Live tweeting abortion, Part VII: “Ow”
Read Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV, Part V, Part VI, Part VIII, Part IX, and Part X. Pro-lifers can share their thoughts at #livetweetingabortion.
I’ve learned something new. You know how new moms often immediately forget the pain of their labor when seeing their newborn for the 1st time? Well, post-abortive moms appear to experience this phenomenon. Last night live tweeting abortion mom Angie Jackson posted:
Those following the trials, tribulations, cramping, difficulty walking across the room, headaches, nausea, and vomiting of Angie’s abortion for the past several days know her memory isn’t quite accurate. Angie’s Vicodin popping (17 in 6 days at last count) didn’t appear to take the edge off her pain when she was in the thick of her RU-486 abortion. Nor did her “fairly useless” BF help….
Angie, actually you wrote that “[c]ramps… about as bad as the worst day of (my usually fairly bad) period” occurred way back on February 22 at 7:17a, and your “first sharp pain” was on February 23 at 10:02a. Not sure where your latest cramps rank in conjunction with those descriptions. But they’re not as new as you appear not to recall.
I suspected Angie might experience fuzzy memory phenomenon, 1 reason for capturing her tweets. This post picks up the chronology from Part V.
Meanwhile, ABC News has posted its article about Angie. Read it and be unsurprised by the slant.
And we have our 1st copycat live tweeting abortion mom! Read tweets by nextthurs if you care.
But Angie Jackson will always be credited as the 1st! Andy Warhol famously said, “In the future, everyone will be world-famous for 15 minutes.” Angie’s 15 are for being the 1st to live tweet her abortion. Congrats, Angie.
Someone has even designed Angie her own buttons and badges, way cool.
But I digress. Back to Angie’s RU-486 abortion…
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Amazing how vicodin morphed into Tylenol 3. Lots of intellectual integrity there, eh? ‘im not snarfing vicodin-it was tylenenol with codeine all along.’ Ooops. Rolling my eyes.
Do you really have nothing better to do than to count how many vicodin someone takes? For pete’s sake!
amen to jill….
your efforts seem silly & ironically, childish.
not sure exactly how you christians calculate your merits, but are you just shooting for extra points to get into heaven?
do you lose points, too? for bearing false witness, ya know…lying?
you called president obama “pro-abortion” which indicates that you’re trying to convey that he would recommend, or prefer abortions. the correct term is “pro-choice” and demonizing someone in the way you have is LYING.
how do you know what’s best for every woman on earth?
how do you know that having a child would be more helpful, and not harmful to the child…or the mother…or the taxpayers who will eventually have to fund its life because the mother was scared into having a baby she couldn’t support?
i’m not trying to attack you- i genuinely would like to know your rationale. what is your authentic, clear, logical explanation to why you’re so enlightened, and the rest of us are not.
Didn’t she anticipate that once she started bleeding the whole thing would be over in about four hours?
And I think it’s very telling that she’s up front about the fact that she — and others like her — uses abortion simply as back up birth control, something she planned in advance to use should her sexual activity produce any baby she didn’t want to take care of.
Hi, Melissa
I understand your question because it is a good question. Although, if I could point out- please don’t stereotype all of us as Christians or opposed to Obama. Though most people here are conservative, some are atheists (conservatives and liberals) and some support Obama (I support the president, for example, and am very pleased that he’s our president). With that in mind, I’ll try and state my personal opinion, though everyone else will have to give your their opinions because everyone’s opinion is different.
And I would very much like to hear your thoughts, too. :)
This is how I reason: everyone is equal. All of life is equal and therefore all of life has a place. Humans are equal to animals are equal to trees are equal to humans. I think that life is a circle and that everything is connected.
I think that some people have a difficult time in this world- getting up is hard to do when you come in face down. But I don’t just favor fighting abortion, but anything that seeks to dehumanize and separate us.
But I think that what we have to keep in mind is that this is one world and we don’t have to trap ourselves, mold ourselves into a restrictive society, or treat one another badly- we have each other and that’s all that we can be certain that we have. For me it’s a matter of equality and finding connections- I’m not enlightened beyond you- you don’t have to be snarky.
There’s no way to explain it coherently on a blog, but if you want you can email me.
It’s simply a matter of love everyone equally and keep in mind what the Taos Pueblos say: We are in one nest. :)
I’m also not really clear on the whole “demystify” thing. There’s nothing mystifying about abortion. It’s getting your baby killed before it can be born alive. Hiring a hit man is more in need of demystifying, since you can’t just open the yellow pages and find somebody to snuff a born person whose existence is troubling you.
I can demythify abortion a bit — Let’s look at one of the tools of the trade. Sopher forceps. Used to take apart a live baby.
Melissa:
“how do you know what’s best for every woman on earth?
how do you know that having a child would be more helpful, and not harmful to the child…or the mother…or the taxpayers who will eventually have to fund its life because the mother was scared into having a baby she couldn’t support?
“i’m not trying to attack you- i genuinely would like to know your rationale. what is your authentic, clear, logical explanation to why you’re so enlightened, and the rest of us are not.”
Melissa, come and visit my blog and read the many articles I’ve written about the myriad ways in which abortion harms women.
Can you please, in all honesty, explain to us how being dismembered in its mother’s womb is a better fate than poverty or illness, which can be overcome, or at least lessened by compassion?
We are the only species of higher order animals to wantonly slaughter our offspring, a paradox yet to be resolved by the folks at PETA who are almost uniformly pro-choice for members of their own species while ardently pro-life for chickens, pigs and other items on the menu at a barbecue. Can you resolve that one for us?
melissa,
In addition to Gerard’s suggestion, you could also read the pro-life comments made on this blog throughout this whole story.
I for one don’t want to keep reposting the same thing over and over again.
Take some time, do some reading and then come back with an educated response to what the pro-life movement actually argues.
dz – it wasn’t me who counted the Vicodin, it was Angie. I’m just reporting…
Melissa, you wrote I am “bearing false witness, ya know…lying?” It’s pretty incredible to me that I’m merely reposting and comparing Angie’s tweets to one another, and you’re accusing me of lying. Please specify exactly how and when I’ve lied in any of my posts about Angie.
Pro-abortion is a term often used to represent those who are deeply offended when a woman talks about her choice to give birth and not to abort.
You cannot call the feminists ‘pro-choice’ that threw a fit about CBS airing the Pam Tebow commercial about the choice she made. They want no alternatives voiced.
to vannah:
thanks for your response. it makes sense to me- your reasoning of all life being equal, and therefore the same consideration should be lent to unborn life. where i’m still troubled by that argument, though, are the inconsistencies where the equality doesn’t extend to those people that society has labeled “bad”, and sometimes even worthy of death.
child molesters, serial killers, terrorists- take your pick. these are all groups of people that our government (and consequently those who’ve voted for their legislation) have decided deserve to die. whether i agree with that or not is irrelevant- it’s a fact that capital punishment exists, and our military is still exterminating human life overseas, for whatever reason it is, justified or not.
my “snarky” tone was only to match the sarcastic quasi-journalism of this very blog. i do not necessarily disagree with the pro-life school of thought- but i do take an incredible amount of offense to those people who are actively trying to demonize women who have made the legal choice to not have a child.
I can’t seem to wrap my mind around the warped logic that it’s okay for us to kill “bad” people, a completely subjective concept defined by social norms and changed over time, yet it’s an agenda of policy to tell women what’s best for them and their child, even if it means the mother’s life would be at risk, or hell, even interrupted at the very least.
there are plenty of mothers out there that don’t love their children. there are mothers that resent their children. there are people who wish they could have children but can’t, and there are people who wish they had never been born. it’s sad, but it’s true- and trying to ignore those facts just ends up halting progress and clogging our legal system.
to gerard:
i can’t explain to you how one is better than the other, because i’ve never had to deal with extreme poverty or chronic illness, and i’ve obviously not been aborted. i can promise you, though that suicide is most people’s answer to your argument. some can overcome, some can’t. if you can, good for you- but if you’re a child being beaten or molested because you were brought into a world that wasn’t prepared for you, how is that any less tragic than being “dismembered” preemptively?
(see: kevin & elizabeth schatz, adoptive parents, at that.)
I’m not saying one is better than the other, but i can promise that you do not know until you’ve been there to make the accurate call, and unfortunately it’s often too late to ask.
I also cannot resolve the PETA argument for you, since I’m not a vegetarian- but aren’t we the only species of higher order animals, period? what qualifies “higher order?”
career goals? finances? emotional stability?
those are a few things that pregnant women consider, when deciding whether or not to give birth to a child. do ducks do the same?
psalm:
i’ve completely understood the pro-life movement for years. i was at one time, pro-life, so i do not need to revisit your pages and pages of bible verses that stand as your only blatant justification, apart from your embellished, scare-tactic, gruesome images of bloody carcasses, or little plastic babies in priests’ hands. coincidentally, i’m educated, too. i have a JD, so thanks! i am completely clear on what the pro-lifers “actually” argue… haha
Interesting to note in Luke 16 how the rich man in hell and torment thought he could still order Lazarus around as though the rich man and Abraham were in one accord (“Father Abraham, send Lazarus…”). Scripturally, there is no room for repentance after death, even in the midst of indescribeable torment. But Angie should have piece of mind knowing that her dead baby’s soul is in the everlasting arms of Jesus Christ and will be resurrected with the rest of the dead Elect at the rapture, though she’ll have at least 1000 years more in the torment of hell before herself being resurrected, judged, and cast in the lake of fire, eternally separated from God in everlasting destruction. Except she repents, that is (Luke 13:3,5).
I think Angie had better start devoting her time to finding a job, because unemployment checks run out at some point and her boyfriend is clearly a “fair-weather” boyfriend. From what she writes about him, he sounds useless. Can’t come home when he’s supposed to come home (hmm), can’t do the dishes, can’t get her kid ready for school – and this is while she’s bleeding and in pain. I think even pro-choicers would agree that this guy sounds pretty worthless. I hope she’s not intending to marry him, because he kind of fails at “in sickness and in health.”
I wonder what he thinks about all this. Assumedly, his friends and family know what his girlfriend’s name is, and she’s getting all this media attention. “So, ‘Mike’! I hear Angie’s still bleeding from when she aborted your baby and you can’t even be home!” The guy is gonna be out of there soon, unless he’s equally gung-ho about abortion and doesn’t mind being publically castigated in front of the whole world. Abortion stuff aside, who wants their girlfriend using her real name and complaining about your relationship issues online?
Melissa: Obama would apparently prefer abortion if one of his own daughters got pregnant inconviniently. Did you miss the whole “punished with a baby” debacle?
I continue to not believe that Angie has some serious medical problem that would put her life in danger if she gave birth. If she had one, she’d be using it as ammunition against her critics. Using it specifically, I mean, not just vague comments about health or maternity death rates. What is this serious health problem? We don’t know. She’ll tell us everything else, but not that.
“In a perfect world, abortion isn’t needed” – well, guess what, Angie, you could have made the world closer to perfect and not gotten pregnant with a baby you knew you would abort! When you found out about your huge, crucial, oh-so-potentially-fatal, oh-so-nameless medical problem, you could have had your tubes tied!
jill,
i did explain- please reread my original post. i actually even capitalized the conclusion ..”LYING.”
obama is not recommending abortion, or campaigning to have it mandated. maybe you were unsure of “pro”‘s latin meaning. it’s synonymous with “for” or “with”- that is to say actively “pro”moting.
we’re fighting for a choice, not a socialistic law that requires women to either keep or kill their children. choice, baby. it’s all about the choice.
thanks.
Real cute, melissa, but pro-life atheists DO exist. And, it’s not really hard to understand, so let me break it down:
It is a living human organism? If so, it shouldn’t be legal to kill or pay to kill him/her if it is also your child under the age of an adult who is not immediately threatening your life. In every other case besides abortion, this is the case. If we could just get this abortion thing taken care of, we’d be all good.
Melissa your post sound really familiar to me, does anyone else notice a very strong similarity to a couple of other prochoicers who have trolled in and out?
Melissa your so called sincere question about not understanding our rationale for being prolife, wanting an genuine explaination of our beliefs then a sudden schizophrenic 180 degree shift to “I used to be prolife but am now pro-choice and I know all about your prolife beliefs your gruesome bloody carcasses”. Melissa, I don’t buy any of it girlfriend. Who are you? Why are you here? What is your point for being her? Don’t you have better things to do with your time? Why don’t you go to your pro-abort, pro-death blogs and spout off there?
Melissa, you say “so i do not need to revisit your pages and pages of bible verses that stand as your only blatant justification.”
Milissa, if you believe that the only justifcation for opposing abortion is biblically based, you are sadly ignorant of the pro-life movement.
Though I am personally a Christian, there are many on this board who are agnostic or atheists. The truth is that opposition to abortion no more rests on the bible than taking any other life does.
I personally oppose abortion on the scientific ground that it kills a living human being and the philosophical ground that the child’s rights are ignored.
Also, we do not “demonize” women who choose abortion. We explain, in very clear terms, that what they are doing is wrong, but we are the first to offer support to post-abortive women.
It’s amazing how often “choice” is used as the cover for human evils. The slave owners were fighting only for “choice” to keep slaves. Why should we interfer? Likewise, the abortion lobby screams “choice” as though talking about ice-cream flavors and lambasts anyone who dares question them. History repeats itself.
Also, Melissa, you claim “i am completely clear on what the pro-lifers “actually” argue… haha”
No, dear, you’re not. In fact your examples of
what you claim to be our arugments are so far off the mark that I have a hard time believing you were actually able to scrape by the Arguments section of the LSAT.
Lauren: The only reason you have any morality is because God convinces you to obey the law He has placed on your wicked and deceptive heart. Aside from regeneration in Christ, the only thing that separates you or me from Angie is a healthier conscience. If you don’t understand that you may need to re-examine your faith in light of all the council of God, namely the 66 books of the Bible.
Ted, I agree that morality is written on our heart by God, but that doesn’t mean that someone who has yet to find God can’t undertand and abide by the same moral code.
For anyone sincerely wondering about how others can come to a pro-life position, I cannot recommend highly enough the book Pro-Life Feminism: Yesterday and Today, complied by Mary Krane Derr, Rachel MacNair, and Linda Naranjo-Huebl. It is a collection of essays and speeches from pro-life feminists since the 1700s.
Anyone who would genuinely like to know the rational of those holding to the pro-life position can easily take the time to research the history of abortion and it’s consequences to women and society – the information is available and is highly enlightening to the open mind.
Melissa,
You will find that many of us that oppose abortion also oppose the death penalty (like myself). So just like you may see hypocrisy in those that believe in one and not the other, I see hypocrisy in caring about the welfare of animals and environment with no regard to how our own species is taking care of itself. In both cases, there is hypocrisy, but it doesn’t take away the merits of each of the arguments, those stand alone. You are mixing the issues, which is intellectually dishonest.
Also I have a problem with this statement:
“there are plenty of mothers out there that don’t love their children. there are mothers that resent their children. there are people who wish they could have children but can’t”
Surprisingly, these things STILL happen and have happened since R.v.W just as it did before. Some things just don’t change. Plus, still doesn’t change the fact that abortion is killing a human person.
“and there are people who wish they had never been born.”
And those people have the legal choice to kill themselves. Why not let each person decide whether they want to live or not rather than have someone decide for them that they don’t deserve to live? Talk about the death penalty.
“it’s sad, but it’s true- and trying to ignore those facts just ends up halting progress and clogging our legal system.”
Whatever that means?? Choice is available and these facts remain. So what’s your point? That we need legal reform? Yes we do in so many ways, but again don’t conflate the issues.
