The pro-choice delusion
I am pro-life because of information. I was pro-choice because of lack of information….
This is not to say everyone who is pro-choice lacks information. There are people right now working in clinics whose job it is to count the body parts and make sure there are no arms or fingers or heads left inside women to cause infection. Gotta make sure they got it all! These people certainly do not labor under any illusions about the baby being a “clump of cells.”
So how do they do it? Sister, you got me. I do not know. I know that even pro-choice Kristen would have run from that room screaming and puking….
I think it is possible to delude yourself that you are doing “good” even while sifting through your bloody fingers tangible evidence of unspeakable evil. Humans are clever like that. We can do all sorts of mental acrobatics to make ourselves the good guys.
~ Kristen Walker Hatten, Live Action, November 16
[Photo via becominghiseve.wordpress.com]
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.
Many people support legal abortion even though they know what the embryo or fetus looks like at various stages of growth. You may not agree with their reasoning but they believe the unborn is simply doomed by the unwillingness of the pregnant female to continue carrying.
Abortion would probably decrease if those seeking them were forced to view pictures of embryos and fetuses at their stage of pregnancy or hear descriptions of the appearance and capabilities (heartbeat, brain function). This is why I propose “Forced Information.” I’ve read that something like 80% of abortion seekers who view a sonogram decide to carry to term.
“Forced Information” could at least be a first step in decreasing the practice of abortion.
Abolishhumanabortion.com
Those in the “industry” that KNOW what they are doing? How are they any different than the Nazi soldiers? They knew what they were doing too. They shot and gassed and starved and beat and tortured others to death.
Cognitive Dissonance
Carla says:
November 21, 2012 at 8:08 am
Those in the “industry” that KNOW what they are doing? How are they any different than the Nazi soldiers? They knew what they were doing too. They shot and gassed and starved and beat and tortured others to death
(Denise) This isn’t comparable. Embryos and fetuses have to be CARRIED in the bellies of pregnant females. Abortionists view them as doomed by the unwillingness of the female to continue carrying.
I wasn’t being facetious when I suggested adoption would be more successful if humans were an egg laying species. The CARRYING is the root of the problem.
Eleanor Cooney aborted at the start of her 4th month of pregnancy. She has said, “I just wasn’t going to complete the pregnancy.”
Unfortunately, there is no way at the present time for embryos and fetuses to live outside the womb. Things might change a great deal when artificial wombs are developed or when we are able to transplant embryos or fetuses from womb to womb.
Again, the above isn’t facetious. The central problem is that they can’t live unless carried in the womb. Someone has to carry.
Denise, yes someone has to carry, but someone has to feed, clothe, and shelter the new born baby as well. Everyday a person wakes up they have to make a decision to care for themselves. In short, existence entails responsibilities. Either you live up to them or you don’t. Carla was right – it is, in part, cognitive dissonance. I think the other part is a lack of compassion/love – not of the new mother (perhaps in some rare cases) – but toward the new mother.
The CARRYING is the root of the problem.
Baloney. Selfism and arrogance is the root of the problem, just like the nazis. Carrying the baby is one of the easier parts of parenting. Women abort because they don’t believe they can be parents or don’t want to be parents and the fathers and society foster these mindsets.
When someone has to PIECE the BODY PARTS OF HUMAN BEINGS back together after they die………they know.
This doesn’t surprise me. My brother, who is an officer working primarily with gangs, describes two types of criminals: those who know right from wrong deep down, who fall apart and become defensive, evasive, or emotional upon arrest. There is hope for this person. Then, there is the other type, who thinks right IS wrong. Their whole vision of the universe is reversed. This criminal will coolly explain what he did as if anyone would have done the same thing! They laugh, smirk, make light-hearted conversation about everyday things as they are being hauled off to jail. This type person Terrifies my brother, who’s seen a lot, and there is very little hope for such a person. I think there are a lot of legitimately possessed-by-demons human beings on the streets, and in the world of abortion.
Denise, I try not to pin the responsibility solely on the woman. The responsibility is shared among her family members and even society. To call abortion a women’s issue is unfair to women, and is very shortsighted.
Those that do, but do not see, are disciples of the utilitarian ethic described by Mr. Singer. Often they see the human being’s worth as a function of its utility. Indeed, a human being’s very personhood is seen by them as dependent on its ability to think, to be rational. These people refuse to accept that human beings are rational beings until they see proof of that rationality. In my view, this utilitarian ethic and those who hold it are possessed by demons. It is certainly dishonest view of human beings in the sense it does not have a complete view of the human being as a reference starting point.
Tyler says:
November 21, 2012 at 8:38 am
Denise, I try not to pin the responsibility solely on the woman. The responsibility is shared among her family members and even society. To call abortion a women’s issue is unfair to women, and is very shortsighted.
(Denise) At this time, no one else can do the carrying. To that extent, it is a women’s issue. Men are the ones who impregnate. They are the ones who usually seek the form of sex that leads to pregnancy. If men could be persuaded to either not seek sex acts or to not seek that act that can lead to pregnancy, abortion would dramatically decline.
It would also help if men were to seek romantic/sexual relationships with post-menopausal women.
Praxedes says:
November 21, 2012 at 8:28 am
The CARRYING is the root of the problem.
Baloney. Selfism and arrogance is the root of the problem, just like the nazis. Carrying the baby is one of the easier parts of parenting. Women abort because they don’t believe they can be parents or don’t want to be parents and the fathers and society foster these mindsets.
(Denise) The carrying IS the problem. If it weren’t, there would be no abortions. After a baby is born, tasks to take care of it can be performed by others.
They are the ones who usually seek the form of sex that leads to pregnancy.
More baloney.
I think there’s a fair amount of pregnancy shaming going on. I’ve read first hand accounts and witnessed first hand the verbal pressure that “well meaning” family members put on women to abort. Having a big belly and having to defend yourself are not fun and we see how many women cave in to coercion.
Ob/gyns are also guilty of coercion. Many don’t offer any kind of care for a risky pregnancy or a child-at-risk of deformity, except abortion.
A lot of pregnant mothers would give birth if some of this pregnancy shaming were changed into actual compassion and material support.
I try not to pin the responsibility solely on the woman. The responsibility is shared among her family members and even society. To call abortion a women’s issue is unfair to women, and is very shortsighted.
Amen!!
And you too Ninek!!
Enough ‘baloney’ and trying to find the fault/no-fault. The pregnant woman is open to the pro-life message in ‘other’ ways, that have little/nothing to do with visual techniques/argumentation – and it has nothing to do with logic nor religious belief.
I have long wondered about our sense of smell or sound. Please, sidewalk counselors wear baby powder or spray your area with that scent. Accompany your ‘walks’ with recordings of children’s laughter in a playground.
We should also use the distinctive/objectionable SMELL of spilled blood (even before becoming rancid).
The above measures are designed to provoke tension even when clinging to appeasement that involves only visual and intellectual baffle-goggle.
Denise, the “carrying”, as you oddly phrase it, is not the problem. Carrying is just one of the responsibilities of being the female parent (aka Mom). The problem is that you look at pregnancy and “carrying” as problems, they are not. The reality is the men and women need to support each other to raise a family.
Men definitely should not be getting women pregnant and then leaving. Men should be supporting women. If women were supported by good men, abortion would be less of a problem as would the breakdown of relationships and marriages. Society needs to educate men more about responsibility. And the first responsibility of everyone is to give thanks to the Creator who created them. No human being creates him or her self.
John, you come up with some interesting ideas. The baby powder idea was interesting. However, religion and logic are a part of every decision in life – whether we are conscious about how our religious views or logic affect those decisions or not.
Tyler says:
November 21, 2012 at 10:29 am
Denise, the “carrying”, as you oddly phrase it, is not the problem. Carrying is just one of the responsibilities of being the female parent (aka Mom). The problem is that you look at pregnancy and “carrying” as problems, they are not.
(Denise) I’m not speaking for myself on this. I asked Eleanor Cooney, who had an abortion at 4 months when it was illegal, if she would have considered carrying to term and placing for adoption if there had been more support and praise for birthmothers. She said adoption was “quite irrelevant” because “I just wasn’t going to complete the pregnancy.” She never said anything to the boy who impregnated her. She just started looking for an abortion. She did think not only knowing it was illegal but knowing that the operation was inevitably more complex and risky because she was past first trimester.
The unborn have arms, legs, a head, and a heartbeat before the second trimester. However, the operation becomes more difficult and she knew this because she asked of one of the illegal abortionists, “He knows I’m over three months, right?”
She has told me that she wasn’t concerned with parenting or placing for adoption because she just wasn’t going to allow the normal physical changes of pregnancy to take their course. She felt a kind of compulsion to just stop the process.
Denise, Because you can find one example of a someone stating ‘carrying’ is the problem, does not make it so.
Think about it.
“I think it is possible to delude yourself that you are doing “good””
And there are some who are just plain evil.
She said adoption was “quite irrelevant” because “I just wasn’t going to complete the pregnancy.”
Oddly, you look at this situation and think “if only human reproduction were different, this baby could have been saved!” Realistic people look at this situation and think, if only Eleanor could have had some respect and compassion for the life she carried, this baby could have been saved!
“I think it is possible to delude yourself that you are doing “good” even while sifting through your bloody fingers tangible evidence of unspeakable evil. Humans are clever like that. We can do all sorts of mental acrobatics to make ourselves the good guys.“
^This! Seriously, there are pedophiles that believe they “love” their victims and are doing what is right. There are people in the abortion industry that believe they are saving women from the “punishment” of a baby and protecting women’s rights by killing the unborn. We are masters of self-delusion.
Praxedes says:
November 21, 2012 at 11:12 am
Denise, Because you can find one example of a someone stating ‘carrying’ is the problem, does not make it so.
Think about it.
(Denise) If it wasn’t a problem, abortions wouldn’t be done. All pregnant females would just allow the pregnancy to take the natural course. THEN, IF they did not want to raise, they would make other arrangements such as adoption or having someone else just take the baby in care for it.
The problem isn’t with HOW we reproduce. The problem is with the hearts of al the men and women who choose abortion for themselves or others. The problem is the hearts of adults not how the children are carried.
We have been seeing an awful lot of newborns being stabbed at birth by their moms so obviously “carrying” isn’t the problem. The problem is a heart that is desperately wicked and in need of a Savior. The problem is demonic oppression of mankind and how people are led to their own lusts and wicked imaginations.
The problem is the me-first mentality which started in heaven with Lucifer.
THEN, IF they did not want to raise, they would make other arrangements such as adoption or having someone else just take the baby in care for it.
Wrong. I have heard women say they could never give away their child to someone else in an attempt to justify their abortions. I have heard women say they have killed their child because of the child’s perceived or real disability. I have heard women rationalize killing their child because they believe the world is already too populated. I have heard women say they aborted because they did not want ties to the child’s father. I have heard women rationalize their abortion because they decided they changed their mind and did not want a child.
No, in your scenario, abortions would no longer be done because women would no longer be carrying the child inside them. The only difference would be that in your scenario, these people would be forced to call abortion by it’s real name: Infanticide.
