies aborted and the number of babies born is a fact. Your interpretation is a far reach, and not fact.
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?
If you construed that I said or i said anything to construe that a woman should carry a dead baby, then let me correct that.
If the baby is already dead, then of COURSE, it has to be removed, and a C-section would be unwarranted. That is no abortion. We are in agreement on that.
In cases of partial birth abortion, which I believe was the original context of this discussion, they were partially delivering a LIVE baby up to the date of delivery, and killing it before it came out–the mother's health had nothing to do with it, because if the mother's life had been in danger, a c-section would have been the safest procedure, not a partial birth abortion.
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.
If the fetus is missing organs, or a brain, it will die once born. The ONLY reason that it is alive is because the woman's organs are acting as life support. There is absolutely no point to cutting a woman open, subjecting her to major and potentially life threatening surgery if the fetus , which is already doomed, can be removed SAFELY through the vagina.
Why do you think that women should be tortured for dying fetuses?
I am not obligated to save anyone. I am obligated to tell the truth–that life is valuable, and that killing it is wrong.
Lori, there's a reason why procreation takes nine months. There are many good reasons why women who don't want children right now (or ever) shouldn't give birth to them.
There is no "right to life." There is especially no right to be gestated.
No it isn't inflammatory and false. C-sections do mutilate women.
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.
Oh and by the way, the so-called PBA was NEVER being done on the full-term fetus in the process of being born. Though I can understand why you might think so, because the term "partial birth abortion" is very misleading. No one decides in the middle of labor that they don't want to deliver a live baby.
Babies can never be aborted.
A choice to have sex is to be open to the possibility of gestating or choosing to terminate a human life.
"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.
By size, if I had to guess, I would have said 14 weeks.
"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?
Since I've gestated successfully three times, I think you are a little histrionic about the woes of pregnancy.
A human fetus is a human life, not any life.
You equate pregnancy with being erased. It's just. not an honest comparison.
That is a true dichotomy. You in fact have a choice of which life to save. You may choose to save either. You may not save a fetus without choosing not to save a born person, and that person dies.
There is nothing false about that statement.
If you think there is something that is false about the statement, then post it.
I have proved you are a murderer, until you offer some defense, you are a proved murderer.
Hmmm… There is just no way that your analogy speaks to the abortion situation.
That is killing a human life. If you don't want to admit it's a person, then don't. I don't think we are going to agree here.
You didn't even bother to read what Sarah said.
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.
I think life is intrinsically valuable from conception, but obviously, that view is not shared. We live in a democracy, so we have to have these discussions and come to some compromise. So ethically, I cannot bring myself to say any abortion is okay, but politically, I will be happy if we move into a direction of fewer abortions, advocating for a culture where the apparent NEED for abortion is reduced, and that the late term abortions are severely limited.
Oh my! How you can misconstrue and twist. ):
I am not seeing and new thing she said. Direct me to her post.
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.
Actually, if I could give one piece of advice to girls and women that would vastly improve our lot: Never date, sleep with or marry a guy who is not willing to live with you (preferably married) and raise your children with you.
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?
Sarah writes for clinicquotes.com, I showed you the link. Most, if not all, of the "quotes" on that site are fabricated.
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.
Simply saying false dichotomy means nothing. You are a proved murderer until you prove there is a false dichotomy.
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.
You obviously don't know what a false dichotomy is. You cannot save both born life and unborn life without causing the death of born life. If you think you can, prove it. I have proved that you cannot save all life, because all life dies.
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.
Any human whose life is snuffed out before they see the light of day is a travesty. It doesn't compare with 9 months of pregnancy.
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.
You are stuck on one statistic that proves to you (only) that abortion saves lives.