Melissa: I agree, you’re ignorant about the pro-life movement. Don’t believe the J.D. either. I’m a second-year law student and I’ve never met an attorney who writes like you, on the Internet or otherwise.
xalisae:
thanks for saying i’m cute.
i’ve also never claimed that atheist pro-lifers don’t exist.
your prong condition of “who is not immediately threatening your life” pretty much sums my argument up beautifully. so thank you also, for defending my point, even though i’m sure that’s not what you intended for it to do.
prolifer L:
hey girlfirend!
i don’t really understand what you’re trying to point out. are you denying that pro-life propaganda includes giant mural-sized posters of bloody fetuses? are you denying they exist?
i don’t think i need to tell you who i am, i’m nearly certain it’s rather clear. i’m a defender of women’s rights and the legal right to choose. i’m here because this is the audience i’d like to reach with my viewpoint- why would i preach to the choir? sorry if you don’t like me in your club, but last time i checked, i’m permitted by the constitution to express myself in speech and press, right?
instead of actually answering with an intelligent response, you’ve instantly zapped into attack mode & made yourself sound desperate & defensive.
“Don’t you have better things to do with your time?”
Lauren:
if you’d carefully read what i wrote, you’d know already that i do not believe that “the only justifcation for opposing abortion is biblically based”. i believe there is a strong political agenda behind taking away the right to choose, also.
your “scientific” reason, is not scientific. it’s spiritual. if that were a legitimate scientific reason for stopping it, you’d also be against chemotherapy for killing cancer cells. it’s not the same as your spiritual reasons and mixing the two is what the irrational anti-choice agenda stems from.
i was also particularly impressed by your blip:
“No, dear, you’re not. In fact your examples of
what you claim to be our arugments are so far off the mark that I have a hard time believing you were actually able to scrape by the Arguments section of the LSAT.”
1. what have i claimed “your” arguments to be? please, i dare you to copy and paste what i’ve said your rationale is. i haven’t. i don’t know how i could be “so far off the mark” when i haven’t claimed a thing…?
2. the LSAT has nothing to do with anything, and it’s quite boring, honestly, of you you to bring in personal attacks as part of your post. don’t you want to defend your side with some reason? some coherence? …and not playground nonsense? sticks & stones, dear.
prettyinpink:
people actually do NOT have the legal choice to kill themselves.
while they’d be beyond adjudication at the point of commission, their families would not be entitled to “benefits” of their loved one’s passing, as a natural death victim’s would be (ie life insurance). attempted suicide is also still pursuable by common law as a crime in some states.
i’m not concerned with anyone’s personal beliefs of abortion. i couldn’t care less to be honest- what i DO care about though, is when those people try to shove those personal beliefs into legislation and take away MY rights. this is why i said in my original post that it doesn’t matter if i think it’s wrong or right to kill terrorists or child molesters- the point is that it is legal to do so. i’m not mixing unrelated issues, i’m making a comparison, which is often done in debate to clarify an argument…
choice is available- and it should stay that way. trying to overrule something that shouldn’t be/ prosecuting doctors for preforming safe abortions = clogging up legal system. that’s my point.
i hate to take it to the “if you’re against abortion, don’t have one”
but simply, this is what it boils down to.
my qualms with pro-lifers aren’t that they are pro-life, but that they’re organizing to remove the right to choose. the most ironic part is that of the republican party pro-lifers campaigning less government and more freedom, but somehow build their platform on this incredibly socialistic notion that people have to do with their bodies what the government says.
Melissa: Sure, you’ve got freedom of speech. But considering that we’ve got science on our side, you’re wasting your time. A living organism that does not share your DNA is not “your own body,” whether it’s in your uterus or in Antarctica.
marauder:
i don’t even have enough energy to mindfully process the arbitrary nature of your post.
if you’d like to see my degree, it’s framed in my office, come on over.
just because someone doesn’t agree with your side, doesn’t mean they’re wrong, or don’t fully understand it. i hope you can resolve this fatal flaw in reasoning before you attempt the bar.
best of luck, and i genuinely mean that!
ProliferL,
I think you’re right.
Melissa: It’s pretty simple.
1. You don’t sound like an attorney. Maybe you are, but you’ve got to admit that most attorneys capitalize when they write.
2. Different DNA = different organism = not you = not your body.
“just because someone doesn’t agree with your side, doesn’t mean they’re wrong, or don’t fully understand it. i hope you can resolve this fatal flaw in reasoning before you attempt the bar.”
I’m not talking about the fact that you don’t agree with me – I’m talking about the fact that you’re flat-out unaware of the full extent of the pro-life movement’s rationale against abortion. You think it’s all religion and “scare tactics.”
As for where you said what our arguments and rationale are,
“i’ve completely understood the pro-life movement for years. i was at one time, pro-life, so i do not need to revisit your pages and pages of bible verses that stand as your only blatant justification, apart from your embellished, scare-tactic, gruesome images of bloody carcasses, or little plastic babies in priests’ hands.”
That’s where.
Thanks for the best of luck.
How can Melissa be so ignorant?
Abortion is the same thing as killing cancer cells? Really? You have to be joking! Please tell me you’re joking! When pro-choicers say that I always shake my head in disbelief. How can they always be so stupid or ignorant? I just don’t get it.
Care to enlighten me, Melissa?
“your prong condition of “who is not immediately threatening your life” pretty much sums my argument up beautifully.”
Your argument huh? Against abortion? You mean you agree, that since the embryonic/fetal human is no threat to a pregnant mother’s life (I’ve been pregnant twice, so we’ll count that as research, m’kay) they shouldn’t be allowed to be legally killed? I’m glad we agree then. ^_^
Only an idiot with zero comprehension of biology would say something like this:
“if that were a legitimate scientific reason for stopping it, you’d also be against chemotherapy for killing cancer cells.”
Now, what organism separate of the cancer patient are these cells a part of, besides the cancer patient themselves? Oh, you mean you’re talking out your ass because you can’t comprehend that a single cell with no unifying separate genetic code/no differentiated organ tissue cells/NOTHING WHATSOEVER to identify this cell mass as its own living organism exists in a cancerous tumor vs. the developing human organism in its embryonic or fetal stage? That’s what I thought.
And this is why your argument is holds absolutely no water. When you can prove to me that when I was pregnant with my son I had 2 sets of DNA, one set with a Y chromosome, AND a penis, THEN I might listen to your nonsense about “MY body! MY rights! ME ME ME, MY MY MY, WAAAAHHHHH!”, but until you can prove that the only body impacted by an abortion is your own, you’re just whining about wanting to avoid your obligations to a fellow human who happens to be your child.
When did you have your abortion, btw?
marauder:
yes, all attorneys capitalize when they write- legal forms, letters, briefs, etc… it’s hilarious that you’ve used this as a sort of zing to attack my credibility, though. it’s a message board for crying out loud! ha ha
if you’d like to be picky about grammar, punctuation, and the sorts, i must offer advice to you to revisit sentence fragments- a complete sentence includes a subject and a predicate, yours do not.
as for this:
“flat-out unaware of the full extent of the pro-life movement’s rationale against abortion. You think it’s all religion and “scare tactics.””
i feel like beating my head against the wall.
i don’t know how many times i need to say this before it gets through to anyone trying to argue with me about this-
i get it that there are more reasons to the side of pro-life than bible verses and bloody posters. those just happen to be the examples i’ve cited. there’s more- i get it- i still don’t agree with the idea that having an abortion should be illegal.
it seems like most of you have confused my disregard for the moral dilemma of abortions, with saying that your belief in choosing life is wrong. i’ve noticed this about most of the people i’ve engaged in this debate with. you’re unable to separate your emotions from the conversation and that’s just….ugh, exhausting.
i didn’t come here to swap personal attacks and pedestrian remarks about who’s-more-morally-sound-or-smarter-than-who, though i might have expected it….i’m sorry to report you’ve proved me right.
xalisae: I wish I could just keep you in my pocket and unleash you every time I ran across these typs of arguments… :)
Melissa,
Then let me rephrase. “People have the choice to kill themselves.” Although I have never in my life seen someone be prosecuted for attempted suicide. People can do with their bodies what they darn well please, including killing themselves, but they don’t have the right to kill another person.
“i’m not mixing unrelated issues, i’m making a comparison, which is often done in debate to clarify an argument…”
You are mixing them b/c you brought them about due to one person’s argument. You said, ” it makes sense to me- your reasoning of all life being equal, and therefore the same consideration should be lent to unborn life. where i’m still troubled by that argument, though, are the inconsistencies where the equality doesn’t extend to those people that society has labeled “bad”, and sometimes even worthy of death.”
The answer is that equality should extend to those ‘bad’ people through a consistent philosophy. Just because death penalty is legal now, does not hold bearings on arguments whether it should be, just as the fact that abortion is legal now does not hold bearing on the argument that it shouldn’t be legal. Could you try a different analogy?
“when those people try to shove those personal beliefs into legislation and take away MY rights”
Nope, you don’t have a right to kill someone unless in self-defense.
“trying to overrule something that shouldn’t be/ prosecuting doctors for preforming safe abortions = clogging up legal system. that’s my point.”
I think there are better things to be done to unclog the legal system than keeping abortion legal. I also think there are better things to do with a medical degree than to kill pre-born children.
“pro-lifers aren’t that they are pro-life, but that they’re organizing to remove the right to choose.”
The right to choose what? To take a life? You don’t say!
Actually I’m a liberal and I think you can do with your body whatever you please. Go have sex all you want, use birth control as much as you want, smoke marijuana, cigarettes, drink till you pass out.
But you STILL don’t have the right to kill another person just like you don’t have the right to drive drunk or high- because if affects another person.
Melissa: I don’t want to have “who’s smarter” debates either, and I’m fully aware that people are more casual on the Internet than they are at work (see sentence fragments). I’m also fully aware that people can lie about who they are on the Internet, and you don’t sound like a lawyer. If you are, okay, whatever.
So you have regard for the moral side, but think it should be legal to have an abortion. Okay. What’s your point? We disagree with you and you disagree with us. I don’t think that’s going to change. As I said before, you have freedom of speech, but you’re wasting your time.
xalisae:
i can’t even respond fully if you’re going to completely disregard the truth that some pregnancies could be life-threatening to the mother. that paragraph was just… blah blah blah poor reasoning blah blah blah…m’kay.
again, you’ve done a great job of perpetuating the negative stereotype of crazy, radical pro-lifers, probably to the point that you’d be counter-productive. if you’re trying to get me on board with believing that all women should have any child ever conceived, i’d have to suggest another approach, past your hostile, sarcastic, and eccentric post.
or are you trying to make me cry? i can’t be sure. you’re really, really pissed…. ha ha
haven’t had an abortion. probably never will. i think if i had to choose, i’d choose life. but that’s just me.
:)
Melissa,
Where have you been?? Good to see a rationale individual engage in this debate. Bravo!!
Posted by: melissa at February 27, 2010 5:04 PM
@Melissa:
“you called president obama “pro-abortion” which indicates that you’re trying to convey that he would recommend, or prefer abortions. the correct term is “pro-choice” and demonizing someone in the way you have is LYING.”
“obama is not recommending abortion, or campaigning to have it mandated. maybe you were unsure of ‘pro”s latin meaning. it’s synonymous with ‘for’ or ‘with’- that is to say actively ‘pro’moting.”
[sic], [sic], and [double sic]. Please, for the love of pete, LRN2GRAMMAR.
Do you believe abortions can be morally, rationally, logically, and ethically justified? I would imagine from your posts that the answer is yes. I know from Obama’s speeches that he does. Any time the answer to that question is yes, the answeree is an abortion apologist. Which makes them pro-abortion. Just because they might, in some vague, theoretical other situation, like other things too does not mean that they aren’t doing apologetics for this one. Which makes them pro-abortion.
Besides, if abortions aren’t bad, why are you so hesitant to be pro-them? I am pro-teeth-pulling under the appropriate circumstances. If an abortion has no greater or lesser moral implications than that, you shouldn’t hesitate to be called pro-abortion.
Haha…Chris Arsenault calling out someone else for being on a moral high horse!!! Classic…hey pot, meet kettle.
Classic…hey pot, meet kettle.
Posted by: Jake at February 27, 2010 5:24 PM
——
And don’t forget the fire! haha
i can’t even respond fully if you’re going to completely disregard the truth that some pregnancies could be life-threatening to the mother. that paragraph was just… blah blah blah poor reasoning blah blah blah…m’kay.
You mean you WON’T respond to something you CAN’T respond to, because nobody here has EVER said that they don’t support saving a mother’s life if it is in danger from a pregnancy. Ever. You are addressing a point nobody has made. But I suppose beating up a straw man is so much easier than trying support your argument.
But just for shits and giggles…I’ll follow you down this rabbit hole for a minute and ask, melissa, what percent of abortions ARE performed to save a mother’s life? It’s pretty smmmmaaaalllll…
“again, you’ve done a great job of perpetuating the negative stereotype of crazy, radical pro-lifers, probably to the point that you’d be counter-productive. if you’re trying to get me on board with believing that all women should have any child ever conceived, i’d have to suggest another approach, past your hostile, sarcastic, and eccentric post.”
TRANSLATION: I can’t answer ANY of your arguments, so I’m going to sit here and act like I was just little miss sunshine when I first came in here and YOU’RE the bitch, even though I was just as snarky, snappy, and aggressive as you’re being. In other words, you win, and I have no defense for myself or my position, no matter your demeanor.
and Joke-whups, I mean Jake:
“I’m a spineless little toad who’s already had my butt dragged up and down around this board with my own confessions of misogyny masked as feminism (yes, I remember the “coercion” debate yesterday) and saying that the disabled and abuse victims would be better off dead. Thanks for bringing a slightly better argument then I was ever able to make. At least it looks like you care about SOMEONE, even if it is only yourself.”
Marauder, I will be glad to hop in your pocket any day. ^_~
Melissa says “your “scientific” reason, is not scientific. it’s spiritual. if that were a legitimate scientific reason for stopping it, you’d also be against chemotherapy for killing cancer cells. it’s not the same as your spiritual reasons and mixing the two is what the irrational anti-choice agenda stems from.”
Wrong! There is a vast scientific difference between cancer cells and living organisims. You’re joking, right?
oh, and Jake:
“rational” = an adjective. What you meant.
“rationale” = a noun. As in, “Boy, those pro-choicers really have some screwed-up rationale that allows them to think it’s ok to end another human’s life in the womb.”
Melissa says “2. the LSAT has nothing to do with anything, and it’s quite boring, honestly.”
Actually, the LSAT is a great test of someone’s ability to use logic and parse arguments. You said that are arguments amounted to waving around bloody pictures. Since pro-lifers had previously made arugments much more substanative than your claim, it is obvious that you could not acurately understand/respond to the arguments made.
That’s why I question what you made on your LSAT. You’re the one who raised your credintials as evidence for your superior reasoning skills.
Just to remind you, Melissa, here’s what you claim our argument to be:
“i do not need to revisit your pages and pages of bible verses that stand as your only blatant justification, apart from your embellished, scare-tactic, gruesome images of bloody carcasses, or little plastic babies in priests’ hands”
In case you’re still failing to understand, the words “argument” and “justification” are synonyms.
Ah….xalisae…..A typo…you got me…I guess I will be joining the pro-life side now. btw, I answered you pathetic hypothetical in the other post about a room..blah blah blah.
whups. In my haste, I forgot that it’s “than” and not “then” in an instance. My apologies!
Marauder:
oye vey.
what’s the point of anything, then?! hahaha
it’s conversation, it’s stimulating, it’s interesting, it’s what keeps being alive interesting. cheer up, charlie!
chris:
“[sic], [sic], and [double sic]. Please, for the love of pete, LRN2GRAMMAR”
…huh?
checked out MLA before i posted, all’s clear.
abortions are bad- they can be emotionally traumatizing, painful, etc- but that doesn’t change that having the child as its alternative is the better choice, or furthermore that anyone but the pregnant woman would know what the better choice is.
i’m anti-“pro-abortion” because of the demonizing characteristics that are attached to it, so to further the agenda of making abortion illegal. heartless, soulless, unworthy human-beings-of-women.
i said that i *probably* wouldn’t have one, just because i use birth control, don’t plan to be pregnant, and at this point in my life, could absolutely provide for a child in a loving and financial stable way. that’s not to say that if i were raped, i’d opt to keep the child of my rapist. i understand the consequences of abortion- and i’d venture to say that most, if not all, women who have the procedure do as well. neither you nor i can determine which a reason for not bringing a child into the world is more legitimate than another. how’s that for facing moral high horsery?