Denise, it is not the pregnancy that is the problem it is the way women perceive the pregnancy. As the article above makes clear, some women choose to terminate because they are not informed about what life is and when it begins, other women choose to terminate because they feel they are helpless and are thereby victims of evil forces who believe that loving the mother means you should kill the “pre-rational” baby. In fact, the evil forces are the same ones who mislead about when life begin. The evil forces who knowingly kill human life are the same ones who spread the ignorance about when life begins.
There were 2 other things I asked Eleanor Cooney about.
1) “Didn’t you go through labor in the saline abortion the same as if you had carried to term and gone through labor?”
2) “Did you see the fetus when it came out?”
Her answers were:
1) “I had cramps but the cramps weren’t bad enough to keep me from falling asleep.”
2) “I did not see it because the doctor went in and removed it. It wouldn’t have bothered me to see it. I’m a very sentimental type of person but I had no feeling of attachment to it.”
I should add that she doesn’t regard it as a human life. She believes the point at which human life begins can’t be precisely pinpointed but you get toward it in the 3rd trimester of pregnancy. She knows that the fetus at her stage looks like a human baby but believes it is a kind of blueprint that lacks the “development and sentience” that forms real human life.
Denise is Eleanor Cooney the person from the X case?
Why do we allow Denise to derail every thread?
It is getting tiring.
It wouldn’t have bothered her to see “it”?
What kind of a person is she that wouldn’t have been BOTHERED by what a saline abortion does to a baby??? Especially her OWN.
Look up pictures of saline aborted babies (“Baby Choice” for one) and tell me
THAT wouldn’t “bother” someone.
Sounds like she didn’t want to SEE her baby because she WAS attached to him/her, and she KNEW what she had done, and it DID bother her.
You can’t tell me that she SLEPT through contractions during a saline abortion, either.
She was pulling the wool over your eyes, Denise. ..if you’re not trying to pull the wool over OURS with this whole “Eleanor Cooley” story, that is.
Carla says:
Why do we allow Denise to derail every thread?
It is getting tiring.
Sorry Carla! I usually try to ignore her, but sometimes I think of those that might be reading the blog for the first time and I just have to let them know we don’t all agree with her.
She was pulling the wool over your eyes, Denise. ..if you’re not trying to pull the wool over OURS with this whole “Eleanor Cooley” story, that is.
I agree, Pamela.
Regarding Denise and her derailing, I feel obligated at times to point out reality to her in the hopes she’ll either stop with her games or stop allowing others to play games with her. I can’t quite figure out which it is with her. My gut tells me she is quite naive and gullible and therefore easily taken advantage of, something I have been accused of myself.
“Why do we allow Denise to derail every thread?
It is getting tiring.”
I won’t indulge her anymore, I’m getting sick of it too.
Jill,
The issue being discussed here has to do with people—men and women—basically refusing to admit that abortion kills a living human being (we are already beyond the scientific “proof” that a child in utero is human), or that killing pre-born (and now post-born) humans really does not matter because________ (fill in the blank), and that there is something wrong with that. The side track about abortion being exacerbated due to the way humans reproduce is a red herring.
That discussion, first of all is useless, because this is the method brilliantly designed by The Creator, and we don’t get to choose or change it. It is how we get here.
Secondly, it is part and parcel of the kind of thinking that says, “God really messed up when he made people…they need to operate, reproduce, live like we say, not like he wanted, which is really messed up! Let’s improve how we do these things to make them more efficient! Humans should be conceived in petri dishes, gestated in artificial wombs, and delivered via mechanical removal like in ‘The Matrix’ .This ‘improvement’ of humanity would then solve all of our abortion problems!” Wrong…
The real problem was stated earlier by Sydney M at 12:00 noon: the desperate wickedness of the human heart brought on by separation from the Eternal God brings about this and every other human manifestation of evil. Every time we do things our way, and not His, we get death.
Truth is we are in deep need of repentance; abortion is only one of many demonstrated examples. We cannot self-correct…if we could have, all of our problems would have been solved by now…we have had more than enough time.
Also, John McDonell at 10:29 a.m. makes a good point…I personally know a woman who fled the abortionist’s waiting room—after she had dressed for the procedure—because she picked up the scent of “dead babies”…perhaps our senses are other ways beside reason that God uses to help us make correct choices…
Birds of a feather flock together. I tend not to put much stock in the words of people with obvious mental disorders.
Pamela says:
November 21, 2012 at 1:20 pm
It wouldn’t have bothered her to see “it”?What kind of a person is she that wouldn’t have been BOTHERED by what a saline abortion does to a baby??? Especially her OWN.Look up pictures of saline aborted babies (“Baby Choice” for one) and tell meTHAT wouldn’t “bother” someone. Sounds like she didn’t want to SEE her baby because she WAS attached to him/her, and she KNEW what she had done, and it DID bother her.You can’t tell me that she SLEPT through contractions during a saline abortion, either.She was pulling the wool over your eyes, Denise. ..if you’re not trying to pull the wool over OURS with this whole “Eleanor Cooley” story, that is.
(Denise) Eleanor Cooney. Google the name and see if I’m “pulling the wool” over anyone’s eyes.
Tyler, we wish people to be involved-with/conscious of the life they are living. to most people only means to be intellectually justified in any decision process …. logical + Informed(science). However, there are aspects of living/experiencing when logic makes little sense and appeals to a higher spiritual-self fall on self-deafened ears. Appealing with reasoned logic is an affront and YOU BECOME THE ENEMY - to your mind undeserved.
One such scenario (where decisions are still being made) is depression. These decisions are devoid(show little semblance) of logic … AKA Denise & trolls. So what goes into making a decision? Is any part of being ‘informed’ that goes directly to the brain’s memory and imagination centers? Inputs from the senses governing sound and smells, operate independently of our even recognizing them. For instance, we all have an innate aversion to smell of smoke.
Decisions are coordinated (never dominated as ‘preferred’) WITH logic or religious belief systems. Coordination of ALL kinds is done by the brain’s cerebellum. We can affect directly emotions by inputting to the cerebellum …. via smell like baby powder or the phermones(sp)/skin of a newly-washed-baby OR using recordings of children’s laughter – playground.
The heath-status of the cerebellum is heavily reliant on the adequacy of zinc (notoriously low for many tens/young women). Pregnancy/developing baby has its own need for zinc. A pregnant woman with low zinc status will find even the mention of logic or appeals to faith, unconvincing.
It may be helpful to play a thought game:: What is(not what will be) the name of your baby now? …. well before birth?
Denise,
after researching Eleanor Cooney for less than 5 minutes, I can just about assure you that you’ve fallen for the braying jackass call of the attention whore. This woman obviously didn’t get enough attention as a child or something. Her attention-seeking behaviors I’m certain are the root of her problems, not some sort of biological aversion to pregnancy. Sorry that your naivete has caused you to indulge such rabble.
Pamela says:
November 21, 2012 at 1:20 pm
It wouldn’t have bothered her to see “it”?What kind of a person is she that wouldn’t have been BOTHERED by what a saline abortion does to a baby??? Especially her OWN.Look up pictures of saline aborted babies (“Baby Choice” for one) and tell meTHAT wouldn’t “bother” someone.
(Denise) I just looked it up but I knew what it would look like because I’ve seen saline abortion pictures before and I know they are incredibly gruesome. ”Baby Choice” was about what I expected as such photographs can’t be anything other than stomach-churning.
Jill,
Just in the event someone thinks artificial wombs are fiction…
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/article/2012/02/14/what-do-artificial-wombs-mean-women
No apologies necessary.
I miss the days when the threads made sense.
…sorry, the link doesn’t appear to work…article still comes up when Googling “artificial womb”…
Interesting slant…writer posits that women will become unnecessary if/when this device becomes widely available…
Most abortion advocates like to sweep away religious arguments without examination, but I think we find a similar blind disconnect when we argue science. Which animal species reproduce without pregnancy (for example fish and birds)? Of those, which nurture their young (most birds)? Which don’t (most fish)?
Of the animals which do not nurture their young, which show intelligence? How much intelligence? Are these the animals which humans should imitate? Are these animals more or less evolved than humans?
Scientifically, isn’t it anti-evolutionary to try and push humans backward, away from mammalian pregnancy and family nuturing? Backward? Who is trying to devolve? Who is trying to be backward? A yeast buds, then ignores the new yeast cell. Is this what we want for the human race? Single-celled ignorance?
During the election, abortioneers were wailing that conservative candidates wanted to take us 50, 60 years into the past.
How far back do abortioneers want to take us? Thousands of years? Millions of years? Back to primordial soup so they can thrash around with their flagellum? Abortionism masquerades as a mental frame of mind. Really, it’s a mental illness, with deadly outcomes.
I think it is possible to delude yourself that you are doing “good” even while sifting through your bloody fingers tangible evidence of unspeakable evil. Humans are clever like that. We can do all sorts of mental acrobatics to make ourselves the good guys.
Amen. And this is what’s really scary to me about many “pro-choicers”. We point to science, show them that the baby is a human, and they just dodge again. “Oh, but they’re not sentient!” And on and on it goes. We passed the creepy line a long time ago.
it’s also sobering. Makes me want to be very cautious about clinging doggedly to my beliefs and willing to reexamine what I believe and not cling so tightly to what I believe simply because it’s familiar. May I always seek the truth, even at the cost of my previously held ideas.
I think CARRYING is in part the SOLUTION to the problem of selfishness that leads to abortion. Bonding even early on I would say makes abortion unthinkable to some women who were pro-choice. And I thought you weren’t a fan of adoption, Denise. That would really pump up your parenticide statistics, or whatever. Though on a very basic level, I would like to emancipate babies from certain wombs rather than see them killed.
Another science note: I’ve read that humans give birth to more helpless young than some other mammals because of the evolutionary development of walking upright. Upright means a smaller pelvis, which means we can’t carry our young until they are as mature as say, a deer or a horse. Since females give birth to a more helpless offspring, and since the helpless baby cannot cling to mommy’s back like a rodent, female humans (whose arms are busy now) need help for the first few years of the child’s life. This help comes from…the father. Now, human babies whose fathers dashed away to the next tribe or watering hole didn’t fare as well as human babies whose parents co-parented. Human babies who got a lot of nurturing went on to mature and make babies of their own. Human babies whose parents didn’t nurture them… well, their DNA probably dead-ended. Pro-choicers are the latter. In the future, when humans have evolved to be even more intelligent, guess whose DNA won’t be in the mix? Go ahead, guess!
LifeJoy says:
November 21, 2012 at 4:41 pm
I think CARRYING is in part the SOLUTION to the problem of selfishness that leads to abortion. Bonding even early on I would say makes abortion unthinkable to some women who were pro-choice. And I thought you weren’t a fan of adoption, Denise. That would really pump up your parenticide statistics, or whatever. Though on a very basic level, I would like to emancipate babies from certain wombs rather than see them killed.
(Denise) Adoption will always be necessary. I’m not a fan of it since it is statistically linked with troubling negatives. The biologically based mother-child bond should — ideally — not be severed as such severing is likely to cause psychological problems for both mother and child.
(I am also not a fan of impoverished single mothers raising children. Children flourish most in conditions of financial stability with two committed parents.)
However, the truth is that a mother who can’t or doesn’t want to raise a baby does not absolutely have to. She is able to place for adoption. Depending on her situation, she may be able to persuade family members to care for the child. If she is wealthy, she may act in a supervisory role to paid caregivers.
Regardless of its inevitable defects, the fact is that adoption IS AVAILABLE. Thus, if girls and women have no problem with CARRYING AND GIVING BIRTH, they should not be aborting.
But they ARE aborting.
“Most abortion advocates like to sweep away religious arguments without examination,” – yeah, and?
“How far back do abortioneers want to take us?” – none. Pro-choice people want to maintain the momentum of advancement of society and humanity. Its only the regressives who aspire to ‘tradition’ who seek to take us backwards.
“Abortionism masquerades as a mental frame of mind.” – and you are displaying what exactly?
“Really, it’s a mental illness” – hm, still can’t find it in the DSM, do you have any citations? At all? Any?
“Human babies whose parents didn’t nurture them… well, their DNA probably dead-ended. Pro-choicers are the latter.” – balderdash. Pro-choicers are parents too, and they love and nurture their children just as much as anti-choicers.
“In the future, when humans have evolved to be even more intelligent, guess whose DNA won’t be in the mix? Go ahead, guess!” – that of those who cling to medieval practices and keep trying to prevent the advancement of humanity, that’s whose.
“Balderdash”? That’s the best you can come up with? Ooh, I’m blinded by your science! LOL!
So, shall we put you down as Pro-protozoan??
Go on then, provide some empirical proof that pro-choicers don’t nurture their babies. Do it. Show me the blinding science that supports your claim.
I’m pro-science and pro-advancement.
That’s funny, because a huge argument I constantly get from the Pro-abortionists is that abortion’s always been around since, like, forever and stuff, man! Ancient Greece, ancient China, blah blah blah, you’ll never stop it, blah blah blah.
A society protecting its most vulnerable is progress. Casually destroying the most vulnerable human beings among us is “regressive”.
^ This!
We must assume that for a very few all our efforts will fail. This does not mean that we should not bother changing. Our rates of success are discouraging …. because there still are far too many abortions.
I recommend that we embrace a few new tactics, When a lady has an ultra-sound the tech wear some baby powder. And maybe the room could pipe-in the ‘noise’ of a playground with laughing kids (low in volume) – almost inaudible! … as if this sound came from a schoolyard a few blocks away. Another positive scent to try is the smell of breast milk. Maybe pharmer could help find some helpful scents.
“abortion’s always been around since, like, forever and stuff, man” – yep, and the methodologies and safety has improved vastly along the way through, you know, knowledge’n'stuff. Just like the rest of medical science, among many other fields of knowledge.
“A society protecting its most vulnerable is progress” – yes, social welfare, education and universal healthcare for all members of society.
The true regressives are those who, despite our ever expanding knowledge, would have people live their lives according to archaic and anachonistic beliefs and behaviors.
Take heart, John!!
http://www.lifenews.com/2012/11/21/ten-reasons-the-pro-life-movement-is-winning-on-abortion/
http://www.lifenews.com/2012/11/21/abortions-fall-5-percent-nationwide-biggest-drop-in-10-years/
Hi Carla,
no offense, but somewhat around 100 instead of 1,000,ooo means we’re winning, in my view. We yack about ‘nice’ stuff to try. But does anyone actually do this stuff?
Oh. So thanks to developments in medical technology, they’re able to kill so much more efficiently! How nice for them. Doesn’t change the fact they’re using modern means to carry out their cruel, barbaric practices. Because the important thing is now who you kill, but how and when you kill them. 9_9
yes, social welfare, education and universal healthcare for all members of society.
Or killing them. That seems to be an acceptable alternative to all those things for you. I missed the part where killing someone is protecting them. Please, elaborate.
The true regressives are those who, despite our ever expanding knowledge, would have people live their lives according to archaic and anachonistic beliefs and behaviors.
Yep. Like the belief that life doesn’t start until “ensoulment”, or “quickening”, or even birth. What foolish, stone-aged thinking!
Do what stuff John?
Actually, terminating a fetus has never been the difficulty. Ensuring the safety of the woman is what medical advancement has vastly improved. Like medicine in general.
Pro-choicers don’t advocate for the killing of members of society! We are more likely to be against the death penalty and in favor of better support services for members of society.
We know when life starts. Its when that life reaches a point of capability that defines it as a person and a new member of society. Just a pity that the regressives aren’t a little more ‘pro’ and supportive of the members of society who actually exist.
“Its when that life reaches a point of capability that defines it as a person and a new member of society.”
vs
At conception. When the newly formed zygote begins the functions of life: mitosis, respiration, etc.
Oh, if cc were hear, she’d retort with ‘life begins when the person is actualized.’
Miss ya!
I wonder if someday technology will allow us to use a smartphone to conduct an “ultrasound” (I know, I know, not the same technology but you get the point) on a woman going into a clinic. Or when she learns she is pregnant and contemplating abortion she can use her own phone to view her child within her. That would be awesome. I think abortion rates would drop drastically.
” Just a pity that the regressives aren’t a little more ‘pro’ and supportive of the members of society who actually exist.”
Haha. Hey, Reality. We are out there, caring for born people as well. Ya see, when we work for the preborn we are called prolifers. When we help the born, we are called by other labels, but we are still pro-lifers. It’s such a nonsense argument. I also like the way many “progressives” did their greatest act of charity on Nov. 6, 2012, with a no. 2 pencil.
By what means does a zygote respire ninek, can you explain it to me please?
Maybe if you spent less time interfering in other peoples’ lives when they don’t want you to, and a little less on unwanted fetuses, you might be able to offer even better support to members of society LifeJoy.
“I also like the way many “progressives” did their greatest act of charity on Nov. 6, 2012, with a no. 2 pencil” – yes, wasn’t it superb. Roll on midterms!
Go on then, provide some empirical proof that pro-choicers don’t nurture their babies.
I pretty sure that that pro-choicers kill their children in the womb at a much higher rate than pro-lifers do. It is not very nurturing of a parent to kill their offspring. Big Bucket of Duh.
Oh how cute. Did you give yourself a little hi-five when you came up with that?
Not all pro-choicers have abortions. Whether they have, will, won’t or don’t, pro-choicers do have actual children – you know, the ones with birth certificates, vaccination records, who go on to attend school etc. etc.
In the context of ninek’s statement that “Human babies who got a lot of nurturing went on to mature and make babies of their own. Human babies whose parents didn’t nurture them… well, their DNA probably dead-ended. Pro-choicers are the latter.” I would like to see some proof. Particularly since there are indeed inter-generational pro-choicers.
“… actual children – you know, the ones with birth certificates, vaccination records, who go on to attend school etc. etc.”
And there you have it folks. Persons as defined by government documentation, medical procedures, and participation in academia. Welcome to the machine.
High Five, LifeJoy!
Yes, people, persons, citizens, members of society. Real people, not the gestational.
So, no-one willing or able to defend ninek’s various claims?
Any particular reason why you support a society where the newly born don’t need to get a birth certificate LifeJoy? What do you see as the benefits?
And are you against vaccinations or do you just not see a need to keep a record? What if a child loses it’s parent/s, how would anyone know anything about the child’s health?
Do we just let anyone into any job or might it be better that we know what they have studied and learned? Do you know if your dentist knows what he or she is doing? How?
Are you an anarchist?
If by anarchist you mean I distrust the government, am unappreciative of about half of its functions, and value human life apart from social security numbers, then indeed. But no, I am not against documentation or education, or government – we just shouldn’t define human worth according to anything of the sort. Even if I were to make a distinction between preborn and born people, none of those you mentioned would come to my mind. Though interestingly, those differences are things we pro-lifers want all babies to be able to do … and so much more.
My son’s health clinic has kept great health records of my teenager. These records started with measurements of him several months after conception. I’ve got dated ultrasound pictures they took to prove it.
Gimme Five!
Up high!
Down low!
You’re too slow.
Thanks, Praxedes! Back atcha. =)
Its Thanksgiving and a good day for trolls to feed themselves, :>). But, my 8th grade biology teacher is somewhere in heaven, proud of how many of her students remember the material she worked so hard to present. Meanwhile, Reality’s biology teacher sent me a note: “Give him a microbiology textbook stat! before the ameoba in his water dies of suffocation!!” It’s a 4 day weekend, R, and you could spend it studying and, whoah! answering your own questions. Heck, you might even come back on Monday and explain the krebs cycle. Meanwhile, happy day, everyone!! I’m thankful to know you, even on the interwebs!
In the context of ninek’s statement that “Human babies who got a lot of nurturing went on to mature and make babies of their own. Human babies whose parents didn’t nurture them… well, their DNA probably dead-ended. Pro-choicers are the latter.” I would like to see some proof. Particularly since there are indeed inter-generational pro-choicers.
I believe ninek is referring to the Roe effect. It’s an interesting hypothesis and, while I’m not completely sold one way or the other, I of course like the idea of an inevitable end to legal abortion. The data suggests that people do generally practice what they preach (those who identify as pro-life have fewer abortions than people that identify as pro-choice). However, this does not necessarily translate to more babies born. After all, someone that forgoes abortion might just stop having children at an earlier age but have the same number of births as someone who does have abortions.
I think red states also have higher birthrates than blue states, but there’s probably more to it than that.
Jill and Staff,
Happy Thanksgiving!
I must add one more post to this thread because the point of the blogpost by Kristen (I think it is possible to delude yourself that you are doing “good” even while sifting through your bloody fingers tangible evidence of unspeakable evil. Humans are clever like that. We can do all sorts of mental acrobatics to make ourselves the good guys.) is the whole reason you are here…
People are killing other people—at every point on the continuum of human life, and in all kinds of new and terrifying ways—and saying, “There’s nothing wrong with this…we can do what we want…it’s our right to be self-determining…and we don’t want anyone telling us what we can or cannot do! We cannot be hindered by having these others around!”
It is astounding how individuals can get on this blog and post that “pro-choice” people don’t destroy members of society, or even try to start conversations about what is wrong with the human reproductive process (like it is up for revision)…we are so deluded. This blog is important because it holds up a mirror for all to see (whether they want to or not) just how far we have fallen as a society, and as human beings.
I reiterate…we cannot fix ourselves. The points of departure from righteousness are located where we cannot get at them…in our hearts, and without that righteousness which leads to holiness, no one will see/be with God. That is too bad, because the everlasting life people try to have is only available with Him through His Son, Jesus.
Many people who come here reject God as a solution, and I understand that…I was there once myself. However, His hand still remains extended—for a while—and you, by supplying this blog, shine the light on That scarred Hand in this dark place for anyone who will admit their lack and come to Him.
I am thankful for you and your staff as you do what you all do here. God Bless you all.
LifeJoy says:
November 21, 2012 at 4:41 pm
I think CARRYING is in part the SOLUTION to the problem of selfishness that leads to abortion. Bonding even early on I would say makes abortion unthinkable to some women who were pro-choice. And I thought you weren’t a fan of adoption, Denise. That would really pump up your parenticide statistics, or whatever
(Denise) It’s true I’m not a fan of adoption because of its links to horrors and the wound inflicted on babies separated from the mother who gave birth.
That doesn’t mean all women who give birth are good mothers. I used to correspond with a woman named Renee Nicely who went to prison for the killing of her son who was less than 3 years of age when he was beaten to death.
The day before this tragedy, Renee Nicely had undergone an abortion.
Coincidence? I doubt it.