Ah….xalisae…..A typo…you got me…I guess I will be joining the pro-life side now. btw, I answered you pathetic hypothetical in the other post about a room..blah blah blah.
Posted by: Jake at February 27, 2010 5:43 PM
oh, thank you, Jake…and it only took you guys 2 days.
Melissa says “like most of you have confused my disregard for the moral dilemma of abortions…”
Melissa, a moral dilemma is not something you can simply disregard and pretend does not exist. Regardless of if you recognize it or not, there is still a moral dilemma. It’s a bit like saying “I disregard your hunger.” Great, but that doesn’t change the fact that I’m hungry, does it?
You came on here to debate the merits of abortion. Fine. Go with that, don’t pretend that the debate is over and we’re just all too stupid to see it. It’s nonsensical at best.
Xalisae,
Believe it or not, we don’t live to respond on this blog, so really, two days is pretty reasonable. We do have lives you know, unlike the fetus that Angie eliminated….sorry, couldn’t resist, I knew that would put you in a huff!!
Melissa says “neither you nor i can determine which a reason for not bringing a child into the world is more legitimate than another.”
Melissa, we aren’t talking about “bringing a child into the world” we’re talking about taking one out. The child exists. Abortion kills him.
@Melissa: That wasn’t Chris, that was me.
“‘[sic], [sic], and [double sic]. Please, for the love of pete, LRN2GRAMMAR’
…huh?
checked out MLA before i posted, all’s clear.”
Oh wow. You just made me LOL IRL. Thanks for that.
From wikipedia: “Sic is a Latin word meaning “thus”, “so”, “as such”, or “in such a manner”. In writing, it is placed within the quoted material, in square brackets – or outside it, in regular parentheses – and usually italicized – [sic] – to indicate that an incorrect or unusual spelling, phrase, punctuation, and/or other preceding quoted material has been reproduced verbatim from the quoted original and is not a transcription error.[1]”
Basically, that was me pointing out the grammar errors (of which there were many, by the way). First off, capitalize the first letter of each sentence, along with proper nouns. Like, President Obama, frex. There’s more, but that one is the most egregious.
Now then, you said, “i’m anti-“pro-abortion” because of the demonizing characteristics that are attached to it, so to further the agenda of making abortion illegal. heartless, soulless, unworthy human-beings-of-women.”
So, you don’t like the name because of the conotation attached to it. And yet you’ve called people “anti-choice” in comments on this entry. And no, that is no different (except that it’s arguably nastier; both are rhetorical strategies, employed deliberately on the part of the users, though). Either it’s wrong when you do it, too. Or, it’s not wrong. You can not have it both ways.
xalisae:
what would you like from me?
would you like me to answer a questionnaire so that you and i both are on the same page with what was said and what i actually believe? i’m game! i am very, very sound with my belief.
i do not think that an unborn fetus should have the same rights as a 35 year old straight, white, homeowner, male. (gotta keep up that facetious tone, right?)
i do not think my legal system should be able to put me, or my doctor in jail because we’ve terminated a pregnancy.
i do believe that having a child is a good idea for some.
i do believe that not having a child is a good idea for some.
i do believe that the republican party uses the abortion debate to gain the vote of the evangelical right, and not because it is generally harmful in any way.
i do not believe that i, or anyone on this thread, or anyone in the world has the right answer for each individual woman deciding whether or not to continue a pregnancy.
i do not believe i will go to hell for this because….
i do not believe in hell.
…or “her”, Lauren. Don’t forget, roughly half of all abortions end the lives of female victims. Because they’re all liberated and crap. Girl power! (for some girls. Other girls get the bucket.)
I’m not going to cry bogus on the JD, but I’d be wary of hiring any lawyer who thinks constitutional prohibitions against government interference with speech and the press have anything to do w/ postings on private blogs.
That said, Melissa, I guess I’m your opposite: I too am a lawyer, but I used to be pro-choice and am now pro-life. If your initial question about our rationale still stands, I’ll give you mine. It comes down to one central question – does abortion involve the taking of a human life? All other questions/arguments are extraneous. If it is a human life, then nothing can justify intentionally taking it – not the conditions it will be born into, not potential poverty or hardship or illness – nothing.** As a society we don’t allow the taking of innocent human life. The only question is, where do we begin those protections. For me, the process went something like this. If the day before a wanted child was born, the dr performed an abortion against the mother’s will, would she have a case for murder or merely assault against her person. Even as a pro-choice person, my answer was “murder”, but perhaps we’ve parted ways already. Assuming we’re still together, I started moving backwards trying to find “the line”. Because the line has to be scientific, the mother’s wanting of the fetus can’t determine if it’s alive and worthy of protection. We need some objective criteria. For a long time I held on to “viability” as my criteria. It’s a person once it can live on it’s own and certainly it would be wrong to kill a human capable of surviving in the world. But that line keeps changing. Medical technology allows premature infants to survive earlier and earlier, so that line, too was arbitrary. Finally I had to admit that the fetus a day before it’s born, is no different than the embryo at the moment of conception except that it has been allowed to develop along it’s natural course. It is a separate human being from the moment it is conceived. All human beings at all stages of life started that very way. So I got to that point and once you get there how can you argue that that life can be eliminated for convenience (no matter how severe), or even a hard case like rape (we don’t even allow the rape victim to go out and kill the rapist the next day – she would be tried for murder. Yet, an innocent human can be disposed of).
Sorry this is so long – that’s my rationale and the reason I think abortion is the kind of thing that shouldn’t be available to choose (like murder, or rape, or slavery). It’s not just a hey, “you say tomato, I say tomato” kind of thing.
**When a mother’s life is actually in genuine peril (which is incredibly rare) you’re then weighing life and life and a woman ALWAYS has the right to save her life, even if the medical intervention results in the death of the fetus.
“cheer up, charlie!”
Not until I find a Golden Ticket in my Wonka bar.
“i understand the consequences of abortion- and i’d venture to say that most, if not all, women who have the procedure do as well.”
I doubt it. Everybody tells them, “It’s no big deal, it’s for the best, you’ll get over it, you won’t be upset because it’s not a ‘real’ baby, so-and-so had one and she’s fine, you won’t regret it” and all that kind of thing. Pro-choicers have been trying to minimize or deny the emotional effects of abortion for decades.
Pro-lifers regard unborn children as human beings. We don’t like the idea of killing innocent human beings and a lot of us don’t like the idea of killing any human beings, period, even if they’re serial killers. An unborn baby is already “into the world”. S/he’s no longer a separate sperm and egg or a theoretical concept. When it comes to this issue, there are two choices for us, life or death. We think people who are already alive should stay alive until they die in a way that wasn’t caused by another human being. Unborn babies are indisputably human and indisputably alive, no matter where they are in their development process. Therefore, we don’t think people should kill them.
“…or furthermore that anyone but the pregnant woman would know what the better choice is.”
So if an OB/GYN with forty years of experience and a degree in psychology tells an immature eighteen-year-old who failed biology that she shouldn’t have an abortion because she’ll be ending the life of a human being and will also increase her risk of a whole host of self-destructive behaviors, you’re with the immature eighteen-year-old?
Melissa says “i do not think that an unborn fetus should have the same rights as a 35 year old straight, white, homeowner, male.”
What about the rights of a 3 year old child? Remember that children have the right not to be neglected, even if their rights infringe upon their parents’ rights.
keli Hu:
sorry to have called you by the wrong name.
sorry to have also offended you so much by my lack of capitalization to actually insert a wikipedia blip concerning it, and my alleged poor grammar….?
i LOVE how this always turns into “meeeehhh i’m gonna pick on you for forgetting a comma or using all lowercase letters because that way i don’t actually have to make any points!”
it’s uncannnnnny!
“i LOVE how this always turns into ‘meeeehhh i’m gonna pick on you for forgetting a comma or using all lowercase letters because that way i don’t actually have to make any points!'”
And I love how you’re focusing on that and not addressing anyone’s points.
Marauder:
“So if an OB/GYN with forty years of experience and a degree in psychology tells an immature eighteen-year-old who failed biology that she shouldn’t have an abortion because she’ll be ending the life of a human being and will also increase her risk o f awhole host of self-destructive behaviors, you’re with the immature eighteen-year-old?”
YEPPERS PEPPERS!
you’re finally starting to see my point!
:)
Actually, Melissa, we’ve focused on nearly all of your points. We’ve also pointed out your grammar/puncuation because you A)claim to be a lawyer and B)began the whole semantics discussion as it related to the term “pro-abortion.”
If you’d like off that sinking ship, why don’t you respond to some of our arguments regarding the merits of abortion.
First, please amend your statement re: cancer cells being the biological equivalent to a unique human organism. Several of us have pointed this out to you, yet I have seen no correction on your part.
Jake,
You are back. Are you going to take me up on my previous challenge to you or are you going to side step the major issue like the other “pro-choicers” do?
What is the criteria for personhood?
On the other hand, if the OB/GYN thinks the eighteen-year-old should get an abortion and the immature eighteen-year-old doesn’t, we’re on the eighteen-year-old’s side because it doesn’t matter WHO people are – you’re not allowed to take a born person’s life except to save your own or someone else’s, and you shouldn’t be able to take an unborn person’s life except to save your own, either. Your own life – not your own lifestyle, career, stable finances, or anything else.
What do I want from you? I want you to admit that a developing human in the womb is in fact a human being every bit as valid and worthy of protection by law as its mother, its cousin, its father, the garbage man, Martha Stewart, and Macho Man Randy Savage-OH YEEEEH. Or, prove to me that he/she is not. Sound with your belief? Maybe so. But there are tons of people in mental wards across the nation sound with their belief they are Abraham Lincoln. It’s not scientifically true though, is it?
i do not think that an unborn fetus should have the same rights as a 35 year old straight, white, homeowner, male. (gotta keep up that facetious tone, right?)
Good for you. You’re not backing that up with anything though. Every time we ask you “why?” you have a conniption fit and either go off on a tirade of personal attacks against one of us or change the subject completely (as you’re doing now). Why is that?”
i do not think my legal system should be able to put me, or my doctor in jail because we’ve terminated a pregnancy.
Ok…Why not? What exactly are you accomplishing by “terminating a pregnancy”? If you can figure THAT one out, you might understand why we don’t agree! Don’t worry, kiddo, you keep chugging along, and maybe one of these days you’ll get it.
i do believe that having a child is a good idea for some.
i do believe that not having a child is a good idea for some.
Ok, I’m glad we agree, but that has little to do with abortion, since if a woman is seeking one, she’s already got the child-it’s right there in her uterus. I guess what we really need to invent isn’t some new medical procedure for abortion, but a freaking time machine. Then if you get pregnant, you can just go back in time and stop yourself from having sex or something. Oh well. ;_;
i do believe that the republican party uses the abortion debate to gain the vote of the evangelical right, and not because it is generally harmful in any way.
Wow…have you told anyone else about this amazing ability to read minds yet?! You’re astounding! A lawyer AND you have superpowers, omg!
i do not believe that i, or anyone on this thread, or anyone in the world has the right answer for each individual woman deciding whether or not to continue a pregnancy.
Ok, how does that negate my argument about the humanity and life-worth of those beings in utero? Competing rights usually prioritize in a way that those which do the most damage to the competing parties if not recognized should be accounted for first. So…how does the fact that a woman is pregnant and doesn’t want to be (because her decision not to continue a pregnancy is JUST about being pregnant, right, and has NOTHING AT ALL to do with the fact she wants her child eliminated so she no longer has to care for it…that’s why they have so many abortions past viability where the child is delivered completely alive and allowed to liv-oooh…wait a minute…) change the fact that the human in her uterus is alive and needs to have his/her life protected?
i do not believe i will go to hell for this because….
i do not believe in hell.
Ok, good for you. I don’t believe in hell either. But I also don’t think that gives me the excuse to be a heartless bitch to anyone who stands in the way of my plans even at the cost of their lives, either. What exactly was your point with this, other than to attempt to inflame the more religious individuals on this board?
lauren:
the semantics discussion i’d initiated actually had to do with abortion, and not playing lets-unmask-the-pretend-lawyer.
i mentioned my educational background because i was attacked as not being intellectually credible, which seems to be par for the course when you’re unable to keep your emotions separate from your argument. it’s okay, i’m over it.
my missing response to the chemotherapy analogy could possibly be due to the bombarding of messages. i’ve sadly spent most of my day off on the computer arguing, but it’s cold & snowing out anyways so i guess there’s the silver lining.
i did not say that cancer cells are the biological equivalent to “a unique human organism”. i compared your reasoning of killing cells to killing cells. you think one is more valuable than the other, which is where we disagree. there’s really nothing that can be done with that…
…BUT i think that BECAUSE it can’t really be agreed on, it should not stand as a basis for policy enforcement.
CT is absolutely right when he/she pointed out that it boils down to when life actually begins.
thanks, also, for keeping the personal jabs to a one-line disclaimer, and not involving wikipedia. appreciate it.
:)
We will all have to answer to “I AM”.
As for me, I am a sinner in need of God’s grace and mercy. If Jesus thought it a much better choice to submit to crucifixion than to risk His Father’s rebuke, who am I to act any differently?
I think things would go much, much better in this world if we all had that perspective.
Reading the comments on this blog, the utter arrogance, the pride, the self-absorption, the disregard of God’s will, makes my heart ache.
Wise men still seek Him. Choose whom you will serve.
Eek, double-post. psalm: I’m wondering if Jake’s going to answer my question about whether he’d rather his own children had not been born if, God forbid, someone abused them.
And with Melissa, yeah, what’s this about cancer cells?
Phil Schembri is HisMan:
“I think things would go much, much better in this world if we all had that perspective.”
of course everything would be peachy keen if we all thought the same thing- we don’t.
Melissa says “i compared your reasoning of killing cells to killing cells. you think one is more valuable than the other”
Melissa, that is because one set of cells comprises a HUMAN ORGANISM.
Here’s your arguement. Your arguement is the most asinine thing I think I’ve ever read. If you really think that organisms and cells are the same, you should have no problem with anyone, anywhere killing anyone else. Hey, that person is just cells, right?
“i compared your reasoning of killing cells to killing cells. you think one is more valuable than the other, which is where we disagree.”
Yeah…because one is cancer and one is a separate human organism with his/her own DNA…
Sorry, the “here’s your argument” part can be deleted. I was going to say something else, but changed my mind.
Melissa says “BUT i think that BECAUSE it can’t really be agreed on, it should not stand as a basis for policy enforcement.
CT is absolutely right when he/she pointed out that it boils down to when life actually begins.”
I’m sorry, I don’t think I’ve ever said this to anyone during a debate before, but you are an idiot.
We can pinpoint the EXACT moment a new life actually begins. Amphimixis. Period. End of story, game over. A new, unique human organism is formed at amphimixis.
Wow, a scientific consensus! I guess you can pack up your bags and go home now that we’ve established when life begins. That was easy.
“…CT is absolutely right when he/she pointed out that it boils down to when life actually begins.”
Ok then…CT also said that they had thought a lot about when life actually DOES begin, and it’s a well-known fact. So…you’re not “PRO-ABORTION!!!” anymore? I’m glad you concede our point. ^_^
“i said that i *probably* wouldn’t have one, just because i use birth control, don’t plan to be pregnant,”
ah, the contraceptive mentality…. so refreshing!
you just can see abortion in her future….:(
Melissa, you say you used to be prolife. My guess is that you were raised in a pro-life family, but never really thought about the issue for yourself.
Then you got to college(where you probably still reside) and someone starting spouting pro-choice bumperstickers. “Hey!” you thought “That does seem like the “smart” side…I can’t tell another woman what to do, I’m prochoice!”
My guess is this is the first time you’ve debated the issue with informed pro-lifers and you’re beginning to see that all the bumpersticker logic doesn’t really hold up to the facts of the debate.
I know I’ve been harsh, but honestly, please actually look at the merits of what has been said. Science is on our side, as are human rights. I’ve debated hundreds of pro-choicers and I have yet to find one who can square that circle.
Melissa: “i did not say that cancer cells are the biological equivalent to “a unique human organism”. i compared your reasoning of killing cells to killing cells. you think one is more valuable than the other, which is where we disagree. there’s really nothing that can be done with that…”
What exactly do you mean? You are saying that you are not putting cancerous cells on the same level as a human organism, yet you are, seemingly, reiterating your previous argument that a comparison between cancerous cells and the cells of a new human organism is valid.
Which is it? Are cancerous cells equivilant to a human organism or not?
If not, which I am sure you would very reasonably now assert, why then bring it up? What is the usefulness of, say, comparing a blastocyst to a mineral or to a plant if the comparison is as nonsensical as your cancer analogy?
(…and by the way, education is meaningless if you lack the ability to reason. I would wait to tout your credentials until you have first established yourself as somewhat reasonable.)
Hey Maurader,
If my boys do get abused, then I will offer support to them and get them counseling and prosecute the offenders. See, that’s the point, they would have the support of a loving mother and father. Now, lets take the example of baby born addicted to crack, left alone in a crib, diaper full of shit while the mother (no father around by the way) goes out to score her next hit. As the baby, let’s make her a girl, gets older the mother prostitutes her to drug dealers when she is 13, just the mother can get her next score. Oh, by the way, the mother didn’t want this child, in fact she wished to abort it, but the religious right won and abortion was made illegal. Sorry, I believe that the mother should have had that option, I do find that to be more merciful. I think, even you Maurader, can see the difference between my kids getting abused, probably by a priest by the way, and this girl who was brought into this world against the mother’s wishes.
This whole series has given me a new perspective of feminist empowerment — a woman in control of her own body means:
1. popping pills and celebrating it
2. killing your child and celebrating it
3. complaining about your useless boyfriend to the world and sticking with him, and
4. tweeting about a “personal matter between her woman and her doctor” to the world every ten freakin’ minutes
In other words, feminists loathe themselves.
Jake: “Sorry, I believe that the mother should have had that option, I do find that to be more merciful. ”
So would it be merciful to kill the baby after birth? Is it morally good to kill prostitutes and crack addicts to save them from their lives?
Let me guess, Melissa responds to Cranky Catholic and ignores my post entirely….
“I think, even you Maurader, can see the difference between my kids getting abused, probably by a priest by the way, and this girl who was brought into this world against the mother’s wishes.”
What’s that? Your kids are “better”? The lives of your children have more innate value than a crack-addicted teenage prostitute? The crack-addicted teenage prostitute is less of a human being? Don’t give me any spiel about how she won’t be able to escape her circumstances. This is why we have the foster care system and the termination of parental rights.
If you think priests you know would abuse your kids, you shouldn’t have your kids around those priests. If you don’t have your kids around any priests, I highly doubt some pedophile priest is going to seek them out.
What if – again, God forbid – someone murdered you and your children’s mother and kidnapped your children and molested them? Would you rather your children had never been born?
Oliver,
Nope, after birth all bets are off…I will even take it one further, if the baby can survive on its own outside the womb then they should be born…unless of course the mother’s health is at risk. That is the line I have drawn. But yeah, for a mother to have a choice to scrape a few cells out of her womb in order to avoid bringing a child into the life I have described..I am all for that!!! See, what you all fail to realize is, that the majority of us on the pro-choice side do realize that abortion is actually killing a potential human. Most of us feel that a woman has the right to control her body. Some of us, like me for example, think the woman’s right to control her body is important, plus the fact that it may be more merciful. I am comfortable with this view point. I only choose the “viable outside the womb” perspective because I feel that a woman should make this choice as early as possible. But honestly, I actually feel that as long as a woman is pregnant she can control her own body at any point. But I am willing to create a cutoff if it means keeping abortion legal.
Marauder,
To answer your question. No I don’t think Jake will answer you question. He and most of the other so called pro-choice folks are very good at doging the most important questions.
This whole argument boils down to personhood. That’s the starting point (after the fact that life begins at conception.
All other pro-choice arguments are meant to distract from the real issue.
Well, Its Sat night and I am not going to waste it attempting to debate those who refuse to fully engage.
I’ll be back tomorrow.
Jake, we await your answer.
What is the criteria for personhood?
Jake: “Nope, after birth all bets are off”
So what you are saying is that having a horrible life is NOT a sufficient cause to kill a human?
I meant to add to that, Jake, why bring up horrible lives if it is meaningless in whether or not killing a human life is justifiable?
Again, and try to keep up, I think the whole “horrible life” perspective is a beneficial side effect to the whole abortion debate. It is not the main point….the main point is that a woman has a right to control her body, and this overrides the life of a fetus. It is not the main point of my argument, just happens to be a benefit.
Psalms,
The woman’s right to choose overrides the criteria for personhood. It is that simple.
Jake:”It is not the main point of my argument, just happens to be a benefit.”
I guess then I am a little ocnfused. You are evaluating someone’s life and saying “it would have been better had this person been killed prior to viability in the womb.”
This seems to say that this life is not worth living, and that a parent, projecting into the future, is justified in killing her preborn.
Yet, you claim that denying life to an awful life is NOT sufficient to kill that life, but that it is a benefit.
If it is in ANY way good for a life to be destroyed to prevent highly speculative, POSSIBLE harm, then why is not also good to destroy that same life when it is undergoing ACTUAL harm?
It seems that your entire argue begs the notion that a preborn (fetus/blastocyst/etc) has no right to life, or at least no prevailing right to life in respect to the mother’s right to privacy in order for your “horrible life” benefit to exist.
To put it bluntly, you are weilding a rhetorical technique that amounts to circular logic. If you want to argue abortion, lay off the histrionics and present your beliefs straight.
So, from what you have said, you believe abortion is justified because the mother has the right to govern her own body. So, let me ask you a few questions.
Do humans have an inherent right to own property?
If so, does a parent have the right to evict his/her child from that property, say, in the middle of a violent storm of some sort?
If not, why not? Does a person not have the right to own property?
(And if you do not believe in property rights, I am a little confused how you can believe in privacy rights, but we’ll cross that bridge if we come to it.)
“But yeah, for a mother to have a choice to scrape a few cells out of her womb in order to avoid bringing a child into the life I have described..I am all for that!!!”
The “few cells” in her womb have a beating heart and his/her own set of DNA.
“See, what you all fail to realize is, that the majority of us on the pro-choice side do realize that abortion is actually killing a potential human.”
Oh, we understand that you believe that. Do you understand that a fetus is an ACTUAL human, not a potential human? S/he’s a human being at a very early stage of development, but still a human being. Any being with his/her own unique set of human DNA is a human being. It’s not a “potential” set of DNA, or a “potentially” beating heart. It’s not some real-world analogy to Frankenstein’s monster, where Frankenstein creates a body for the monster but the monster can’t be alive until Frankenstein brings him to life. A pregnant woman at any stage of pregnancy has a living, growing human being inside her body who is not part of her body.
I always find it funny that pro-choicers are so vehementally opposed to the argument of potentiality in FAVOR of a preborn, but argue from that SAME position when AGAINST the preborn.
In other words, you can’t say a preborn is a person because it has all the potential to be one, yet you CAN, apparently, kill a fetus because it has the potential to have a hard life, harm the mother, etc etc.
Which is it guys?
Jake: “The woman’s right to choose overrides the criteria for personhood. It is that simple.”
I am not sure I understand you. Do you mean that in the literal sense, that choosing something overrides personhood? What if I choose to blow someone’s brains out? Is this morally acceptable?
Do you mean right to privacy/bodily autonomy/whatever?
And if privacy overrides the right to life, then what do you think of cavity searches? Are they all violations of human rights?
How, under your system, do you justify holding criminals in jail? Or do you not believe in holding someone against his/her will?
Ugh….really everyone?? This is the best you have? Yes…a woman’s right to control her body overrides a person’s life that is living within her womb. Potential life, life….it doesn’t matter. Her choice is more important!!! Is that clear enough?? Do I need to break it down further. If a potential hard life is spared because the person, in the form of a few cells, is forcibly removed from the womb…well then that is a beneficial side effect. If a potential winner of the Nobel Peace Prize is eliminated in the form of a few cells, well then that is an unfortunate side effect. What you will notice however, is that my argument is really pretty simple…It is a woman’s choice!!! Must I explain it further???
Jake: “It is a woman’s choice!!! Must I explain it further???”
Yes. Are all choices morally superior, or just choices that involve your body? If so, why?
And also if so, how do you feel about cavity searches to prevent smuggling? How do you feel about imprisonment?
Oliver, once again, blowing someone’s brain’s out is against the law because you are killing a viable human being that exists independent of anything else. Killing a fetus, as long as it relies on the mother to sustain it, is quite different. Forcing someone to drastically change their life for nine months is not something I am in favor of.
All drugs should be legalized, because, again, it is up to the person to choose how to control their body. So cavity searches to search for smuggled drugs are ridiculous. Cavity searches to prevent the smuggling of plastic explosives that will kill viable human beings is warranted. Imprisoning individuals for taking drugs is ridiculous. Imprisoning people for killing viable human beings is justified.
Jake: “Oliver, once again, blowing someone’s brain’s out is against the law because you are killing a viable human being that exists independent of anything else.”
This is why I am asking for clarification. You saying that the right to CHOOSE overrides the right to PERSONHOOD.
I am asking you whether or not you actually mean this. Apparently you do not.
If a fetus can be shown to be a person, why would a mother have the right to eliminate this person?
And also, more to the point about privacy rights, do you believe it is moral to do a cavity search?
Jake: “Cavity searches to prevent the smuggling of plastic explosives that will kill viable human beings is warranted.”
So what you are saying, then, is that it is morally acceptable to violate someone’s right to privacy and boily autonomy if it is to save a human life?
@Jake:
“Yes…a woman’s right to control her body overrides a person’s life that is living within her womb. Potential life, life….it doesn’t matter. Her choice is more important!!! Is that clear enough??”
First off, the “consent” argument that you have finally had dragged out of you by painful inches, is actually the one decent argument pro-choicers have on their side. When you really put it to the test, though, it doesn’t hold up the way you’re wanting it to.
A, let’s assume that this argument did holds up. You could only fairly apply it to cases where a pregnancy resulted from rape. Consent was not given for the sex, therefore it wasn’t given for any possible children that occur as a result. This covers less than 1% of all abortions in the US. However, to say that everyone who has consentual sex can then go, “Well, I’m going to try and avoid pregnancy, but if it doesn’t work, then I’ll just kill whoever I need to in order to get away from it!” is absolutely ridiculous on the face of it. And that’s leaving out the fact that minors can not give or receive consent. Unborn children would most definitely fall into the category of minors.
B, to make a very long rest of this post short, here. That’s basically what I would have said, only they say it better.
Oliver,
The right to choose, when the choice means controlling your own body, overrides personhood. So for example, since you all like to bring about blowing actual viable humans away, if someone is attacking you physically with a gun or a knife, and you choose to kill that person, then it is justifiable. Any other points of clarification??
Jake: “Cavity searches to prevent the smuggling of plastic explosives that will kill viable human beings is warranted.”
Jake: “The right to choose, when the choice means controlling your own body, overrides personhood.”
I am very confused.
You at first claim that someone’s “right to choose” can be violated in the case of personhood, when it comes to cavity searches for potential explosives. Then you claim that the “right to choose” always overrides personhood.
Which is it? Does a potential terrorist have the right to control his body and NOT have a cavity search?
Oliver…..keep up…”viable” human life. You keep omitting that.
“how do you know that having a child would be more helpful, and not harmful to the child…or the mother…or the taxpayers who will eventually have to fund its life because the mother was scared into having a baby she couldn’t support?”
Mellisa your rhetoric sounds similar to when the Nazis in Germany instituted a campaign in the 30s and 40s to get rid of those pesky individuals (the old, infirm, mentally ill, unborn babies, later on Jews…) that were a so called burden to German society because it was supposedly costing too much money for the German tax payer to support them – so naturally the Nazis promoted programs that had sterilization, euthanasia, and abortion as the “final solution” to end German society’s problems – see the link in the bottom for the infamous Nazi propaganda film poster that supported snuffing out the “undesirables”. I guess you like to kill unborn babies – they are undesirables to you – you cannot realize that there are other more humane ways to help the mother – stop acting like a “humanist” that really cares about women, or even the baby…the baby – even unborn as a fetus has no say in this – his or her being should be also taken into account. This is not a Christian issue – it has nothing to do with dogma or religion – abortion is just plain wrong because it’s a very ARCHAIC, harsh, clumsy, unscientific, barbaric practice when you come to think about it – similar to practices done by freaks like the Nazis.
Thank God your mom was pro life!
http://patterico.com/files/2009/09/NaziPoster.jpg
Ok everyone…is it ok to kill someone who is attempting to kill you? Why? It is life after all!! Do you concede that there are extenuating circumstances for everyone living??
To remind you, Jake, you said this.
“The right to choose, when the choice means controlling your own body, overrides personhood.”
Nowhere in there do you make an exception for viable life or non viable life. Do you mean to ammend your previous statement to this….
“”The right to choose, when the choice means controlling your own body, overrides personhood for persons that are not viable.”
Now, let me ask you a question. What do you mean by viable in this case? Does this only apply to preborns, or does it also apply to people hooked onto respirators, say premature babies or those who suffer COPD(sp?). What about those who require dialysis?
Does a terrorist have to undergo a cavity search if the only potential victims are those reliant on physical apparatus to survive?
Oliver,
Answer my question!!!
“Oliver, once again, blowing someone’s brain’s out is against the law because you are killing a viable human being that exists independent of anything else.”
Ah, yes: “viability.” That ever-changing, still-prevalent cop-out used to fly in the face of all logic and scientific evidence.
*sits down with popcorn and soda*
This is gonna be great.
Oliver,
Does Dialysis, or being hooked up to a ventilator, require a woman to sacrifice her body? I will answer for you…no. See, the difference is that the woman is asked to be the “life support” for a non-viable human. That is what I have issue with.
Hey Maurader,
If my boys do get abused, then I will offer support to them and get them counseling and prosecute the offenders. See, that’s the point, they would have the support of a loving mother and father. Now, lets take the example of baby born addicted to crack, left alone in a crib, diaper full of shit while the mother (no father around by the way) goes out to score her next hit. As the baby, let’s make her a girl, gets older the mother prostitutes her to drug dealers when she is 13, just the mother can get her next score. Oh, by the way, the mother didn’t want this child, in fact she wished to abort it, but the religious right won and abortion was made illegal. Sorry, I believe that the mother should have had that option, I do find that to be more merciful. I think, even you Maurader, can see the difference between my kids getting abused, probably by a priest by the way, and this girl who was brought into this world against the mother’s wishes.
Posted by: Jake at February 27, 2010 7:27 PM
what about the option of adoption, Jake?
she doesn’t have to kill her baby.
“Oliver, once again, blowing someone’s brain’s out is against the law because you are killing a viable human being that exists independent of anything else. Killing a fetus, as long as it relies on the mother to sustain it, is quite different.”
Born babies rely on their mothers – or fathers, or guardians, or whoever – to sustain them. So is it okay to kill babies who have been born? Because if, in your mind, people only obtain a right to live once they can sustain themselves, that’s the logical conclusion. What about paralyzed people or really old people who require constant care?
Hey Angel…you are right, she can opt to give the baby up for adoption, if she wants to go through nine months of pregnancy, which may be uncomfortable, unpleasant, and ultimately unrewarding. If she chooses to go that right more power to her. Notice the key word there though…CHOOSE.
Calm down Jake. Look at the timestamp on my post. I didn’t have your question refreshed as I posted. Although I do look forward to your explanation of viability.
Jake asked: “Ok everyone…is it ok to kill someone who is attempting to kill you? Why?”
This is a very interesting question. To be honest, I am not so sure that you CAN kill someone who is trying to kill you. Of course, the difference between me and a pro-choicer is that I would heavily debate the morals before I put myself in a position (say becoming a soldier or officer) to likely deal with this moral issue.
You could say, from a quasi-Utilitarian point of view, that because two lives are equally in danger, the loss of either life is justifiable, so that killing the murderer and allowing yourself to be killed are equally moral actions.