Hi Carla,
thanks very much for responding. I get very frustrated at times, because too many of my posts I draw a complete blank. After typing for hours, its nice to know someone/anyone is even bothering to listen.
the ‘stuff’ I often post are those ideas that I think will work. [I cannot 'do' this 'stuff' because of personal limitations, but if known others may wish to try them.]
For years now (decades really), I have noted a definite reluctance to accept and follow much of PL logic or methods of convincing folks about the veracity of our points of view. There often is a ‘block’ (whether spiritual or niavite) that is geared towards the spoken/written voice including ‘science’. If this is so, can we effectively still influence others? Tyler noted that all decisions have a religious and philosophical underpinning, and certainly agree. But for most people this and ‘science’ are but intellectual options in a decision. Therefore, I have been trying to solicit from other senses (not rationally-based) memories/experiences that MAY influence:
A) smell … very basic and instinctive powerful response (almost reflective when we confront smoke). We could try the sent of baby powder; skin scent of a newly-washed-babe; or the scent of breast milk
B) hearing … too often oriented only to verbal, human action (ie. a wolf’s howl) … the sound of a baby cry; or playground laughter; or bouncing on a rebounder (mini-trampoline) with a child’s heartbeat as background should have profound influence.
all these can be immersed into a new non-confrontational identity: PRO-HEALTH vs pro-life where both PC + PL reside.
Given the claims that you have made ninek, one has to wonder if your 8th grade biology teacher wasn’t already in heaven at the time.
I am quite willing to spend some time studying if you could point me in the direction of some genuine academic material which would support your assertions that:
1. ‘abortionism’ is a mental illness
2. pro-choicers don’t nurture their children
3. zygotes respire
If your claims are accurate it can’t be that hard for you to provide sources can it?
Hi Reality,
It`s obvious to me that you have lots of brains, but you wish to teach ignorance and not learn. Both yours and ninek`s concepts of DNA are severely flawed. Your no.2 hits home but if you both don`t stop yacking away at one another, there won`t be any PC, nor PL kids nor grandkids. So put a sock in it.
Your attempt to dismiss this doesn’t do anyone any credit John. I’m asking because I do want to learn. I want to learn the scientific principles upon which ninek has staked these claims.
You claim that I wish to teach ignorance. Really? It is not I who has made these claims. Nor have I mentioned DNA in regards to these three items.
It’s really simple, if ninek is going to make the assertions outlined, where is there even an iota of academic evidence to support them? Shouldn’t take much time or effort at all.
Don’t be so obtuse.
http://www.reproduction-online.org/content/143/4/417.long
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krebs_cycle
On what basis do you accuse me of being obtuse? All I am doing is asking for some academic evidence for ninek’s claims.
Sure, the krebs cycle. Ok, so I’ll accept that as a form of respiration for a zygote.
Sweet, one of my questions has received a scientific and academic answer.
Now, how about the other two questions? Anyone?
I’d like you to further acknowledge the scientific answer to your first question, first, and stop supporting the legal killing of children in utero. That’d actually make at least one of the other two points rather moot to you.
In answer to one of them, I’d say maybe ninek misspoke? Instead of saying that generally Pro-Choicers don’t nurture their children, I think it’d be safer to say that Pro-Choicers don’t believe in nurturing all of their children by default, which is still rather counter-productive to increasing their numbers, for the most part.
“I’d like you to further acknowledge the scientific answer to your first question” – my first question was in regard to the claim that “abortionism is a mental illness”, so what scientific answer? No-one has even tried to answer it in any way within a galaxy of a scientific manner. I’m guessing that would be because there isn’t a scientific answer.
“I’d say maybe ninek misspoke?” – ya think?
“I think it’d be safer to say that Pro-Choicers don’t believe in nurturing all of their children by default” – I don’t think it would be ‘safe’ to say that at all. Not all pro-choicers have abortions. Some anti-choicers do. So some pro-choicers do nurture all their children while some anti-choicers don’t.
For those who think I over-emphasize carrying, I’d like to inform you of a time when people thought I overlooked the importance of it. We were discussing Mary Beth Whitehead, a “surrogate mother” who changed her mind after having the baby. She wanted to raise the baby rather than hand it over to the couple who had contracted with her to have the baby and turn it over to them, the Sterns. I told these two women that I thought the baby should be given to the Sterns. They were an upper-middle-class family and would be able to provide more for the child than Mary Beth Whitehead who had separated from her husband and was a lower-class single mother. One woman said she thought the kid would eventually be mad at her Dad if the Sterns took the baby because, “She’ll think, ‘My mother wanted to raise me and you wouldn’t let her.’”
I said, “He’s as much the genetic father as Mary Beth Whitehead is the genetic mother.”
The woman looked at me oddly.
The other woman said, “He didn’t CARRY the baby. He didn’t GIVE BIRTH to it.”
Still don`t get it, eh Reality I am an old man (on his way out). You are a young man (on his way in). I have a genetic disorder called Friedreich`s Ataxia and have over the decades found some very intriguing information, that has me shuddering about your future or even if you will have a future. Most science writers and their info want to be reader-friendly and nice so they don`t frighten. Folks feel safe when science-academia speaks. And you believe their `truth`.
In former times living a life was a real crap-shoot. Today because much of infant mortality has been solved, This has pushed our death average to new highs. People often make a simple little mistake and think such advances are normal. The facts are that our DNA should see us live to average age of 130 years. Why don`t we even come close….
When approaching this mindset much is presumed like there is enough time to get an education (because students do not die); enough time to raise kids and lots of time to debate. I will give you an inkling about some of the `science` I have read, then you decide whether there is enough time.
One of the problems with studying genetics, DNA, and heredity is that the pace of change is so slow (Darwin), that we falsely assume that DNA is impervious to change – it is almost steel-like. This is the `trap`of believing that life is hohum, and ninek presumed that Darwin`s postulates were the only ones that mattered.
…. continued from 10:07am ….
A) the book by Robert O. Becker, `Cross Current` has much info re. the unsafe EM(electromagnetic) fields we use everyday in modern world. Not only were such never known in human history,such novelty makes taking them far more seriously than background noise, or the EM-soup as it is often described. When a brain tumor`s DNA (caused by a cell-phone) is under a powerful microscope, the once elegant, lengthy DNA molecule looks shredded into small pieces.
B) There is the traditional way to view our genetics as if it was impervious to change. If folks only knew how insidious these `rare`genetic diseases are, then maybe people might change to get nutrient shortfalls fixed. One of the researchers in `Zinc and Copper in Medicine`eds Sarper and Karcioglu (1983), stated that over 92% of all genetic disorders could be overcome if pregnant-women had sufficient zinc and vitamin B-6. One thing this means is that an inexpensive nutrient must be eaten (actually several). Diet does affect genetics. (Even Prez. Clinton signed into law a bill fortifying breakfast cereals with folic acid, to prevent the devastating occurrence of spinal bifida.)
It also was shown that growing humans require massive amounts of zinc for their own physical development. (while calcium seems the prominent mineral for body structures; zinc dominates all minerals for metabolic functioning,) These needs are at very specific times … 6th wk-11thwk of gestation; the whole 3rd trimester gestation; colostrum and breast feeding time (ie.a newborn); and puberty. Every one of these periods represent a mood-low in a pregnancy … and the seeking of an abortion and the infamous postpartum depression.
I don’t know where you get the idea that I am a young man ‘on his way in’ John, but you are far from correct.
shouda known Reality, you write far tt well for a youngun …
my computer is driving me nuts … need a break …bye for now
LS said, very well:
Jill and Staff,
Happy Thanksgiving!
I must add one more post to this thread because the point of the blogpost by Kristen (I think it is possible to delude yourself that you are doing “good” even while sifting through your bloody fingers tangible evidence of unspeakable evil. Humans are clever like that. We can do all sorts of mental acrobatics to make ourselves the good guys.) is the whole reason you are here…
People are killing other people—at every point on the continuum of human life, and in all kinds of new and terrifying ways—and saying, “There’s nothing wrong with this…we can do what we want…it’s our right to be self-determining…and we don’t want anyone telling us what we can or cannot do! We cannot be hindered by having these others around!”
On my family tree, the prolife relatives’ branch has over 100 children, grand, and great. The pro-choicers? About 7 so far.
Who is dead and having his body parts counted? The one who won’t grow up to reproduce.
It amazes me how ‘pro-lifers’ can try to justify their lies. I’m what you would call ‘pro-choice’, because you know what, who am I to tell a woman what she can or can’t do with her body. ‘Pro-life’ is about shaming a woman for making a choice. It disgusts me, as do the movement’s tactics. The movement is in no way pro-woman. I’ve done my research and the ‘pro-choice’ movement gives the truth more than your movement does. It always gives the truth, because women’s lives are at stake. But you all don’t seem to be concerned much with that.
who am I to tell a woman what she can or can’t do with her body
You are the same person who should tell a man that he can’t use his body to kill another human’s body.
great. I had a giant rebuttal worked out, but I was denied the post for some reason. :/
hey Rachel,
so abortion supporters are “pro-woman”? Really? Like the guy who was arrested for assaulting a pro-life petition volunteer and turned out to be a serial rapist? Or, would it be more like the “pro-woman” Planned Parenthood clinic who accidentally aborted Tonya Reaves along with her child when they let her bleed to death? Oh, wait a minute, I got it! “Pro-woman” like the guy who injured Gianna Jessen for life when she was born prematurely after a saline abortion when he was trying to kill her and as a consequence has cerebral palsy now.
My body is mine, no matter how small. It was never my parents to destroy (and make my hands, and my legs into medical waste).
Your body is yours but you never had, nor will have, the right to live in somebody else’s body without their explicit consent.
except that children don’t require their legal guardian (by default their biological parent(s)) to consent to be provided with their required nourishment, care, and shelter to live. In the case of gestating children, that means pregnancy. Just like a random stranger can’t bust into my house and take my food and squat there, but my kids can as long as they’re in my custody (and I’m actually compelled to do so by law).
What is it about a child-parent relationship that you guys just don’t get?
Well, by law the fact of biological parenthood doesn’t override your right to consent to gestation.
What is it about the whole inside-outside the body distinction that you guys just don’t understand?
It’s irrelevant, given that the gestating child is actually inside the amniotic sac which marks their domain (compromised in an abortion), connected to the mother via placenta-which is a shared organ they should both have equal right to (also compromised in an abortion). What is it about the gestating child’s body-mother’s body distinction that you guys just don’t understand?
Saying something is “by law” when said law is unjust in the first place is really a moot point. “By law” Jews weren’t recognized as persons in Germany before and during WWII, and “by law” slaves weren’t recognized as persons before and during the Civil War.
Humans have evolved to where we are now; an embryo doesn’t have the ways and means to apply for a Temporary Womb Occupation Visa.
i was a small helpless human being who couldn’t read or write. The woman in whose womb I spent my early life wasn’t just any random woman upon whom I fell like dust. Half of my DNA, I inherited from her. She can’t erase our relationship.
As said in the comment above, what part of the parent/child relationship do you fail to understand? You don’t have to buy me shoes, but, you have no right to hire a hit man to tear my tiny body apart. That’s brutal. As long as a child has no other means to enter the world, you have to allow him or her safe passage, no less.
Why do you abortion advocates want women to feel ashamed of being pregnant?