I think you could also use the “law of double effect” to tackle this, but I personally see this moral system as exploitable.
Jake also asked: “Do you concede that there are extenuating circumstances for everyone living??”
I am not sure what you are trying to ask. Do I believe in circumstance and context? Of course. Do I believe that abortion-on-demand fits into some sort of justifiable context or circumstance? No.
Marauder,
Really?? That is your argument?? You don’t see a difference between “many” options for caring for an individual versus “one” option for sustaining a life? If, in your example, an old person needs care and their family refuses, someone, such as yourself maybe, may choose to care for that person. In my example, the whole point here by the way, if the only person, who is, by biology, forced to supply support for a non-viable human wishes not to do so, well then they can abort. Is that more clear??
“Does Dialysis, or being hooked up to a ventilator, require a woman to sacrifice her body? I will answer for you…no.”
Pregnancy doesn’t require women to “sacrifice their bodies”. It doesn’t destroy their bodies or mutilate their bodies. You make it sound like women no longer have bodies once they get pregnant, or that their bodies are somehow “less”. Is that how you see it?
When my grandparents were in the last years of their lives and had a myriad of health problems, my mom had to “do things with her body” that she would have preferred not to do, like driving them all over the (large) state to see specialists and spending countless hours doing things aroud their house for them. And that was for years, not nine months. Do you think it would have been okay for my mom to abandon my grandparents knowing that they didn’t have anyone else to help them and they depended on her?
Marauder,
Yes, I do think that it would have been okay if your Mom CHOSE to abandon your parents. I am happy she didn’t by the way…but do you think it would have been okay if the government FORCED her to take care of them??? And where does it stop. Is it okay if the Govt. forces you to care for 15 paraplegics for the rest of your life?? If not, why not?
Jake: “Does Dialysis, or being hooked up to a ventilator, require a woman to sacrifice her body? I will answer for you…no. See, the difference is that the woman is asked to be the “life support” for a non-viable human. That is what I have issue with.”
So now I am even more confused. Your moral premise is this.
“The right to choose, when the choice means controlling your own body, overrides personhood for persons that are not viable.”
In it you are speaking about viability. Now it seems that you mean to make this your premise.
“The right to choose, when the choice means controlling your own body, overrides personhood for persons that are not viable and are dependent on the chooser’s body.”
Now, this is a pretty complicated premise. Not as simple as you claimed a while ago. Why don’t we try to clean it up a little?
“The right to choose, when concerning your own body” is more frequently termed as “the right to bodily autonomy,” so lets use that instead.
The statement “not viable and are dependent on the chooser’s body” is actually redundant. Viability is NOT really your problem after all. Your issue is being dependent on another person’s body. Plus, it is a little vague. What you want to say is that the dependence on a chooser’s body is equivilant to “a violation of the chooser’s right to bodily autonomy.”
So let’s present the cleaned up version of your premise.
“The right to bodily autonomy overrides personhood when a person is violating someone’s right to bodily autonomy.”
Wait just a sec. Doesn’t that just say “it is because it is?” I don’t really see an argument there after all. It seems like more of a statement. Considering that you were trying to PROVE why bodily autonomy, or “THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE” overrides personhood, we should all be a little confused.
Now, why is this such a problem? I’ll sum it up in a much short post right after this one.
(I’m trying to avoid these megaposts, as por-choicers don’t read everything, just as you probably have not.)
I wonder if Jake and Melissa are the same person…as Jake becomes more vocal, melissa has trailed off, and before that, melissa was posting more and jake (gah! I keep typo’ing that as “joke”. hahaha.) was just chiming in with the “attagirl!”s.
Jake,
Oh, man, I thought we’d gone over this. Hell, I got you to outright say it before. We’re not dealing with “potential human”s. We’re talking about actual humans. That’s a fact that I “so boringly” made clear enough that even you didn’t argue against it.
So, if it’s so fine and dandy to kill these unborn humans before ‘viability’ (an arbitrary line to draw, by the way), why is it not okay to kill said humans after ‘viability’? Has anything magically changed because we can save their lives? Also, would you be in support of a bill to effectively limit abortions past the point of medical viability (as in, if a baby has survived birth at this age, abortion is no longer an option)? Why or why not?
Melissa,
Why thank you oh so very much for coming to our board with jack squat for reasoning and trying to enlighten us ignorant pro-lifers.
As for the semantics debate regarding pro-abortion vs. pro-choice, no one is truly anti-choice, any more than anyone is truly anti-death. Therefore, when using terminology to distinguish the two camps, I prefer to refer to them as pro-abortion and anti-abortion. This is because the pro-abortion camp argues that abortion should be legal. I suppose you could call yourself pro-legalized abortion. Conversely, the anti-abortion crowd is, quite simply, against abortion. I am pro-adoption, as well. This does not mean that I believe that all parents should put their children up for adoption. I associate no negative connotation with being pro-adoption. Similarly, if you truly believe that abortion is sometimes the best option for the mother, you should see no problem with referring to yourself as pro-abortion. There should be no negative connotation if there is truly nothing wrong with the action.
By the way..I love the argument that I would post as two different people. What does that accomplish? Everyone is anonymous, so what would posting as two different people accomplish? Really think about it, it make absolutely no sense. Why would I hide between two identities when I can hide behind one? Is it that hard to believe that two people, independent of each other, believe in pro-choice?
UR ALL SO MEEEEN! And you called me names! Only I can call people names! And you have better arguments than me! It’s not fair! *flounce*
Posted by: melissa at February 27, 2010 9:34 PM
Huh.
So the problem is simple.
We want to know whether or not cavity searches are moral, based upon your argument.
Now, to simply recap, according to you, Bodily Autonomy overrides threats to Personhood when…it overrides threats to Personhood. In other words, you use a conflict between Personhood and Bodily Autonomy to prove that Autonomy wins, not an argument or guideline for WHEN it will win, just that it DOES win.
So how do we apply it to the terrorist? The people on the plane have Personhood (the fetus) and the terrorist has Bodily Autonomy (his right to not be searched.) Now, the people on the plane are DEPENDENT on the violation of the terrorists RIGHT TO BODILY AUTONOMY in order to not be killed and therefore to protect their PERSONHOOD RIGHTS. How do we proceed from your premise? We have no idea.
So, do you care to explain? When does personhood trump bodily autonomy, in general?
You say “when a person is physically dependent on another” but that only says THAT a person is in violation of someone’s bodily autonomy. The people on the plane are in violation of the terrorists bodily autonomy too. Explain?
I TOLD Melissa it was pointless, but would she listen? Nope. Or, as she might put it “she wouldn’t listen blah blah blah mkay”.
Jake: Forget the government for a second. Leaving your elderly parents to die is morally wrong. Killing a human being is morally wrong. You don’t give a damn about any of that. Who cares what happens to anybody else, as long as you don’t want them?
Maryrose wrote “Also, would you be in support of a bill to effectively limit abortions past the point of medical viability (as in, if a baby has survived birth at this age, abortion is no longer an option)? Why or why not?”
Maryrose, not sure where you have been, but I have answered this already. Yes, I would support this bill. Here is the deal, if a woman decides that she no longer wants her body to be pregnant, then she has a right to not be pregnant. If the fetus can be removed from the womb and be kept alive by artificial means, then go for it!! If, in week two of a pregnancy, the woman decides she doesn’t want to go through nine months of being pregnant, and if a doctor can remove those few cells and grow them in a lab to a full baby…then bravo!!! As long as the lab experiment is not forced onto the woman, which it wouldn’t be because of adoption..then I am all for this. But notice something…the woman has a choice not to be pregnant!!! But alas…this isn’t reality….so please, let’s keep a woman’s right to choose!!!
Melissa: “godspeed, assholes”
…and Melissa bows out as soon as someone calls her on her poorly built argument. You know, I think I remember this exact same thing happening a while ago with another Melissa…coincidence? Nah…
Oliver,
Does being pregnant threaten the lives of anyone on the plane??
Answer…NO
Does the terrorist smuggling explosives on a plane threaten the lives of anyone on the plane??
Answer…Yes
Is that clear enough?
Jake,
So after the point of viability, a woman wishing to obtain an abortion should…what? What is the legal requirement for this woman, in your perfect world? Induced labor for a live birth? Carry to term? What?
I also find it very telling that you didn’t address the first part of my comment. Not surprising, of course.
As for where I’ve been, surprisingly, I don’t read ALL the comments on EVERY post of Jill’s. I enjoy spending some time on this blog, but I prefer spending time with my two young boys. Hope that doesn’t offend anyone too terribly ;)
Maruader wrote: Jake: Forget the government for a second. Leaving your elderly parents to die is morally wrong. Killing a human being is morally wrong. You don’t give a damn about any of that. Who cares what happens to anybody else, as long as you don’t want them?
Morally wrong according to you….Not according to me. Sorry I don’t buy into your unrealistic view of morality.
Does being pregnant threaten the lives of anyone on the plane??
Answer…NO
LMAO! You missed the analogy.
Terrorist=Pregnant woman seeking abortion
Passengers=fetus
Terrorist’s right to bodily autonomy being prioritized=death to passengers
Pregnant woman’s right to bodily autonomy being prioritized=death to fetus
Jake: “Is that clear enough?”
I can see you either did not read my full post, or you were terribly confused by it. I’m not sure to blame, but I will keep trying.
First of all, you are confusing the pregnancy with the plane. Keep in mind that the terrorist represents the pregnant woman and that the people on the plane represent the fetus. Here is your example made clear.
“Does a woman excersizing her right to BODILY AUTONOMY (abortion) threaten the lives of anyone??
Answer…YES
Does the terrorist excersizeing his right to BODILY AUTONOMY (refusing to undergo a cavity search) threaten the lives of anyone??Answer…Yes”
Now, how on earth is the violation of Bodily Autonomy okay in one case and not in the other?
(Keep in mind, THAT the fetus is dependent on its mother’s body only says THAT the fetus is in violation of the mother’s Bodily Autonomy, unless you would like to argue THAT it does something else.)
LMAO!!! you missed the point that your analogy is completely nonsensical and flawed!!! Taking into account that I have already explained my position on “Viable vs. non-Viable”, you analogy is completely idiotic. The passengers on the plane do NOT rely on the terrorist to stay alive. The Fetus DOES rely on the woman. Hello?? anybody home??
Jake: “The passengers on the plane do NOT rely on the terrorist to stay alive. The Fetus DOES rely on the woman. Hello?? anybody home??”
The passengers DO rely on the violation of the terrorists Bodily Autonomy to stay alive. If he is not searched, they will die.
How is this any different?
It’d be really nice if all the comments on these threads could be PROFANITY free (like the use of the “F” word above! Can we please not do that?). We’re all ADULTS here, right? Then why can’t we ACT like adults and not resort to using PROFANITY?
You’ll find that many women consider the discomforts of pregnancy worth it when they are holding their newborn baby in their arms.
And there are so many people who want to adopt! I’d LOVE to adopt if I get married. Why do couples in the US have to resort to going to China or Romania or Russia to adopt? There SHOULD be more babies available to adopt here in the USA, but 4000 of them EVERY DAY, are destroyed before they are allowed to take their first breath, smile their first smile, crawl, or take their first step. All in the name of “choice”.
Whups. As per my comment on February 27, 2010 9:36 PM, I meant “No one is truly anti-choice any more than anyone is truly pro-death.”… My bad.
Ugh..really…you are essentially comparing explosives smuggled inside a cavity of a terrorist to a fetus. Is that your argument. You can’t see the difference there??
You wrote:”Does a woman excersizing her right to BODILY AUTONOMY (abortion) threaten the lives of anyone??
Answer…YES
Of course the answer is yes…when did I say it didn’t.
You wrote:Does the terrorist excersizeing his right to BODILY AUTONOMY (refusing to undergo a cavity search) threaten the lives of anyone??Answer…Yes”
Again, of course the answer is yes…when did I say it didn’t.
What is the difference??? Oh yeah, in one case, the lives of viable humans is at stake, in the other, the life a non-viable human is not. Is that clear???
Maryrose,
Don’t make fun of the poor guy for getting confused. He hasn’t been TOO offensive, unlike Melissa. Give him a break for getting mixed up.
(I know, I know, I am trying to change my ways a little. No promises it’ll stick.)
I’m starting to wonder if a woman has the right to choose to bite the fingers off of her dentist’s hand, because once his fingers enter her mouth, they’re not his fingers anymore.
Posted by: Jake at February 27, 2010 9:37 PM
wow Jake! you are touchy and snarky.
How many abortions have you been involved in?
Oliver,
You are a more charitable chum than I. ;) I will try to bite my tongue.
Jake: “What is the difference??? Oh yeah, in one case, the lives of viable humans is at stake, in the other, the life a non-viable human is not. Is that clear???”
I thought viability wasn’t the issue? Does it change if all the patients are hooked to iron lungs? (It’s a CareFlight and a very evil terrorist.)
I imagine that you are going to say “NO, but they aren’t dependent on a human!”
But again, saying that a fetus is dependent on a human only establishes THAT there is a violation of someone’s Bodily Autonomy. Nothing more. Unless you would like to make this argument.
The people on the plane are in EQUAL violation of someone’s RIGHT TO BODILY AUTONOMY as a person physically dependent on another’s body for life.
Haha…look at tough guy Chris….”you can find me”. I am willing to debate this face to face if you want!! I don’t mind talking about this in public or on a blog!! As for Angel, to answer your question, I have not personally been involved in any, as I have stated I have two wonderful boys that I am proud to call my own!!
MaryRose: “You are a more charitable chum than I.”
Whaaa?? You haven’t seen me in action before, have you…
There are a few pro-choicers left around that may beg to differ. Thank you though.
Oliver,
“It’s a CareFlight and a very evil terrorist.”
I just had to inform you that this made me crack up. I shared your comment with my husband for laughs. Thanks for the lift! :)
Oliver,
Perhaps I should restate. In this instance, you are a more charitable chum than I. ;)
Finally fixed my name. I keep forgetting, but your comment (capitalizing the M *and* the R… thanks for remembering!) reminded me.
Oliver wrote:
The people on the plane are in EQUAL violation of someone’s RIGHT TO BODILY AUTONOMY as a person physically dependent on another’s body for life.
Bullcrap!!! It is not equal..can you not see that? How is it equal?? Please enlighten me. How is it equal??? It most definitely is not. And here is why…if the terrorist does not blow up the plane, do the people live?? answer is yes. If the woman aborts the baby, does it live?? Answer is no.
Jake: “Ugh..really…you are essentially comparing explosives smuggled inside a cavity of a terrorist to a fetus. Is that your argument. You can’t see the difference there?? ”
No, Jake! You are confused again. We are NOT comparing the explosives to the fetus. We are comparing the VIOLATION OF RIGHTS caused by both a continued pregnancy and a cavity search. The people on the plane are analogous to the fetus.
Your confusion there hopefully explains everything….
Jake,
Your genius is astounding (sorry, Oliver, can’t help myself).
Jake: If person (a) sets off a bomb, that is not equal to person (b) NOT setting off a bomb
Oliver: Let me clarify. Both people have bombs, and intend to use them.
Jake: Bull****. One person blowing up a bomb is not the same as another person NOT blowing up a bomb. Duh.
Oliver: Clarification: both bombs explode.
Jake: Yeah, I get it. One bomb explodes.
If the woman aborts the baby, does it live?? Answer is no.
Posted by: Jake at February 27, 2010 10:21 PM
——
Actually not true. I have a friend who was aborted and lived.
Jake: “It most definitely is not [equal]. And here is why…if the terrorist does not blow up the plane, do the people live?? answer is yes. If the woman aborts the baby, does it live?? Answer is no.”
Okay, I think we might be getting somewhere. You are confused over the analogy.
The violation of rights in the case of the terrorist is HAVING the cavity search. If he chooses to maintain his bodily autonomy by NOT HAVING the cavity search, the people die.
The violation of rights in the case of the pregnant mother is NOT HAVING the abortion. If she chooses to maintain her bodily autonomy by HAVING the abortion, the fetus dies.
Think of it like this, and maybe you will see the connection and be able to answer consistently.
cavity search = NO abortion
NO cavity search = abortion
Does that help you any?
Posted by: Jake at February 27, 2010 10:21 PM
LOL, that is a good way of putting it.
The people on the plane are in EQUAL violation of someone’s RIGHT TO BODILY AUTONOMY as a person physically dependent on another’s body for life.
Posted by: Jake at February 27, 2010 10:21 PM
Jake,
I have a question. In no way do I intend it to be rude and you don’t have to answer it (obviously).
I don’t imagine you think you would change any of our minds. You argue a woman’s right to choose is greater than a unborn human’s right to live. Obviously not a new line of thought.
I don’t get the feeling that you are here seartching for answers, you’re mind seems made up about your position. So I am just wondering why you continue to spend your time here debating those who are equally set in their defense of life.
Maybe it’s just cause I don’t enjoy confrontation that I don’t understand your motive, but I am genuinely interested in your answer.
Well, I’m guessing that Jake has bowed out after realizing he completely confused the basic analogy we were making. I am also going to head to bed.
If you do come back Jake, now that you understand the comparions, you should see that the “viability” of the fetus is taken care of, so to speak, by our admission that Bodily Autonomy is violated.
Now there are real, important differences, between the terrorist case and pregnancy, but it at the very least proves that there isn’t some general principle that violation of bodily autonomy always override personhood. Unless , of course, you are opposed to cavity searches. Then the argument gets trickier….
Joke,
People have FREQUENTLY come to this blog posting under various names to make it appear that we are outnumbered, or one of the numerous names under which someone is posting as is a different person and then posting under different names saying “Oh yes, you have a marvelous point! Take that, pro-LIARS! I am so clever and right.” I don’t know why they do this, as it proves absolutely nothing, but they seem to think it does. Perhaps because a large reason that many people call themselves “pro-choice” and go along with it is peer pressure, and they think with their childlike and easily-influenced minds that this will work on us, also. If they gave it one iota of rational thought, they’d realize that we have come to our conclusion after much thought, research, and study, and the fact that the majority of media outlets and much of the internet leans heavily “pro-choice” has no impact whatsoever on our biological and philosophical knowledge that contributes to or directly dictates our pro-life mandate.
Melissa:
I must confess I haven’t read most of the posts since my last,(translation: “I knew I couldn’t win an honest debate about this subject, and I don’t want to have to concede that I am wrong because I plan on obtaining an abortion should I become pregnant in less than my optimal planned timetable. I also probably have many friends and relatives that I love to go hobnobbing around town with who have had abortions, and I would hate to tell anyone in my social circle that they’re *gasp*WRONG*gasp* about anything, because having the option of convenience open to myself and keeping the friends I have regardless of their quality of character is more important to me than anyone else’s life. It’s hard for my poor little head to comprehend anything bad about people i like/love. ;_;) but I am pleased, and to be honest a bit brokenhearted, that you’ve engulfed your whole evenings (More than you know, sweetheart. For is this isn’t something we try not to spend a lot of time worrying our pretty little heads over. This is literally an issue of LIFE AND DEATH, and we devote the time and energy something like this demands. It’s obvious you haven’t thought much about it, though.) trying to break me down to my knees, begging for mercy. (Why does it seem so hard for pro-abortionists to comprehend that every single issue is not about THEM. The world doesn’t revolve around THEM. We do not debate this because we hate THEM. We do not want the law to be changed just to inconvenience THEM. This is about human lives being taken from them at an astounding rate, pure and simple.) I’d gladly continue, had the debate been a mature & constructive one, (Translation: I lost the debate, so I’m leaving.) but it’s just ended up thumbing our noses at one another and bitching about capital letters. (Translation: I’m going to blame it on one small tangent of the entire debate to divert attention from the fact that I lost the debate, so I don’t have to concede any points at all.)I draw the line when someone accuses me of being a Nazi… that’s just fucking obnoxious. (excuse #2. Also, I think it might be that you find the parallel particularly disturbing, and you don’t like to think about things that disturb you, just like you don’t like thinking bad things about people who like you/love you or who you like/love. Ignoring reality is so much easier than having to make those hard moral decisions about your own actions and the actions of others, huh. *pout*)
bodily autonomy
bodily-1 : having a body : physical
2 : of or relating to the body
autonomy-1 : the quality or state of being self-governing; especially : the right of self-government
2 : self-directing freedom and especially moral independence
3 : a self-governing state
‘bodily autonomy’ means governing ones own physical body.
Exercising, eating right, practicing good hygiene, exercising good judgement with whom and how you copulate, and avoiding collisions with both animate and inanimate objects.
Bodily autonomy is all about governing ones ‘own’ physical body, not someone elses.
Not practicing bodily autonomy leads to disease, accidents, and death and sometimes pregnancy.
Though women get pregnant, they do not do it by themselves. If women don’t want to be pregnant then they and their sex partner should practice responsible bodily autonomy pro-actively.
When a woman conceives there is another separate and distinct ‘self’ whose bodily autonomy shoud be equally respected.
Even when that new ‘self’ has completed his/her time in the uterus someone has to exercise bodily autonomy for him/her until he/she is mature enough to govern his/her own body.
It is called responsible parenting. Think of it as a fiduciary responsibility to YOUR child and his/her bodily autonomy.
yor bro ken
Oliver wrote: The people on the plane are analogous to the fetus.
Ummm…no they are not, they are viable. Please stop ignoring that fact.
Also you wrote:
cavity search = NO abortion
NO cavity search = abortion
Lets turn this around….Government decides that they will impose cavity searches. Per your anaology above, they will permit abortion. So lets say I agree, lets have the govt. have cavity searches….that means that the govt. is not allowing abortion!!! Great right??? oh wait, that means people die because the terrorist blows up the plane!!! Let me further clarify…to your point…NO cavity search means abortion!!! It also means a blown up plane!!!! Do you not see the fallacy of this argument??? are you all this stupid???
Sorry…my post was written in haste…I meant in my first sentence that “per your analogy above, they will not permit abortions” I forgot the not, hope that is understood.
Jake-think about it for a moment.
People on the plane are actually a good analogy b/c you can’t just take the plane away and get healthy people- those people are dependent on the plane being pressurized and working well (and not blowing up). If they were all on ventilators, then they would be even in a more dependent state.
Sure they are ‘viable’ in the plane, but when the terrorist decides to blow them up or push them out the plane they won’t be.
Jake, you are being willfully ignorant, I hope. That, or you don’t know what a cavity search is. Or you’re just stupid. I can’t quite decide which.
Jake: One bomb, right?
Nite, folks.
Are you people serious…cannot you not see the difference between someone having control over their OWN body, vs. someone having control over someone else’s body. Ok…one more time…cavity search = taking control of someone else’s body. I am against cavity searches conducted on a random basis. For example, pulling aside anyone for whatever reason just to stick a finger up their A** is not what I am for. Let’s take it further, telling a woman how to control her body…I am not for this as well.
Conducting a cavity search for probable cause…oh let’s see, due to a full body scan that shows suspicious images, a prisoner being put into jail for the first time…I am okay with this. I know what a cavity search is. I don’t think it should be randomly done. I do think it is warranted in certain circumstances. How a cavity search is at all related to abortion is beyond any rational thought.
So let’s assume we all agree that random cavity searches are not a good thing. So we all agree that violating a person’s body is not a good thing. Do we agree on this?? I think we do. So let’s take it further…you believe that abortion violates the baby’s body. I believe that making abortion illegal violates the woman’s right to her body. So we fundamentally disagree on this point. I am fine with this, but stop with this bullsh*t about planes, cavity searches, etc., because it really is as basic as what I just said. We disagree!!! Fine, but your argument is no more valid than mine.
Jake: “Are you people serious…cannot you not see the difference between someone having control over their OWN body, vs. someone having control over someone else’s body.”
You, of all people, are hurling this accusation?
Jake – I have questions for you:
Can you name one act of mortal violence inflicted upon a dependent human being which is moral, humane, beneficial and desired by the dependent?
Who receives the benefits of the violence?
After live birth, is it okay to kill dependent newborns, toddlers, kids, teens?
—
There are no exceptions for violence against dependent human beings. Self-determination does not include victimizing behavior. If someone genuinely believes in the goodness of humanity and self-autonomy, when they resort to violence to benefit themselves, they desecrate their own humanity and cruelly victimize others.
Killing is an act of commission, meaning the violence of abortion is a direct application of force (argumentum ad baculum) on the mother’s behalf, and the violence only happens because she is a mother.
Those who defend bodily autonomy violence provide a circular argument. They reject the notion of the intrinsic value of the dependent human child while at the same time demanding the intrinsic-value of the mother be upheld. Such inequality of basic human rights is the hallmark of discrimination.
Further, some claim the Environment – the natural location of the child in the mother’s womb, justifies the abortion, but admit bodily dependency ends when birth occurs. Others, like Peter Singer, and President Barack Obama, aim to sever relational dependency, to permit the killing of dependent newborns.
So the issue is not gestational dependency alone, but violence explicitly against a dependent. On this planet, we are all dependent upon each other to some degree.
There are no exceptions to being humane with those who depend completely upon us.
You think it’s morally acceptable for someone to leave their elderly parents to die, Jkae? Wow, what a wonderful son you must be.
And what an admission you’ve made: according to you, killing a human being is not morally wrong. In fact, you think the idea that killing a human being is morally wrong is an “unrealistic view of morality.” Perhaps you’re unaware of this little institution we like to call “the criminal justice system.”
Still interested in whether you think pregnancy somehow makes a woman’s body “less”.
Still interested in whether, if someone killed you and your kids’ mother and kidnapped and abused your kids, you would think it would have been better if your kids had never been born.
Still interested in whether you think the lives of your children have more inherent worth than the life of a child who lives with constant abuse.
I’m not bothering to spell your name correctly until you can be bothered to spell my name correctly.
“More than you know, sweetheart. For is this isn’t something we try not to spend a lot of time worrying our pretty little heads over. This is literally an issue of LIFE AND DEATH, and we devote the time and energy something like this demands. It’s obvious you haven’t thought much about it, though.”
Exactly, xalisae. “I am to be honest a bit brokenhearted, that you’ve engulfed your whole evenings discussing AIDS prevention.” “I am to be honest a bit brokenhearted, that you’ve engulfed your whole evenings discussing the Haitian relief effort.”
I hope Melissa just does estate planning or something, because someone who runs away because she thinks the opposition is being mean to her and because she knows she’s not winning is the last person who ought to be representing anyone in court.
I wouldn’t waste any more energy or time responding to Jake or Melissa. The lack of rational thought processes even make the responses to them long and cumbersome. Some of the posters would be better off addressing logical posts. Jake made a telling statement earlier in a comment on morality. It sounds like he’s a hopeless case. He lives conveniently conscience free. Haven’t decided Melissa’s issues…other than she has too much time on her hands and a confrontational nature.
Chris Wrote:
Jake – I have questions for you:
Can you name one act of mortal violence inflicted upon a dependent human being which is moral, humane, beneficial and desired by the dependent?
My answer: Yes, Abortion is an example of mortal violence inflicted upon a dependent human being which is moral. The question of humane, beneficial and desired by the dependent is irrelevant, as the woman’s body overrides the dependent in this case.
Who receives the benefits of the violence?
My Answer: The woman having the abortion.
After live birth, is it okay to kill dependent newborns, toddlers, kids, teens?
My answer: I have already answered this multiple times. No, it is not okay. Please re-read my previous posts on this matter and get a clue.
Marauder wrote: “You think it’s morally acceptable for someone to leave their elderly parents to die, Jkae? Wow, what a wonderful son you must be.
And what an admission you’ve made: according to you, killing a human being is not morally wrong. In fact, you think the idea that killing a human being is morally wrong is an “unrealistic view of morality.” Perhaps you’re unaware of this little institution we like to call “the criminal justice system.”
My response: You know what is laughable about your post…the end which states that we have “the criminal justice system!!” YES we do!! And wouldn’t you know it, abortion is legal in our criminal justice system. And if one chooses to not care for their elderly parents then, guess what, they are not prosecuted either!!! Hmmm…seems like the criminal justice system is more in line with me than you.
Marauder wrote:
“Still interested in whether you think pregnancy somehow makes a woman’s body “less”.
My answer: it doesn’t matter if I think pregnancy makes a woman’s body less..if a woman does then she should be able to not be pregnant.
Still interested in whether, if someone killed you and your kids’ mother and kidnapped and abused your kids, you would think it would have been better if your kids had never been born.
My answer: I answered this, but now you have added that my wife and I are now dead and my kids are kidnapped. I suppose it depends on how long they are abused, how, and if they get support afterwards from my relatives. In extremes, I would say that it would be better if they were not born. However, again, this is not really the main point of the abortion debate.
Still interested in whether you think the lives of your children have more inherent worth than the life of a child who lives with constant abuse.
My answer: Worth is kind of a weird way to put it. I believe it is sad for a child or adult to live with abuse. I believe that those who don’t have abuse are happier than those who suffer with it. I suspect that those who live with horrific abuse often wish they were not born. Again though, not really the point of the abortion debate.
By the way..upon further reflection, the cavity search analogy is not relevant for one simple reason…cavity searches do not result in the death of anyone. Abortion does. So please explain how it is relevant. A cavity search hurts no one!!!
Jake – given your own words, it’s clear you don’t understand the difference between life and liberty nor the concepts of responsibility, accountability, justice or mercy.
Your circular reasoning reminds me of Justice Harry Blackmun’s “We don’t know when life begins, but it’s okay to kill what’s living before it becomes ‘viable'” paragraphs in Roe.
You completely avoided the question I asked regarding the reasons why you hold this mindset, and chose instead to talk about your two children.
Jenny is right. To continue arguing with you would be foolish on my part.
I hope you never encounter the day when one of your children is killed and you have no appeal to justice available.
I understand Chris, you can’t keep up. It’s okay, someday maybe you will see the light!!! One thing you do state that is true…that you are foolish.
Is Jake our old friend a s i t i s?
The old Bob Hope debates with Gracie routines come to mind. You can’t successfully argue with someone who has no ability to logic. I’m generation x, but I’ve seen repeats.
A newer example…Nick Lache trying to explain to Jessica Simpson that chicken isn’t tuna… even though the can says “”chicken of the sea. How can you debate with her over this? She wins…tuna is chicken..it says it on the label.
It’s okay to kill someone, if it is legal… and it makes your life easier. Keep telling yourselves this.
Jake: You would have no issue leaving your elderly parents to die, you think there are circumstances in which your own children whom you claim to love would be better off dead, and you stated that you didn’t have moral issues with killing a human being. When you said that, either you meant a born human being or you were conceding that unborn babies are human beings. Either way I think you’re despicable. I’m not going to argue with a man who would condone the death of his own children – his own BORN children, no less – if they were abused. Whenever you actually address an issue instead of calling people’s points “laughable,” you reveal a truly ugly person with no compassion. Although I obviously wouldn’t know, it wouldn’t surprise me if you were a sociopath. You don’t seem to have any regard for other people except as they relate to you, and while you seem intelligent, there’s no emotional depth to your posts, even when you talk about your children.
Jake says “cavity searches do not result in the death of anyone. Abortion does. So please explain how it is relevant.”
Jake, we’ve explained this to you over and over again. The cavity search is the infringement on Bodily Autonomy. If you CHOOSE to NOT have your Bodily Autonomy infringed upon, all the people in the plane die.
Pregnancy is the infringement on Bodily Autonomy. If you CHOOSE to NOT have your Bodily Autonomy infringed upon (i.e. have an abortion)the fetus dies.
In either case you exercising your “right to choice” results in someone’s death. Understand now?
Lauren, you are wasting your time here.
Jake is an old commenter. I’m sure of that. ;)
Lauren,
I get it…it is not that hard an analogy. You don’t get my responses, so I will try again. What you, and everyone else fails to understand, is that there are TWO Bodily Autonomies at stake with a pregnancy. The mother’s and the fetus. I believe that the mother’s overrides the fetus’s bodily autonomy. I mean, re-read your post, and take out the “NOT” in each sentence. I choose to have my bodily autonomy infringed upon, therefore all of the people on the plane live. I choose to have my bodily autonomy infringed upon, the fetus lives. I really understand it, it isn’t that hard. But will you all please concede that my argument is deeper than this. The woman’s bodily autonomy is greater than, more important than, the fetus’s bodily autonomy. Does anyone understand this point??? Anyone??? Is my statement, although abhorrent to all of you, at least understood by all of you???