Here are some fascinating statistics. Hmm, did someone mention the Roe effect?
http://www.lifenews.com/2012/11/23/forget-the-gender-gap-america-has-a-fertility-voting-gap/
I’ll count that as 2 proven, Reality. Still wanna be a protozoan?
“I’ll count that as 2 proven, Reality” – HA! You so wish, dream on.
The ‘Roe effect’ is nothing more than a hopeful hypothesis postulated by anti-choicers feverishly scratching around for something, anything to make themselves feel better.
There is no data, no supported correlations let alone causal association. It makes more assumptions than your average drapes twitcher.
And what’s the point of the ‘fertility voting gap’ piece? Just another bit of blather. Anything about the ratio or changing ratio of large versus small family sizes? Any data on any aspect of the influencing and potentially drifting elements? Oh, and look who its by. Woooo.
So no, number 2 is not proven in the least. Not even a good effort.
I note you have made no efforts whatsoever in regards to number 1 either.
Actually, your attempt is even more pathetic than that. Pockets of drivel about family sizes influencing voting patterns and wild claims that pro-choicers will be outbred by anti-choicers do not in any way address your actual assertion that pro-choicers don’t nurture their children. At all. How many children are had and what their future political leanings may be have zero to do with demonstrating the quality of parental nurture.
I notice you make no effort whatsoever to disprove anything at all that I said. Oh sure, you sit here on the “information superhighway” unable to get beyond your tiny little circle of websites. Try that search bar, Reality. Why do I have to prove anything at all? Isn’t this a pro-life website? Aren’t you the pro-abortion commentor? Why don’t YOU prove that the Roe effect is not real. Why don’t you give us some reliable statistics that prove abortion advocates have the same number of living, born children as pro-lifers? Surely if we pro-lifers are so wrong, you should be able to rub our noses in your proof with relative ease. Since you just can’t, I can only conclude that you are either lazy, wrong, or both.
Family trees used to look like, trees. Now, they look more like family sticks. The proof for me is at family gatherings. For whom do I need to make more servings of Grandma’s pie? Do I need to bake more for the post-abortive parents with few or no children? Or do I have to bake more for those who value each human life?
When we colonize the galaxy, whose children will be living in the colonies? Abortionists’ dead children? Or pro-lifers living descendants? It’s real easy to answer. I might even say, it’s not rocket science. LOL!!
It’s awfully hard to nurture a dead child, Reality.
Readers, if any of you are unclear on the concept, look up the word “nurture” in the dictionary and I guarantee that the definition does NOT include being torn apart during an abortion. Somehow, denying a developing person the time he or she needs to grow to viability is not nurturing them.
Worth repeating from the original quote: “There are people right now working in clinics whose job it is to count the body parts and make sure there are no arms or fingers or heads left inside women to cause infection.” Yep, those children were nurtured to death.
Praxedes, we must have been typing at the same time! LOL!
Question for abortionists: Why does the millenial generation contain an unprecedented number of only children? Why is a whole generation of Chinese young people unfamiliar with the words “sibling” “sister” and “cousin”? These are becoming words they read, not people they love.
Your repeated attempts at distraction do you no favors.
You claimed that pro-choicers don’t nurture their children. You have provided exactly zero evidence to support that claim. Obfuscations about family size, voting patterns and who will outbreed who have absolutely no bearing on the point at issue.
“Why do I have to prove anything at all?” – because it is you who asserted that ‘abortionism is a mental illness’ and ‘pro-choicers don’t nurture their children’ and all you have done so far is wander off into totally irrelevant and inapplicable realms. If you don’t intend to try to prove any of it then I’ll just have to assume you were simply spouting ad hominem absurdities.
“Why don’t YOU prove that the Roe effect is not real.” – I don’t need to. There is no proof that it is real, it is simply a hypothesis. Not even a theory. If you wish to rely on it then you need to demonstrate its validity.
That still doesn’t address the issue of nurture though, now does it.
“Abortionists’ dead children? Or pro-lifers living descendants?” – sheer inanity. It will be the children of pro-choicers – we do have them despite your wish otherwise. I doubt it will be the children of anti-choicers, because some never existed because they were aborted – anti-choicers have abortions too – and any actual children they have will be too busy trying to drag humanity backwards rather than advancing.
Try coming up with something which actually addresses and supports the claims you have made rather than dancing around the maypole. Or is it simply too ‘rocket science’ for you?
My husband was born to a pro-choice set of parents. (Wheeew – that was a close one!) He is an “only child” though I have begun to suspect he may meet a brother and/or sister in heaven someday, for several tell-tale reasons. (Break my heart, I want more sisters, brothers, aunts, uncles, cousins in my life and in my kids’ lives!) Anyways, not only do the numbers crunch on the Roe effect vs. my pro-life parents (just 2 to 1, but that’s still DOUBLE), but there is an odd shortness of nurturing from his parents, accompanied by some real disturbing comments that suggest a certain “I let you come into this world” attitude. (I know people joke, but that’s not it). I also realize this is purely anecdotal, but the whole idea put forth by ninek (Bless you, and Praxedes too!) rings as clear as a bell for me.
Ninek: “As long as a child has no other means to enter the world, you have to allow him or her safe passage, no less.”
No, not when that “safe passage” is literally inside somebody else’s body. God, what a “sense of entitlement” you pro-lifers have!
Another volunteer for devolving back to primorial soup. Go you! Parameciums of the world unite!
If anything, logic would indicate that pro-choicers provide better nurture for their children. They are wanted children and are raised in environments based on reason and knowledge.
I don’t think my mom should’ve been allowed to legally kill me when I was gestating. My goodness, how “entitled” of me. 9_9
I don’t think I should’ve been allowed to legally kill my children when they were gestating, either.
The fact I didn’t kill my daughter when she was gestating even though it would’ve been advantageous to me doesn’t show a lack of reason. It shows an abundance of nurturing and compassion.
If anything, logic would indicate that pro-choicers provide better nurture for their children.
Yeah, I’m picturing those warm family dinners where Mom explains to her lone child why it was in his best interest that she offed his siblings:
“The only compassionate parenting decision I could make at the time was to abort. Planned Parenthood was running a Black Friday special when I was pregnant last month and it was just too good to pass up. Just think, this means triple the gifts for you at Winter Solstice this year, Xavier, and another flat screen TV for our game room!”
How many children and grandchildren do you have, Reality and Blue Velvet?
“where Mom explains to her lone child” – that’s a bit of an assumption isn’t it? Why keep inferring that pro-choicers have either none or only one child. Despite your wish that it be so, not all pro-choicers have abortions. Meanwhile, some anti-choicers do.
“why it was in his best interest that she offed his siblings” – I doubt the topic would be couched in those terms. It’s the anti-choicers who fervently try to indoctrinate young children, pro-choicers just don’t bother to proselytize on the subject. If a child asks why they don’t have siblings most parents would respond that they either couldn’t or thought it best that they didn’t have more children. The fantasy response that you conjured up simply doesn’t occur. Have you been reading from the same book of ad hominem, febrile absurdities as some of your cohorts?
It’s the anti-choicers who fervently try to indoctrinate young children, pro-choicers just don’t bother to proselytize on the subject.
You just made my day. I really needed something like that after hearing about the developments in Ireland
“The fantasy response that you conjured up simply doesn’t occur.”
If you are correct, I wonder why that is. Why not be transparent about it, especially considering how nurturing and logical the pro-choice position is?
It would depend on their age and level of intellectual and social maturity LifeJoy.
But do they really need to know ‘how’ they don’t have more siblings rather than just why.
Did or would you discuss whether you personally used condoms, the pill or NFP with your children? Especially when they are young?
Over 20 years ago, my friend was an adamant pro-choicer like yourself, Reality. She aborted her first child. She became prolife and went on to have three more children. As a prochoicer, she birthed one dead child. As a prolifer, she birthed three living children. She has yet to forgive herself.
Other than the “friend” who drove her to the mill (who disappeared from her life shortly after), I am the only one she has confided in about her abortion. Why do you think she has never told her adult children, her parents or anyone else of her abortion?
I’ve seen what abortion has done to her and her family.
How many children do you have?
Oh right, only careerist feminist harpies get abortions. Ho-hum, never heard that one before. Whatever happened to the poor widdle woman duped by big mean planned parenthood?
I could share anecdotes which support my side of the argument too
I’ve seen what a number of things have done to various families!
I have discussed my parental status here before. It invoked offerings of sorrow and profferings of orison from a few and salacious aspersions from ninek. It has no relevance.
Why do you think she has never told her adult children, her parents or anyone else of her abortion?
Oh, that’s right. You have zero living children. You don’t have to answer to anyone about anything. Because it’s always been all about you.
How was your Thanksgiving dinner? I bet you have a lot of leftovers.
pro-choicers just don’t bother to proselytize on the subject.
This is not the case for the vocal pro-choicers that I know. They are especially interested in making sure their daughters maintain and appreciate their “right” to kill their children.
Some threads just won’t die…
“Why do you think she has never told her adult children, her parents or anyone else of her abortion?” – I have no idea. Perhaps they are all anti-choice and would have made her life miserable whilst inculcating as much confected guilt as they possibly could? Why are you the only one she has told?
“Oh, that’s right. You have zero living children.” – you been spending time with ninek? I am a parent.
“You don’t have to answer to anyone about anything. Because it’s always been all about you.” – oh well excuuuse me! More ninekery.
We didn’t have a self-indulgent thanksgiving dinner. My loved ones and I found it quite satisfactory to celebrate the event itself and make do with a standard meal rather than gorge ourselves. I gave the money I could have spent on gluttony to charity. Just like almost everything else I used to have until several years ago.
Your attitude is becoming boorish. I expected better of you.
“Did or would you discuss whether you personally used condoms, the pill or NFP with your children? Especially when they are young?”
This would be a discussion about sex.
Abortion is not about sex. I have of course told my children when there have been babies in my belly. I don’t see why pro-choice moms couldn’t tell their children: hey, mommy’s got some pregnancy tissue in her uterus, but we don’t want it to develop into a brother or sister, so we’re gonna get rid of it. Oh wait, that’s right, I do see why … Because it is horrifying. But to a pro-choicer, certainly they could explain bodily autonomy and all that so that their child would understand why and how, and that they are special and wanted because they were given safe passage … without nightmares.
Why are you the only one she has told?
Because I have earned her trust. Why doesn’t she confide in prochoice women? She is embarrassed to tell her children. They love her and would forgive her. Her father has never broached the topic with her nor she with him. Her mom died some years back from alcoholism but not before confiding to my friend that she was coerced by a doctor to abort her third child. My friend never told her mom that she had made the same choice a few years down the road.
Her mom’s confession explained to my friend the distance she felt between her mother and herself while growing up. Her mother started drinking heavily after the abortion and this affected my friend and her brother deeply.
I have played the role of mother and sister with my friend. Abortion takes these roles from others, if not directly though death, through the death of the spirit.
Are your parents, siblings and friends prochoice? Do you openly discuss this topic? I find that it is prolifers who are willing to discuss the topic while prochoicers shy away from it in real life. The computer is a whole different ballgame.
“This would be a discussion about sex” – like I said, would you tell young children what your personally preferred methodology of birth control is?
“Abortion is not about sex.” – really? All forms of birth control are about preventing unplanned progeny. All are only required if sex is taking place.