Marauder Wrote: “Jake: You would have no issue leaving your elderly parents to die, you think there are circumstances in which your own children whom you claim to love would be better off dead, and you stated that you didn’t have moral issues with killing a human being.”
Haha, nice try. I didn’t say I would leave my parents to die, I said the law shouldn’t require someone to care for them. What if they were horrible abusive parents? I love my parents, they will be well cared for don’t worry about it. I answered your question using a hypothetical where I am dead and my kids are enduring unspeakable horrors of abuse. If that lasted for their whole lives then I could envision not being born a better option. I said a woman’s right to her body overrides a fetus. I also explicitly said that it is morally wrong to kill a viable human being. Any other way you wish to twist my words???
Wow, looks like I missed a whole lot of good discussion. I will try and go back to read some of the prior comments. I’m curious to see if Jake continues to stick to this absurd assertion..
“The woman’s right to choose overrides the criteria for personhood. It is that simple.” -Jake
It’s not enough to simply make an assertion. You have to back this up with logically valid and rational arguments. From the few responses I have read from you so far, you have yet to do do this.
Does the moral rightness of an action come simply from the ability to make a choice to do it?
The ability to choose something doesn’t “override” the moral or legal consequences of that choice.
If a fetus is a person (which it is) then it is entitled to basic human rights, of which the most fundamental is the right to life.
Psalm,
Many of you have written that if the life of the mother is at risk, then it is okay to terminate a pregnancy. Using your argument above, if a fetus is a person (which it is), then it is entitled to basic human rights, of which the most fundamental is the right to life. Why is it okay to terminate a fetus in the “risk to mother” scenario? Why can you choose then?
Maybe you don’t believe that, but I have seen it listed above by others on your side, so if I am attributing this stance in error I apologize.
You know what, in addition to psalm, I would like to see an answer from anyone else??? Anyone???
Jake,
You are basing your position heavily on the viability argument. Seriously?
With advances in medicine and technology, viability as a reasonable argument is practically dead.
If I drop you off in the middle of the Sahara dessert with no water or transportation, you wouldn’t be viable but you would still be a person.
People on ventilators or tube feedings are not viable without technology but they are still persons.
The list of problems with the viability argument goes on and on. I am sure the god folks on this site have pointed out these problems to you.
Oops.Typo. The “good” folks not the “god” folks.
Jake: “What you, and everyone else fails to understand, is that there are TWO Bodily Autonomies at stake with a pregnancy. The mother’s and the fetus. I believe that the mother’s overrides the fetus’s bodily autonomy.”
I don’t understand your point for two reasons.
First of all, there are also TWO sets bodily autonomy rights at stake in the airplane analogy, that of the terrorist and those of the people on the plane. If it makes the analogy even easier to understand, let’s make it only one person on the plane. I see no distinction here, at all.
Second of all, the frame of the argument has never been bodily autonomy versus bodily autonomy. You have just now brought this up. As meaningless as the distinction has turned out to be, you need to realize that the previous argument was that bodily autonomy trumps personhood.
Jake: “Why is it okay to terminate a fetus in the “risk to mother” scenario? Why can you choose then?”
For the same reasons as to why you can kill someone trying to kill you. From the Utilitarian point of view, there are two lives at stake, so either action – allowing the pregnancy to continue, thus killing the mother and killing the fetus, thus saving the mother – are equally moral. It has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with bodily autonomy versus personhood.
Now, why can we violate the terrorists rights to save people, but not a pregnant mother?
(Here is a bonus question. Why is it that children are allowed to violate a parent’s right to property, even when in the case of no suitable alternative. Think kicking your kid out of the house in the middle of a dangerous blizzard.)
Jake,
“why is it okay to terminate a fetus in the “risk to mother” scenario? Why can you choose then?”
First we have to define what abortion is. Abortion is the intentional killing of an innocent human person.
Then I would apply this to the following argument.
1. It is always morally wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human person.
2. Abortion is the intentional killing of an innocent human person.
3. Therefore abortion is always morally wrong.
The difference in the “life of the mother” argument is intention. Both lives have equal value (mother and child). Thus an attempt should be made to keep both persons alive. However, if in the attempt to save a mothers life, the life of the fetus is taken, this is morally acceptable.
The intention was not to kill the fetus. Keep in mind that this scenario is very uncommon.
Does this help?
sweet to see that A s i t iss/ Jake responded.
Brilliant. It was the only answer you could possibly make.
;)
Psalm,
Jake has openly refuted the viability argument. He keeps bringing it up again, though, forgetting his own rejection of the argument. The reason is that he is confused, much like Megan from many months ago.
He sees dependence on a single human body as a problem for the pro-life message, but he has not really articulated it in his head yet.
The problem with the physical dependence is the infringement on Bodily Domain or Autonomy. What Jake seems to be confusing is that the physical dependence has something to do with Personhood.
Dependence can have something to do with Personhood, if you want to go that route, but it doesn’t make sense to draw a line in the sand with WHAT you are dependent on. Dependence on X can be a problem, but we can make a distinction on the X. It’d be like saying “dependence on a blonde mother is okay, but not dependence on a redgead mother.” Dependence is dependence. Viability is viability.
Also, funny that Asitis suddenly appeared. Either she just lurks all day long (which is a little scary), or there actually IS something to the whole Jake = Asitis. I didn’t think so earlier, now I don’t know….
(this may be a double post)
Posted by: Jake at February 28, 2010 11:39 AM
“Haha, nice try. I didn’t say I would leave my parents to die, I said the law shouldn’t require someone to care for them. What if they were horrible abusive parents? I love my parents, they will be well cared for don’t worry about it.”
You write that you love your parents, wonderful. But here’s THE central point: A human being’s worth and right to life is not determined by others’ feelings or affection for them. If I were to pick you up and set you down thousands of miles from home in the midst of an entire group of people who wanted you dead, you would not cease to have a right to continue living because of their desire to end your life (whatever their motivations might be).
I know our inherent worth comes from our Creator; we are made in His image and for His purpose and pleasure. The founding fathers knew this as well, hence
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…
There’s a reason LIFE comes first; there can be no liberty or pursuit of happiness without it. Governments exist to secure these rights (there goes the ol’ “govts have no say” refrain).
You don’t have to believe our worth comes from God (there’s that Liberty part), but I must ask then if you are proposing that our rights derive from how “wanted” we are by anyone who happens to be in a position to abuse the most fundamental of rights, to deprive another of life.
Your argument of bodily autonomy is not logical. Another here (I forget who, my apologies) has used the analogy of driving through a green light when a pedestrian has begun to cross against the light. You DO NOT have the right to run him over because he stands more to lose than you do, namely, his life. (The hit & run would be particularly heinous if you’d CAUSED the pedestrian to be in the street as a direct result of your actions). The fetus stands more to lose than the woman in over 99% of the 1.2 million abortions performed annually in the U.S. When it comes to life-threatening situations, an ectopic pregnancy being the chief example, the end goal is preservation of the woman’s life, NOT the termination of her child’s. There is a world of difference.
yup, amazingly Jake and a si ti ss share some things in common! ;)
Angel, as I already responded, I post as myself, there is absolutely no benefit to create multiple aliases. What could that possibly accomplish?? Asitisss is correct, have the mods or Jill Stanek herself check the IP addresses. You will quickly find that every post from me is from the same IP address, located right in good old Massachusetts. Not sure where Asitisss is located, but he/she sounds like a fine person from what I can gather.
Psalm,
You wrote “The intention was not to kill the fetus. Keep in mind that this scenario is very uncommon.”
Yes it is, sometimes it is the intent to kill the fetus to keep the mother alive. So in this instance, it is morally acceptable to kill the fetus in order to save the mother. Even though both lives have equal value, you are okay with choosing one over the other. Fascinating. That is really great to hear, there is hope for you yet!!!
“Not sure where Asitisss is located, but he/she sounds like a fine person from what I can gather.”
so narcissistic….;)
must be fun complementing yourself.
Maybe you should bring in “victor” and a few other alter egos….
he was soooo supportive of you not being banned…..haha….
(she has no friends so she has to make them up! lol)
There is a misunderstanding about viability.
All healthy human beings are viable.
Human beings living the first part of our lives in the unborn stage are completely viable.
The womb is the natural place for all placental mammals in the first part of their lives. It is where they are meant to be. They can flourish and grow very rapidly there (if we can keep the criminal abortionists from launching lethal attacks against them).
It is absurd to argue that they are not viable outside the womb. Of course they are not; that would be biologically ridiculous. Nature did not create them to be that way. They are living exactly as nature intended them to live. They (or I should say, we) could not possibly live any other way.
It is as ridiculous to argue that they cannot live in the environment outside the womb as it would be to argue that we cannot live inside the womb. Even if we could fit, we would die of oxygen deprivation and drown in a liquid environment.
We are viable in our natural environment; they are viable in theirs.
good point Joe!
as always, “viability” is simply another red herring term that proaborts use.
“Yes it is, sometimes it is the intent to kill the fetus to keep the mother alive.”
Such as?
If the intention is to kill the fetus, it is an abortion and is immoral (because a fetus is a person) Attempts must be made to save both mother and child. Why the need to repeat myself? If in the process of saving the mothers life, the fetal life is unintentionally destroyed, it is morally acceptable.
Again, we are talking about rare cases. It’s a bit more complex morally but I’m not sure you are grasping the “If in the process of saving a mothers life…..” part.
What you are trying to do is to formulate a norm (abortion is morally acceptable) by bringing forth so called “hard cases” which are a very small minority of cases.
I will wait and see how you answer back before we traverse any deeper into bio-ethics or moral theology.
I would temper you excitement over your “hope” for me. Once you grasp what I am actually arguing, you will lose that hope in me being ok with killing babies.
By the way, you can check out some nice videos of those human beings you disparagingly refer to as “embryos” and “fetuses”. I know these are technically correct terms but are really used to dehumanize our children in the unborn stage and treat them as if they are less than human, which they most definitely are not.
Go to:
http://WWW.EHD.ORG
Click on “WATCH THE MOVIES”
Angel,
How would you like me to prove it?? Have the IP addresses checked….that’s all I can suggest.
Psalm,
Do you deny that there are instances where an abortion may save the life of the mother? I grasp what you are saying, but it is purely semantics to make you feel morally superior. It is okay to kill a baby if you phrase it in such a way that makes you feel better. I get it, it is quite amusing to watch you backpedal.
Joe,
Thanks for the link. I forgot the popcorn and candy though, I really enjoy popcorn and candy at the movies. I have seen all of your videos, they are not persuasive. They don’t make me wish to control a woman’s body.
“Do you deny that there are instances where an abortion may save the life of the mother”
Jake, these are your words and are a part of your argument so I am asking you to give me an example. I think I know where you are going with this but I will wait and see.
I am not “backpedaling” at all. Seriously, drop the “gotcha” attitude. I am trying to move this discussion along one point at a time. This is how a rational debate is done.
Jake: yes you are A.
How’s victor btw? ;)
and yes Joe she’s seen the videos.
A doesn’t believe a zygote is human.
she also doesn’t believe it’s alive. (just a heads up on that one.)
and anyone knows that a person can post from multiple IP’s
your MO is to keep coming on blogs you’ve been banned on with different IP’s
Psalm part of A’s way of discussing things is that “gotcha” attitude..
I don’t think there’s anywhere else the argument with Jake can go. He recognizes that a human life is at stake, but has determined that the nature of this human’s dependence strip it of the rights afforded all other humans. It’s true that there is no other situation where a human is dependent on another human’s body for sustenance, so there is no perfect analogy. But this is not some happenstance parisitic leech who appeared in the uterus by accident. The fetal human results from an act that has a natural end in human reproduction, and this act is 99% of the time, a voluntary action on the part of the mother and father. The fetal human is exactly where it is supposed to be at that stage of it’s development. All humans passed through this stage. Jake believes we don’t attain even the most basic rights afforded by our humanity until we are no longer in this stage of natural bodily dependence. I hope Jake has a change of heart, but in all situations where human rights are being denied to a certain class of humans, there will always those who will refuse to acknowledge their innate rights. That’s an impasse that, sadly, can’t be breached by the scientific arguments that can persuade those who just don’t recognize that human life begins at conception.
CT,
One major problem with Jake’s argument style is that he is using arbitrary criteria to define personhhod. Such criteria can also be used to strip personhood post birth. I don’t think Jake and people like him have really thought through completely the consequences of their worldview.
Angel,
You posting as both angel and psalm. Wait, what??? That isn’t the case….ok, prove it. Do you see how silly this argument is. So please prove that you are not the same person as psalm. You are both posting at the same time…hmmmm, it seems to me you must be the same person. You believe the same argument, so you must be the same person. Is this what this has come to?? You can’t win the debate so you divert the argument towards multiple personalities??? Classic.
By the way angel, I have conceded that a zygote is alive and a human being…I just think a woman has the choice to kill it. Are you not paying attention. Go re-read my posts for basic understanding of my beliefs.
lol, Joke accusing Angel and psalm of what he was probably doing with “melissa”.
The reason i even brought that up, Jake, is that our mods here have REAPEATEDLY looked at IP’s and called people out on posting as multiple people, because that is kinda against the rules, just as posting as “anonymous” is, too. It’s well-known that angel and psalm are not the same person. They’ve been here for quite some time. You really are a joke.
Abortionists cannot believe in any rights at all because they “argue” that we can all be destroyed in the first nine months of life and have our entire human lifespans taken from us (not just the unborn stage).
It follows that if we can be deprived of our entire lifespans we do not have a right to those lifespans. Since all other rights flow from the basic right to a human lifespan, without that basic right we can have no rights at all.
Therefore, we cannot have a “right” to kill our unborn children.
By asserting the abortionist mentality, you destroy the abortionist mentality. This is because the abortionists are asserting a “right” to kill all human beings which destroys the foundation of human rights and thereby destroys itself.
Also, spare us the talk about women’s “rights”. Based on abortionist “logic”, there are no “rights”, so women have none.
By the way angel, I have conceded that a zygote is alive and a human being…I just think a woman has the choice to kill it. Are you not paying attention. Go re-read my posts for basic understanding of my beliefs.
Posted by: jake at February 28, 2010 2:49 PM
um, no that’s not what you’ve said…..
Hey Maryrose…I disagree. I have never said that a fetus is actually human life. I have maintained all along that it will become a life. I mean…that is basic biology. A woman, if impregnated, and without complications (including abortion), will ultimately give birth to a baby. This is pretty basic stuff. I argue that indeed, sometimes it is best for a mother not give birth to a baby. I also argue that sometimes it would benefit a potential baby if a mother decides to eliminate it before it is born. They are two separate issues, I just happen to think they are both relevant. I don’t think I am all over the place, I just happen to think that both arguments are legit.
Posted by: jake at February 25, 2010 11:11 PM
.we are aware of the consequences, we just don’t think that it’s all that bad. In fact, we think that a woman’s right to choose overrides the potential life of a fetus.
Posted by: Jake at February 25, 2010 10:35 PM
you don’t believe a zygote/fetus is alive.
maybe YOU are the one having trouble keeping track of your positions eh? ;)
Jake,
I can see that this debate is going nowhere with you. Lets do a little recap.
“The woman’s right to choose overrides the criteria for personhood. It is that simple.” -Jake
You have been unable to successfully defend this assertion.
A)This basic argument has gone unrefuted:
1. It is always morally wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human person.
2. Abortion is the intentional killing of an innocent human person.
3. Therefore abortion is always morally wrong.
I have pointed out the difference in so called hard cases is intention. You have decided not to take this any further.
B)”Does the moral rightness of an action come simply from the ability to make a choice to do it?
This has gone unanswered.
C) “The ability to choose something doesn’t “override” the moral or legal consequences of that choice.”
Again, no response by you.