“I don’t see why pro-choice moms couldn’t tell their children: hey, mommy’s got some pregnancy tissue in her uterus, but we don’t want it to develop into a brother or sister, so we’re gonna get rid of it” – why? Whats the point? Do you say to your children “mommy and daddy had sex last night but I don’t think I’m pregnant”. Of course people tell their children if a planned and/or wanted sibling is on its way. But if there isn’t, then there really isn’t anything to say.
As I said before Praxedes, we can all come up with anecdotes to suit our message.
Some of my family and friends are pro-choice, some aren’t. It doesn’t get discussed a whole lot, any more than favoured sex positions or preferred personal hygiene products are.
Political preferences can divide families and friends so many don’t bring it to the fore. Abortion falls into the same category. A personal choice based on one’s own contemplation and conclusions.
Anti-choicers are happy to discuss it anywhere and everywhere because you are on a self-righteous crusade. You want to ram your personal viewpoint down peoples throats. You want society and the law to be designed and run according to your beliefs. Pro-choicers simply don’t. We believe in individual freedom.
“Abortion is not about sex.” – really? All forms of birth control are about preventing unplanned progeny. All are only required if sex is taking place.”
I am not going to waste much time pointing out a distinction that I know you can comprehend but insist upon conflating for the sake of your argument. Contraception prevents pregnancy; abortion stops pregnancy. And by pregnancy I mean baby, and by stops I mean kills.
So it seems it is the magical birth canal, AND the mom’s intentions that bestows personhood for you:
” Of course people tell their children if a planned and/or wanted sibling is on its way.”
What if only one criteria is fulfilled?
“Some of my family and friends are pro-choice, some aren’t. It doesn’t get discussed a whole lot …
Anti-choicers are happy to discuss it anywhere and everywhere …”
Kinda seems contradictory, dontcha think?
Just another reminder, the proper term is pro-lifers, not anti-choicers.
“What if only one criteria is fulfilled?” – a planned sibling is a wanted sibling. A wanted sibling is a wanted sibling whether it was planned or not.
“Kinda seems contradictory, dontcha think?” – Not at all. Anti-choicers are on a proselytizing crusade to try to enforce their point of view on the world. Pro-choicers aren’t. We won’t force you to have an abortion yet you would force people to continue with a pregnancy and deliver.
Anti-choicers are equivalent to the tea party. All noise, placards and shoutie extremism. Pro-choicers aren’t, we value democracy.
I consider myself pro-life JDC. But I also allow choice, you don’t.
It doesn’t get discussed a whole lot, any more than favoured sex positions or preferred personal hygiene products are.Political preferences can divide families and friends so many don’t bring it to the fore. Abortion falls into the same category.
Talk about contradictions. First Reality compares abortion to sex positions and personal hygiene products. Immediately afterwards, she states abortion falls into a political preference category. I don’t remember that Summers Eve and the military position were big topics last election but I turned off the TV a lot so maybe I missed it.
Why would abortion divide family and friends, Reality? Maybe because some people strongly oppose killing innocent humans.
For someone who acts pretty tough on here, you are just like the wizard behind the curtain in real life. All talk.
If anyone had any doubts that abortionism is a mental disease, this thread should make it clear. The prochoice delusion certainly exists.
Sorry, Reality, I was overly concise and not clear about my points on each of those topics …
By two criteria, I meant birth (mom’s magical birth canal) and mom’s intentions (wanted/planned – ness). What if baby is wanted, but not born? Is he/she a person? Or what if baby is born, but not wanted? Is he/she a person?
And by contradictory I meant that you said pro-life people always want to discuss it “anywhere and everywhere” but also said that your family and friends, some who are not pro-choice, do not want to discuss it. That doesn’t make sense to me.
BUT ultimately, the fact that pro-lifers always want to talk about it is not something I find necessary to debate. I would see that as rather encouraging. Unfortunately, I don’t think that’s altogether true. Too many pro-lifers are far too quiet.
No, no contradiction at all. Seemingly just a lack of comprehension on your part.
Most people don’t discuss favored sex positions or personal hygiene products. Its quite personal and they don’t care to share. Nothing shameful about it. Abortion is the same.
Some families don’t discuss religion or politics because it can lead to blazing rows and animosity because of peoples viewpoints. Nothing shameful about it. Abortion is the same.
Just two reasons why abortion isn’t a hot topic of discussion that often except when the self-appointed arbiters of the world want to browbeat people.
“Why would abortion divide family and friends, Reality?” – why do religion and politics?
“Maybe because some people strongly oppose killing innocent humans” – there’s the divisiveness!
“For someone who acts pretty tough on here, you are just like the wizard behind the curtain in real life. All talk.” – I don’t act tough, it may feel that way to you because you can’t deal with reason and rationale. There are no wizards. At least my ‘talk’ doesn’t include some of the amazingly inaccurate personal accusations and assumptions you have made.
It is the samples of extreme and lunatic quips that some of you make here which smack of mental illness. Some are reminiscent of Tourettes.
Thinking that you will ever stop abortion is the true delusion.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I hear a wine glass calling. Ciao.
Something has to be alive to be killed. Articles about abortion that are not oriented toward criminalizing it will nevertheless state “the fetus dies” or “is killed” or something similar. One article from a legalizer stated about the intact dilation and extraction or “partial birth abortion” that “the fetus is dead but in one piece.” It said about saline abortion that because of the material put into the womb “the fetus dies.”
About 20% of abortions are performed past first trimester. The fetus must either have the brain suctioned out, be systematically dismembered, or be poisoned and burned inside and out. It is fairly obvious that this is a killing.
The abortionist can justify it on grounds that it is inevitable that the fetus will die if the female won’t continue carrying it or that she has a right to not carry. One might live who would otherwise die if the abortion is safely performed. However, at least past the 1st trimester, it is a killing.
Before that it is less obvious but it is still likely as the embryo if “formed” — with a recognizably human appearance — by the 6th week of pregnancy.
“I consider myself pro-life JDC.”
Deluded.
You hear a wine glass calling at 2:35 a.m.? I bet you do.
The following is from “The Way It Was” by Eleanor Cooney:
This doctor had a clean, modern office in Midtown. He drew a diagram showing the difference between a first-trimester D&C and what I’d be having. After three months, he said, the placenta and the blood vessels that feed it grow too complex to simply be scraped out. To do so would be to just about guarantee a hemorrhage. In a normal birth or miscarriage, he said, the uterus contracts, shearing off the placenta and pinching off the connecting blood vessels. We induce a miscarriage, he said, by injecting a saline solution into the amniotic sac. The fetus dies. The uterus rejects it by contracting. That way, no hemorrhage. Then we go in and take it out. If it were done any other way, it could easily kill you.
(Denise) Two abortionists had told her to “have the baby.” She never considered it.
Anti-choicers are on a proselytizing crusade to try to enforce their point of view on the world. Pro-choicers aren’t interested in saving innocent unborn lives. We won’t force you to have an abortion yet you would force people to continue with a pregnancy and deliver to save an innocent life from a violent death.
Fixed that for you, so it better reflects reality.
Also, sex positions and abortion have nothing in common. It’s a stupid analogy. Abortion is just a medical procedure, right? So a better analogy would be to compare it to other medical procedures, like vasectomy, tubal ligation, etc. Maybe my family and friends are unusual, but they actually do talk about those types of medical procedures. Yet no one talks openly about their abortions. Why? Not because it’s private. Many, many private issues get talked about, including sex. They don’t talk about abortion because everyone knows that it is the killing of a human being, and deep down they know it’s wrong. That’s why pro-choicers have to hide behind “choice” and pretend that there’s something noble in not “forcing” someone to NOT KILL an innocent human life.
“Deluded.”
Took the word right out of my mouth.
Not at all. Anti-choicers are on a proselytizing crusade to try to enforce their point of view on the world. Pro-choicers aren’t.
Really? You’re saying that pro-choicers don’t want their position on abortion legality to be accepted (and their opponents’ rejected) as much as pro-lifers want theirs to be accepted (and their opponents’ rejected)? You want your position to win, and mine to lose. Saying otherwise is dishonest or delusional.
Pro-lifers are not trying to “enforce their point of view on the world”. They are publicly proposing ideas that they want to be publicly accepted and voted into law. In some parts, this is known as democracy.
We won’t force you to have an abortion yet you would force people to continue with a pregnancy and deliver.
The two are not symmetrical. You assume without argument that refusing to continue a pregnancy is not a violent act (rather that it’s nothing more than an alternative to childbirth). This is not something any abortion opponent is going to automatically accept. Hence you’re begging the question.
Imagine if I said that I’m pro-choice on slavery, and that campaigners like William Wilberforce were just on a delusional, proselytizing crusade. After all, I won’t force people to own slaves whereas he doesn’t respect this choice. This would be insane, because one of the two choices is clearly wrong. So it’s not that you support choice and we oppose it. It’s that we disagree on the nature of the choice in question. I’m pro-choice on a number of things, and you are anti-choice on a number of things.
Besides that, abortion proponents aren’t innocent of refusing to let people choose on this issue. I know that many abortion groups, at least here in Canada, want to force medical professionals to perform or refer for elective abortions (regardless of conscience). They want to require every medical school to require all of their students to get abortion training. They want everyone to fund abortion through their tax dollars. They tried to get a cabinet minister to resign just for voting to open up the abortion debate (not even actually voting for actual restrictions on abortion. Just opening the debate). Choice and democracy are not the ultimate moral goods. Abortion access is.
Anti-choicers are equivalent to the tea party. All noise, placards and shoutie extremism.
You must have missed all those idiots dressed up in genitalia costumes. Pretty sure they weren’t abortion opponents.
Pro-choicers aren’t, we value democracy.
And yet, your main thesis is that I can believe whatever I want as long as I don’t act as though my beliefs are actually true. In other words, you want people to participate in the public square iff they happen to agree with you. In the real world, the only acceptable position is yours.
If I recall correctly, just a few weeks ago you were defending abortion proponents’ refusal to debate on the grounds that astronomers shouldn’t debate astrologers at a psychics’ convention. That doesn’t sound very democratic to me.
I consider myself pro-choice Reality. But I also support the inalienable right to life for all humans, you don’t.
Shhhh. Keep it down a bit. Any minute now someone should be waking up with a throbbing headache and a queasy stomach. Reality bites.
As we wove down this thread, I can’t help but notice: when abortionists (and I use the word to describe its advocates as well) come to something that they don’t want to face, they just run past it and ignore it. We asked our commentors time and again to explain how drawing and quartering a tiny human being represents nurturing and again and again they come back with drivel about those lucky ones they let live. When they can’t argue using logic and classic debate techniques, they resort to name calling and ridicule. Not suprised; these are folks who use dehumanize names toward developing children, that claim murdering a pre-born human child isn’t that because it’s not a person until some nebulous point none of them can agree upon. Is personhood a Schroedinger’s cat for these folks? It would seem so.
Meanwhile, I’m so blessed to be part of this pro-life movement. I can’t express enough the regret that I didn’t get off the couch years earlier. I began to materially support crisis pregnancy centers and young mothers only 4 1/2 years ago. I’m ashamed of how much I could have helped if only I’d started sooner.
Thanks for fighting the good fight, fellow pro-lifers. Abortionists: join us! It’s never too late.
Deluded, xalisae and JDC, is thinking that you can stop abortion.
Tut tut Praxedes, I have previously stated I don’t do things to excess. I don’t have hangovers. And you do not know the hours I keep or why. Oh, and I don’t bite, sometimes I just nibble a bit
“Yet no one talks openly about their abortions. Why?’ – because people like you would react and treat them the same way that homosexuals have been treated. Pro-choicers don’t do the whole shoutie, in your face, botheration that anti-choicers do.
“You’re saying that pro-choicers don’t want their position on abortion legality to be accepted (and their opponents’ rejected)” – it already is.
“as much as pro-lifers want theirs to be accepted (and their opponents’ rejected)?” – the difference is that no-one is forcing you to have an abortion, simply allowing you the choice, whereas you would force women to gestate and deliver, allowing no choice. Alcohol is legal but you don’t have to drink, prohibition said no-one could drink – look how well that worked.
“Pro-lifers are not trying to “enforce their point of view on the world” – don’t make me laugh! Boycotts, parades, blockades outside clinics, constant proselytizing, pressuring politicians, harassing employees etc. etc. And you don’t intend to stop until your point of view is enforced. Luckily that isn’t going to happen.
“I’m pro-choice on a number of things, and you are anti-choice on a number of things” – what am I anti-choice on?
“They want everyone to fund abortion through their tax dollars.” – and churches?
“And yet, your main thesis is that I can believe whatever I want as long as I don’t act as though my beliefs are actually true” – not quite, just don’t try to impose them on others. Simple really.
“on the grounds that astronomers shouldn’t debate astrologers at a psychics’ convention. That doesn’t sound very democratic to me” – I said ‘wouldn’t’ not ‘shouldn’t’. Because in a democracy people of astronomical science, backed by facts and evidence have the choice to not waste their time debating astrological lunacy.
“they resort to name calling and ridicule” – ha, that’s more than a bit rich coming from you!
I’m already fighting the good fight.
Sure. I bet wealthy plantation owners used to guffaw at the misguided fools trying to give their Negroes the same rights as “actual people”.
Pro-choicers, being good liberals and supporters of social equity would have been against slavery.
Anti-choicers on the other hand, were probably more against the repeal of laws against miscegenation, women getting the right to vote and homosexuality being decriminalized.
it already is.
Ahh, prematurely declaring victory in an online debate. One of my favourites.
the difference is that no-one is forcing you to have an abortion, simply allowing you the choice, whereas you would force women to gestate and deliver, allowing no choice. Alcohol is legal but you don’t have to drink, prohibition said no-one could drink – look how well that worked.
No, that’s still not symmetrical. Drinking alcohol isn’t a violent act against an innocent human being. A closer analogy would be choosing to drink and drive. If I proposed legalizing drunk driving on the grounds that nobody is forcing you to drive drunk (simply allowing you the choice), you wouldn’t buy it. Thus you shouldn’t expect me to condone legalized abortion just because “nobody is forcing me” to do it.
don’t make me laugh! Boycotts, parades, blockades outside clinics, constant proselytizing, pressuring politicians, harassing employees etc. etc.
Abortion proponents do boycotts too. Blockading outside clinics has been illegal since 1994 and has rarely been attempted since. However, on the general topic of mob rule we have countless incidents like this:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive//ldn/2009/feb/09020906
http://www.jillstanek.com/2012/05/pro-choice-demonstrators-protest-abby-johnsons-lecture/
The issue of home protests is highly controversial within the pro-life movement (see the relevant threads on this site). Pro-life leaders face harassment too:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pro-life-pioneers-home-damaged-in-pro-abort-attack
Since when are parades, “proselytizing”, and dealing with politicians at odds with democracy? And don’t both sides of the abortion debate do those things?
And you don’t intend to stop until your point of view is enforced. Luckily that isn’t going to happen.
We shall see.
what am I anti-choice on?
Probably many things. Rape, female genital mutilation, impaired or dangerous driving, child abuse, and (hopefully) killing born people because they’re in the way and can’t defend themselves. Once again, it’s not that you’re for democracy and choice and I oppose them. It’s that we disagree on whether abortion belongs in this category.
not quite, just don’t try to impose them on others. Simple really.
Please explain how I could believe that abortion is a violent act that unjustly kills an innocent human being (1), but should be legal (2) while still acting as though my beliefs are true. 1 and 2 are mutually exclusive. Acting as though my beliefs are true would be impossible in this case. So to do what you want and stop opposing legal abortion would be to say that I can believe whatever I want as long as I don’t act as though my beliefs are actually true.
I said ‘wouldn’t’ not ‘shouldn’t’. Because in a democracy people of astronomical science, backed by facts and evidence have the choice to not waste their time debating astrological lunacy.
Right, the superiority complex and Danth’s Law. Abortion proponents do have every right to refuse a debate, but pro-lifers will start without them. And I think that most people are, while not 100% pro-life, much more open to new ideas than debate dodging types would want them to be.
Anti-choicers on the other hand, were probably more against the repeal of laws against miscegenation, women getting the right to vote and homosexuality being decriminalized.
For what it’s worth, it was socially conservative Evangelicals like William Wilberforce that led the campaign against slavery in the British Empire.
Riiiiiiiight. That’s why the people who fought for women’s rights and civil rights for African Americans mostly had (R) behind their names.
Oh “supporter of social equity” you CLAIM to be: when a child is killed in an abortion, they are denied the basic right to live. The right to life is the foundation of every other right, and you cannot have ANY rights without first being afforded that one. Being killed before you draw your first breath is not fair, is not equitable, and cannot persist long legally in a civilized society that values justice.
Deluded!
Republicans like Lincoln wouldn’t recognize or want to be a member of the Republican party which currently exists. Reagan certainly wouldn’t be nominated by the current cluster.
“Being killed before you draw your first breath is not fair, is not equitable” – a fetus is not a member of society.
“and cannot persist long legally in a civilized society that values justice.” – wanna bet. Abortion exists because we are a civilized society.
oh. my. GOD.
Are you SERIOUSLY that obtuse? Are you SERIOUSLY that lacking in the self-awareness department?
First, you make a bunch of accusations that are at the least unprovable and at the most absolutely laughable. Then, you say these two things, back-to-back, I swear just to make me laugh at how ignorant you are:
“a fetus is not a member of society.” THEN, “Abortion exists because we are a civilized society.”
SLAVES WEREN’T CONSIDERED MEMBERS OF SOCIETY, EITHER, DIP-WAD! Holy just-proved-my-point-for-me, Batman! Fetal human beings are human beings who are currently being DENIED their place in society, JUST LIKE BLACKS WERE WHEN SLAVERY WAS LEGAL.
I really, REALLY don’t see how you operate on a day-to-day basis. My mom killing me for whatever reason when I was gestating wouldn’t have been just. It wouldn’t have been civil. Me killing my children (I specifically speak of my daughter when saying this, since there were those around me trying to get this course of action to be seen as legitimate by me when she was gestating)-me killing my children would not have been just. It would not have been civil of me to do. Abortion is an uncivilized action, as is always the case when denying a human being their deserved recognition by society. Abortion is an uncivilized action, as is always the case when killing an innocent human being is looked upon as a legitimate solution to one’s problems.
So, another demonstration of your shoutie writing. “dip-wad”? That’s not very cute of you
You’re equating black people with developing fetuses?!? Really?
People whose ancestors were slaves have been rightly given the vote. They are entitled, as members of society, to go to school. They get paid when they work just like everyone else. Fetuses can’t.
It was peoples racial ignorance which said that slaves weren’t entitled to be classed as members of society. A fetus can not be a ‘member of society’ until it is born.
Forced gestation, mandated birthing – those are the things which are uncivilized.
Ah, your daughter again. Tell me, how old was she when you informed her that her father had wanted you to abort her?
I have previously stated I don’t do things to excess.
And I would believe this why? Hardy, har, har. Alcoholics don’t admit to excessive drinking but they do feel called by their alcohol.
Stop shaking, Reality. Your nightcaps are right around the corner.
Well, if my having a glass of wine, particularly at an hour that you can’t wrap your head around, means that I am an alcoholic then surely your logic dictates that I would have to assume that unless you have never, ever had sex you must be a nymphomaniac?
I however, would make no such assumption or judgement.
And you don’t intend to stop until your point of view is enforced.
“point of view”? Such an obtuse misstatement. We don’t intent to stop until the killing stops.
Sleep tight, Reality.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpzqQst-Sg8
If you truly do find a turn of phrase such as “I hear a wine glass calling” to be indicative of alcoholism, rather than simply being your pathetic attempt at denigration; then I must contemplate the possibility that you are socially inept and/or bereft of any ability to grasp literary vernacular.
Sweet dreams Praxedes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3jrrmkKduI
Reality, are you aware that the founders of the women’s movement – like Alice Paul, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Susan B. Anthony were all anti-abortion?
You’re equating black people with developing fetuses?!? Really?
Yep. And I’ve already stated WHY repeatedly, too. There was a point in history Blacks were denied their basic rights as human beings. Human beings in their fetal stage are currently denied the most important of these rights-the right to live.
People whose ancestors were slaves have been rightly given the vote. They are entitled, as members of society, to go to school. They get paid when they work just like everyone else. Fetuses can’t.
Neither can an infant. Are you saying that it should be legal to kill infants just as it is to kill gestating human beings now, since they can’t do those things? Does that mean we should have a court case to declare newborns “not members of society” fit for killing should their parents see fit to do so? What about learning-disabled adults? If they can’t maintain employment, go to school, or vote, does that mean they’re not actually members of society and it should therefore be legal to kill them? Thank goodness I have “Reality” here to tell me who is a “member of society” and who is not, and who it is therefore okay to kill and who it isn’t!
It was peoples racial ignorance which said that slaves weren’t entitled to be classed as members of society. A fetus can not be a ‘member of society’ until it is born.
And it is peoples’ biological ignorance which says gestating human beings aren’t entitled to be classed s members of society. A fetal human being can be someone’s heir and inherit property, they can have surgery to correct their medical problems, they can even be murdered and someone can be put on trial for their killing. They just don’t ALWAYS have the basic right to live, and their killing is only considered murder conditionally. Just like all children-oh, waitaminute…
Forced gestation, mandated birthing – those are the things which are uncivilized.
They’re also things which don’t exist. Have you ever been pregnant and carried to term? Kinda happens on its own there, buddy.
Ah, your daughter again.
Yeah, again. Funny how I won’t just let you ignore her when you’d like very much to do so.
Tell me, how old was she when you informed her that her father had wanted you to abort her?
How is this relevant, or any of your business? Sorry I just didn’t brush the issue of her life or death under the carpet as you’d prefer. Sorry I wasn’t able to go on living my life as if that had never happened. Sorry I have to think of other children in her same situation who have parents considering such a death for THEM, instead of just acting like they don’t exist. Sorry that your comfort is not high on my priority list (or there at all) and that you have to deal with the living, human aftermath of the positions you espouse. Sorry if that makes it hard for you to keep lying to yourself, characterizing gestating human beings as “not actual human beings”.
Nice self-portrait, Reality. My mental image of you wasn’t far off.
Hi Kel, long time no um, ‘see’. Let me make that sentence of yours a little more reflective of the true situation – ‘are you aware that some of the founders of the women’s movement in one of its earlier incarnations – like Alice Paul, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Susan B. Anthony were anti-abortion to some degree or other?’ – yes I was.