D)You didn’t respond to by comments about the viability argument.
Others have pointed out contradictions in your logic and arguments. I don’t know what your motivation is for spending so much time on this blog but it doesn’t seem to be to have a reasonable discussion and to take an honest look at your own beliefs.
When you are open to having your worldview challenged for the sake of getting to the truth, come back and maybe you will learn something.
2. Abortion is the intentional killing of an innocent human person
Posted by: psalm at February 28, 2010 4:17 PM
At present, the law doesn’t view it that way. Sorry. And the “personhood” amendments that have been put before the voters aren’t doing too well.
And as far as “morally wrong” – one could make the same argument for adultery – but it isn’t illegal.
Jake doesn’t seem to realize that his points about ‘viability’ and any other qualifications about personhood are based upon logic that kills or destroys lives, and the only ‘potential’ here is the endangerment to his own.
Here’s what you believe, Jake:
Human A’s rights exceed those of Human B.
The reason for this is because Human B is not a real person based on some arbitrary and convenient qualification imposed by Human A, who is more powerful than Human B. To Human A, the idea that Human B has the same basic rights as Human A is absurd.
The problem with Human A’s logic here is that if they ever meet someone who is more powerful than them, or they are somehow weakened in some way – either by sickness or finding themselves under a legal system where the more powerful decide on some qualification that effectively makes them Human B, they are then threatened with extermination purely on the whims of another.
This lousy argument is simply a pathetic attempt to justify the powerful having the right to remove the weak or undesirables. It is barbaric and uncivilized and it does not belong in any society, let alone one in the 21st Century which has the information at its fingertips. I cannot imagine how some will stand before God having knowingly killed the weak – specifically because they were weak. Decades ago, some may have had some reduced culpability early on in a pregnancy. That position is no longer tenable. We know that the heart starts beating within a few weeks, for example. Angie stopped a beating human heart. She deliberately killed her child. She murdered a human.
Jake, to be pro-life is to be consistent with the lessons of history, be they slavery or the holocaust, and as a bonus it is consistent with ALL we know from science regarding human life. There was never a pro-abortion argument that used science – in fact, it routinely ignores it. (it is not just choice, btw – because choosing what color to paint your walls is not the same as choosing to run down a child with your car) Facts about conception and fetal development or getting a chance to look at an ultrasound? Pay no attention to the human behind the curtain!
Give it up. A circus contortionist never did perform such weird stunts with their body the way you are stretching and breaking your own logic. The mindless fog of your reasoning justifies the most heinous acts in history.
With your logic, the situation can change overnight and make you Human B. But under a pro-life banner, no-one can ever have those basic rights taken away, even if they are the weakest individual in that society. That means you will always be legally protected because you cannot have your basic rights taken away for any reason.
To be pro-life is to understand that every person must be given the same set of basic rights without qualification, otherwise the logic – the logic you have adopted – is open to abuse. What makes your qualifications so much more morally superior to the Nazis or slave-owners? What gives you the right to use any qualification? Every time you say ‘viable’ or ‘potential’, what you are actually saying is “I have the right to destroy life because I am powerful.” It’s disgusting.
Over 40 million little persons are killed every year globally. And you actually think you hold the moral and logical high ground? You do not.
And same goes for you Artemis.
Does it need to be pointed out to you that slavery was once legal too?
Well I guess then all that needs to happen to satisfy you is to make abortion illegal again, hey? _rolls eyes_
Angie the Anti has become the thing she hates most-leader of a cult. God has a sense of humor. Happy Sunday, yall.
“At present, the law doesn’t view it that way. Sorry. And the “personhood” amendments that have been put before the voters aren’t doing too well.”
Posted by: Artemis at February 28, 2010 4:51 PM
Just because something is legal, does not make it right, sugarpea. And laws have been overturned before. Jim Crow Laws were…laws. And that, honey, is the beauty of our system. Nothing is set into stone. We could abolish the whole Constitution if we wanted to badly enough.
Now as far as the personhood amendments go, the word you’re looking for on the end of that sentence is “yet.” Sooner or later, one of them is going to pass somewhere. Because of the law of averages if for no other reason. Mississippi’s is looking likely. Basically, you’re going to loose that ground, and you’re probably going to loose it soon.
Stick that in your slogan and chant it.
How many dead babies will it take until the feminazis feel ‘liberated’ enough?
Killing us human beings in the first nine months of our lives and depriving us of our entire human lifespans violates our rights and is a CRIME.
We do have a fundamental and inalienable right to live a full human lifespan in accordance with our nature. Killing us at any point in our lives is a crime and must be prohibited.
It is an absolute tragedy that there are people in human society who insist on buying completely absurd and pathetic abortionist fallacies and support the killing of helpless and innocent human beings. Those people, who should know better, are willing to see the future of the human race destroyed to satisfy their psychological needs and to promote their own self interest.
love all those sssss in your name, like a snake….. ;)
funny Jake disappeared the same time you did, A! ;)
letting your narcissistic side show again?
stellar lack of logic but then that’s what we’ve come to expect from you A.
no problem, Jake! ;)
Hi everyone,
In the instances that users are posting here under multiple monikers or you believe another user to be someone who has been banned from commenting on this board, could you please email the moderators and me and we will attempt to resolve the issue as quickly as possible? It should help to keep things more on topic.
Thanks! :) Carry on!
I just wanted to say that for all their talk about being rational etc the pro-choicers here are not good at formulating arguments (and how can you when you’re trying to argue the justification for killing an innocent human being?)
Melissa and Jake, in particular, deserve special mention as two prime examples of this.
Well done, pro-lifers! You’ve smashed all their arguments (such as they are) to pieces!
The biggest hurdle in overcoming the actual fact of abortion is to get people (pregnant women and their useless BFs etc) to be less selfish. That’s mostly what it comes down to by the looks of it.
Jake: “You can’t win the debate so you divert the argument towards multiple personalities???”
Here contribution to the debate was that you are Asitis, an insane individual who cannot reason, so the argument is pointless. She hasn’t diverted anything.
You, however, HAVE diverted the argument away from your utter and embarressing confusion. I have tried to be nice to you so far. Try not to push my buttons.
So back on topic, Jake. A terrorist must have his bodily autonomy violated to save the lives of people in danger. Now that you supposedly understand the analogy, how is this okay in this instance, but it is not okay in pregnancy?
I have just finished reading all of the comments since my last post. My post was as follows:
How can Melissa be so ignorant?
Abortion is the same thing as killing cancer cells? Really? You have to be joking! Please tell me you’re joking! When pro-choicers say that I always shake my head in disbelief. How can they always be so stupid or ignorant? I just don’t get it.
Care to enlighten me, Melissa?
I really do wish to know how so many pro-choicers remain ignorant about scientific facts. Even Jake went back and forth regarding the fact that an embryo is indeed an alive human being. What do you guys think?
My ideas regarding why are self-preservation (because friends or self had an abortion), acceptance with peers (alongside fear of rejection), wanting to get reactions out of others, and/or stupidity.
Oliver, with his terrorist and plane analogy, was especially awesome! I am always so happy that being pro-life means siding with truth and saving human lives! Thank you guys for having such well thought out and informative arguments. ^_^
Louise, I think the problem is that these people are trying to argue a position that is not reasonable (that is, cannot be reasoned) and has no evidence to back up their claims.
For example, Jake/A’s position that a zygote isn’t living or human life isn’t scientifically plausible.
I think they know this.
They simply believe that since a woman is in a position of power in the unborn baby/mother relationship, this entitles her to do what she wants. And of course, women have the backing of many men in this because this enables them to be promiscuous without the responsibility to their children.
Angie’s bf is a perfect example.
I don’t believe it will be too long before we see Angie tweet about her bf leaving her…..
Kelli what’s your email?
testing comments
Our very own Xalisae made Fox News. :)
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/03/01/woman-describes-abortion-on-twitter/?test=latestnews
All mods and assistants have emails at jillstanek.com
kelli@jillstanek.com
Thanks for bringing that to my attention, Carla! *hearts*
I’m kinda miffed because it’s grossly taken out of context. THEY were the ones who brought up something to the effect of “Well, pregnant rabbits reabsorb their pregnancies in less than ideal circumstances.” That’s when I agreed with them, and cited the example of the scorpion, but then brought to their attention they were comparing themselves with creatures they should be far surpassed, evolutionarily-speaking. That article makes it look like I was just baselessly insulting her and calling her a scorpion for no reason. Ahh…bias in the media.
Good heavens… look what goes on when I take a 24-48-hour hiatus!
Jake, I think you’d have been safer at Paul’s Masterful Blog! I don’t know whether to play devil’ advocate for a few moments, out of sheer pity for you, or simply sit back and pop some popcorn…!
:) I was thinking of jumping in, but Oliver, Angel, Keli, Joe, and the rest have things superbly in hand. Popcorn it is, then…
Paladin, I think anyone on the fence about abortion should read the comments on this post when making up their mind.
Paladin!!!! Never thought I would say this but so happy you chimed in. Now, you know me. You find me morally repugnant, obnoxious, and pretty much the complete opposite of you. That puts you with the majority of everyone else on this blog. What people don’t realize though is that it is because of you that I actually stumbled upon this blog. I found this place by clicking on your blog (well Paul’s blog, but you are a heavy contributor over there). On your profile, you link to Reflections of a Paralytic. She had a link to this blog about two weeks ago. This is how I found this place. I know you can’t stand me, but can you at least vouch for me that I am in fact ME..Jake. Not someone named A/or Asisstiss or whatever personality people think I am. For some reason it really bugs me that people think I am someone else. I mean, everything I write I truly believe in. I could care less if you all think I am an idiot or whatever. But I at least want to be given credit for my idiotic thoughts!!! Mods…can you help with this??? Do you need an email or something???
Jake is not Asitis.(IP’s don’t match)
Jake is Jake.
How’s that? :)
Thanks Carla!!! I appreciate it.
Jake wrote:
Paladin!!!! Never thought I would say this but so happy you chimed in.
Good grief… where’s my heart medication when I need it?!?
Now, you know me. You find me morally repugnant, obnoxious, and pretty much the complete opposite of you.
:) Well… come on, now. I’ve found your past (and virtually all present) behaviour obnoxious, and I find your positions morally repugnant, but I already told you that I have no particular animus against you, per se. I hate your troll-ism, not you.
What people don’t realize though is that it is because of you that I actually stumbled upon this blog.
Ergh. As if I didn’t have enough cause to feel guilty about my sins in life…
I found this place by clicking on your blog (well Paul’s blog, but you are a heavy contributor over there). On your profile, you link to Reflections of a Paralytic.
I hope you read her posts; she’s a rare gem, with more sense in her little finger than most of us have in our collective bodies…
I know you can’t stand me, but can you at least vouch for me that I am in fact ME..Jake.
:) Consider this my act of Christian charity for the day, Jake, but: yes, you are, in fact, you. I do think others might be excused for confusing you with others who share your proclivity for “drive-by, verbal incendiary grenades” and decided aversion to civil and logical discourse.
I mean, everything I write I truly believe in.
(*sigh*) Now, if only we could talk some sense into you… you’d go like a house on fire, and for the right side of things.
As you were…
Xalisae wrote:
Paladin, I think anyone on the fence about abortion should read the comments on this post when making up their mind.
I daresay! If the abortion-tolerant side will forgive my saying so, it shows the striking lack of depth of their position(s)–and the equally striking unwillingness to go deeply and thoroughly into those issues, when such issues are presented to them.
Melissa: i hate to take it to the “if you’re against abortion, don’t have one”
but simply, this is what it boils down to.
Me: Let’s apply that to murder and rape, not just your issue. If you are against murder and rape, don’t do either, but leave me alone and let me do what I want with my own body, be it to choke someone to death or sexually a minor with my own body.
See what your logic leads to when applied consistently? Chaos.
See Paladin…that was kinda fun no?? We came to agreement on something….granted it was just establishing that I am me…but still, maybe it’s a start!!!!
Melissa is the best lawyer EVAR. I can’t wait until she has her first case tried and ends her cross examination with “Goodbye, assholes!” and storms out of the courtroom. I bet that goes over nicely.
LOL Xalisae :D
Reminds me of playing chess as a kid, one of my siblings would flip the board over and stomp away as soon as it appeared a loss was unavoidable.
Paladin,
By the way, you are right about Reflections of a Paralytic!!! I enjoy her blog. I enjoy you and Paul as well…even though you think I don’t. Heck, I have even enjoyed my debates here!!! Thanks again for vouching for me…I hope you didn’t have to take too much extra heart medication!! :)
Artemis: At present, the law doesn’t view it that way. Sorry.
Me: No, at present, the law is schizo. If the mother wants to abort, then the unborn is not a person, but if a Scott Peterson kills the unborn, then suddenly, it’s a person!
And like others say, once upon a time, there was this decision called Dred Scott case that ruled a whole class of humanity is not made of legal persons either! Want to reconsider your argument there?
” I could care less if you all think I am an idiot or whatever.”
You are NOT an idiot but your reasoning is definitely off.
BTW, it was something you posted that made me honestly believe you are A. I still remain somewhat unconvinced but I will accept you as Jake for now. ;)
Thanks Angel…and I believe you are Angel!!! :)
Jake,
I had posted this on a different thread but you didn’t answer so I’ll post it again:
Jake,
Do you and your partner ever have sex but agree beforehand you don’t want children, so you agree that you will abort offspring you might conceive or is that a decision you make on the fly?
Posted by: truthseeker at Feb 28, 2010 8:50 PM
Hey Truthseeker,
Happy to answer. My wife and I have sex with the understanding that she will not get pregnant. If she does then I am going to be very angry with a certain urologist that made my life very uncomfortable for three days following my vasectomy. If, by chance, the urologist has failed me, then we would have a third child. Now, the more interesting story is when we were young and first married at age 25, we accidentally got pregnant. Now at that time we were in position to bring that child into the world. I was gainfully employed and we had a great support system. It worked out so well that we even had a second child. Now I am 34 with a nine year old and a 5 year old. I am fortunate that we were in a position to support two wonderful kids. Happy to be through diapers though!!! So to ultimately answer your question, I suppose we made the decision on fly. In our case we chose to have the babies.
Sounds to me like the baby chose you. Is your life so bad because you let the baby come when he was ready? That’s all we want for anyone.
Hi xalisae,
To answer your question with a slightly different twist, no, my life isn’t so bad because we chose to have the baby. In fact it is great, but I am not naive to think that this is reality for everyone.
well, as someone from just a smidge harder reality than you come from concerning this topic, let me tell you that even when your situation is bad, killing another human should never be presented as an option, and anyone would be able to find a way to make due, Jake.
Jake,
Did you say “accidentally got pregnant? How does somebody accidentally get pregnant? Did you slip and fall and she got pregnant? lol…
I am getting slepy and need some rest. I would say you should have discussed it ahead of time; how did it happen that you didn’t? Were you seeing each other for a while before you had sex?
I meant to say: Were you seeing each other for a while before she got prego?
Truthseeker,
Someone accidentally gets pregnant when two people engage in sexual activities without the intent of procreation. If you take active precautions against pregnancy, and your partner gets pregnant, then I would say it was accidental. Who said we didn’t discuss it beforehand?? Yes, we were seeing it each other for some time before she accidentally got pregnant. How any of this is relevant to the abortion debate is beyond me.
Jake,
You had said keeping the child was a choice you made on the fly. I wasn’t sure if that meant you had not predetermined (known going “in” so to speak) what you would do IF she got pregnant. I would stop having sex with my wife period if she were to consider abortion as a viable option.
Wether we were trying to conceive or not would not be relevant.
“I would stop having sex with my wife period if she were to consider abortion as a viable option.”
Good for you.
*
That should go for unmarried couples as well.
xalisae,
Congrats on your new blog!
Thanks Janet, but I’ve had it for a little while now, just haven’t really felt like writing. :P
Truthseeker,
So you would coerce your wife into having the baby…just making sure I understand you correctly. Thanks, I think I got it now. Typical.
No Jake,
I wouldn’t want to deal with coercion.
That is why I would make sure we were in agreement BEFORE intercourse.