So xalisae, you see the descendants of slaves as not quite fully formed, a bit less than at full capacity, not quite ready to exist on their own in the world. Is that it?
“They’re also things which don’t exist” – au contraire, preventing a woman from terminating an unwanted pregnancy is forced gestation and mandated birthing.
So you’re quite happy to use your daughter as a catapult to sling mud with your ranting missives about how you didn’t abort her when her father insisted that you do so yet you won’t outline exactly how or why you come to push her forward in an attempt to support your argument.
You had a choice, you made your choice. All’s well. How does that justify you opposing the rights of others to have a choice?
I’m not the one lying to myself, you simply can’t accept the truth.
Well Praxedes, I didn’t realise our posted videos were meant to be autobiographical. Have you sought help for your drinking problem? Or is it just that you look like George Thorogood?
Have you sought help for your drinking problem?
Yup. Many years ago. That’s why I’m now so good at identifying the problem in others. (:
When do you think it’ll start to work for you?
One glass of wine after I finish work (yep, that’s right, I was working until that time) does not constitute alcoholism. But if you feel the need to cast such aspersions to make yourself feel better, go for it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZPmZ64m3_4
Sorry but you try and claim that pro-lifers know more about abortion than pro-choice and then start talking about body parts, cells don’t have body parts. So either you are talking about late abortions which are only done to save the life of the women or you don’t understand that most abortions are to small collections of cells which do not resemble a baby in the slightest even through a microscope.
So xalisae, you see the descendants of slaves as not quite fully formed, a bit less than at full capacity, not quite ready to exist on their own in the world. Is that it?
No, I just don’t think it should be legal to kill those of diminished capacity, who are dependent upon others for survival, just because they are. Thanks for admitting that YOU do, though.
I used to work with and for those with disabilities. There’s no child there whom I viewed as “less than” myself. Nobody there I saw who I was able to say, “You are less worthy of a right to live than I am.”, even though it was a great deal of effort just to make certain those children successfully made it through another day. After carrying two children and birthing them, I can safely say that the amount of care needed daily for any one of the children in the autism classroom far surpassed my effort put forth in carrying my children. Which brings me to the next point…
au contraire, preventing a woman from terminating an unwanted pregnancy is forced gestation and mandated birthing.
No, it’s not. Having actually been through the process twice, let me assure you that I didn’t have to do a darned thing to continue gestation, there was no force involved, and when my children were ready to be birthed, the process was initiated on its own-no mandate needed.
So you’re quite happy to use your daughter as a catapult to sling mud…
“…sling mud…”? I’m not slinging mud here, sir. I’m trying to get you to understand that the human fetuses you’ve characterized in your mind as non-entities unworthy of consideration are every bit the human beings we are, and deserve the same considerations of their rights as we have of ours. The fact you call that mud slinging is pathetic. It is your sad attempt to skirt the topic of the real cost of abortion in human lives. Don’t think for a second I haven’t recognized your squirming at the mention. And, her age is not important, because what I do think IS quite pertinent is the fact that I do not use her, but that she WANTS involvement in the Pro-Life movement, because not only was her life at stake, but she recognizes the many other lives actively being taken today.
…yet you won’t outline exactly how or why you come to push her forward in an attempt to support your argument.
That’s funny, I thought I had explained that already. Well, if not, or if you simply need me to repeat something to you more than once or twice in order for you to comprehend it (I’d put money on the latter), I’ll say it again. I did my best to try and hide the topic from her even given my active participation in the movement for as long as I could. There was no “push” involved (oh, I get it! You don’t understand that passive occurrences don’t involve force!)-no push, she took my laptop when I was afk (which was actually not allowed in the house-the kids know they’re not to use LeslieGolem without permission), found a response to a comment all typed up, and then asked me about it. I told her she might not be ready to hear it, and that she didn’t have to since it was something that she might not be ready for, but she insisted anyway. I told her what happened, and then explained to her that there was actually a movement in opposition to such things, and that I was actually involved in it because what happened was a huge motivation for me, and she then told me that she wanted to be involved, too, because what happened was wrong, and the fact that it continues to happen to this day is wrong. I then explained to her that her involvement in the movement would be limited to non-physical contact, since punching people in the face is called “assault” and is against the law. Just as the movement is predicated upon the respect for human life, so too do we respect the lives and well-being of born people, no matter how misguided or flawed.
You had a choice, you made your choice.
No, I didn’t. I made no such choice, since there was no option to me to kill her. Once again, passive occurrence =/= direct action. *sigh*
All’s well.
Nope. It’s really not. She’s horrified that it was legal back then to kill her, just as I would be in her situation, and just as I am as her mother horrified that it was legal to kill her. There are still literally thousands of children in her position who do not have the benefit of a mother who respects familial and biological obligations to offspring regardless of circumstance who are sent to their deaths daily. ALL IS NOT WELL. I guess I just don’t drink enough wine to keep my blinders on all of the time. Although I do enjoy a good Muscato from time to time.
How does that justify you opposing the rights of others to have a choice?
See above. When the choice to have an abortion is made, a real, living, actual human being-the biological child of the pregnant woman-is killed (most of the time. There are still women like Gianna Jessen out there. What would you tell her?). That is not something which I can just ignore. It disturbs me that you can. Not only that, but actively cheer on such behavior.
*shudder*
<em>Sorry but you try and claim that pro-lifers know more about abortion than pro-choice and then start talking about body parts, cells don’t have body parts.</em>
And no human being-even a very young one-is *just* cells. Even when first conceived, we have parts of a new body, albeit just chemically at first. Even at the blastocyst stage, our cells are organized into parts. For instance, the neural plate of an embryonic human being folds in upon itself to become the neural tube, which is the start of our entire neural system. There are amnion and germ cell layers. We are never *just* cells-body parts are just made of cells. You should go here: http://www.ehd.org/index.php You’ll learn a lot. Most abortions are performed in the 1st trimester. By the 4th week, a gestating child has a heartbeat. That’s 4th WEEK, not 4th MONTH, the HEART is beating. So no, we’re not just talking about late abortions-you’re simply uninformed on human development. According to Guttmacher, the average time a woman even SUSPECTS she is pregnant is 33 days.
<em> So either you are talking about late abortions which are only done to save the life of the women or you don’t understand that most abortions are to small collections of cells which do not resemble a baby in the slightest even through a microscope.</em>
<em></em>So, now that we’ve smacked down that “collections of cells” nonsense, let’s move on to the reasons later term abortions occur:
The Supreme Court case Doe vs. Bolton-the Court defined “health” to include not just physical health, but also psychological, mental and emotional health. The Court cited age, familial circumstances and anything relevant to the woman’s general feeling of well being as reasons that would justify a late-term abortion—and thus override what Roe decided was a legitimate state interest in protecting the unborn after viability. The Court explained:
The medical judgment [for a late-term abortion] may be exercised in the light of all factors—physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age—relevant to the well-being of the patient. All these factors may relate to health. This allows the attending physician the room he needs to make his best medical judgment. And it is room that operates for the benefit, not the disadvantage, of the pregnant woman.
On this criteria, virtually any reason a woman gives to have a third-trimester abortion is sufficient. “After viability, the state may ‘proscribe’ abortion only when the woman considering abortion can find no physician willing to say that her mental health would, for example, be ‘taxed by child care’ or suffer ‘distress … associated with the unwanted child,’” write Dennis J. Horan and Thomas J. Balch. In effect, if a woman could find an abortionist willing to perform a third-trimester abortion, she could have one.
In 1987, the Alan Guttmacher Institute collected questionnaires from 1,900 women in the United States who came to clinics to have abortions. Of the 1,900 questioned, 420 had been pregnant for 16 or more weeks. These 420 women were asked to choose among a list of reasons why they had not obtained the abortions earlier in their pregnancies. The results were as follows:
71% Woman didn’t recognize she was pregnant or misjudged gestation
48% Woman found it hard to make arrangements for abortion
33% Woman was afraid to tell her partner or parents
24% Woman took time to decide to have an abortion
8% Woman waited for her relationship to change
8% Someone pressured woman not to have abortion
6% Something changed after woman became pregnant
6% Woman didn’t know timing is important
5% Woman didn’t know she could get an abortion
2% A fetal problem was diagnosed late in pregnancy
11% Other
<em></em>
Of those unintended pregnancies that occurred in the US, 60% of the women used birth control to some extent during the month pregnancy occurred, so yes it is a collection of cells.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pregnancy
And having a heart beat, so what? Doesn’t make them sentient, when does the brain work?
Donald says:
November 29, 2012 at 1:27 pm
Of those unintended pregnancies that occurred in the US, 60% of the women used birth control to some extent during the month pregnancy occurred, so yes it is a collection of cells.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pregnancy
Umm…I don’t get what your point was, here. They are “collection[s] of cells”…but by that definition, we are, too. They are new human organisms-made up of cells which make up their bodies distinct from the cells/bodies of their parents-and so are we. And what does using birth control or not have to do with who/what someone’s child is?
Also, can I have some of whatever it is you’re on, Mr. Non-Sequitur-But-I-Think-It-Somehow-Proves-My-Point?
And having a heart beat, so what? Doesn’t make them sentient, when does the brain work?
I never said it did. YOU said they didn’t have any body parts. I corrected you, since a heart is an organ of the body-a body part.
Being sentient doesn’t make anyone anything, either. “When does the brain work?” Why does that matter? Sentience doesn’t change what kind of organism we are. Basic human rights should apply to all humans particularly innocent children, regardless of age, development, location, or capacity.
“Thanks for admitting that YOU do, though.” – not once they’re born. You know, persons, members of society, not attached to another person via an umbilical cord.
“I used to work with and for those with disabilities” – hey, so did I. People with cerebral palsy. Used to take one young man home on weekends to give him some extra freedom and socializing.
“No, it’s not. Having actually been through the process twice, let me assure you that I didn’t have to do a darned thing to continue gestation, there was no force involved, and when my children were ready to be birthed, the process was initiated on its own-no mandate needed.” – of course there was no force in your case – you chose to gestate and deliver. But if a woman does not want to continue with a pregnancy and give birth and you contribute to a situation where she has no choice but to do so then you have contributed to forced gestation and mandated birthing. Pure logic.
“the human fetuses you’ve characterized in your mind as non-entities unworthy of consideration are every bit the human beings we are” – no, they are not.
“and deserve the same considerations of their rights as we have of ours” – no, they do not.
You have indoctrinated your daughter. You have expounded your own views onto her and used your situation to color her thinking.
“No, I didn’t. I made no such choice, since there was no option to me to kill her” – the option of abortion was available to you. You made a choice. Pure logic.
“Nope. It’s really not. She’s horrified that it was legal back then to kill her” – well it is all well. You chose not to abort so here she is. If you had chosen to abort – nothing. My mother chose not to abort me so here I am. If she had then – nothing. So why should it worry me that she had the option. Its no different to deciding whether to actually get pregnant or not in the first place. There is either something, or nothing.
But that’s how deluded you are. It’s not “nothing”-it’s you were alive, and your mom had you killed. That’s what that is. Simple fact, “pure logic”, no “indoctrination” about it. The fact that you have to diminish the idea of your own mother having you killed at a certain age and calling it “nothing” is sad. Really, really sad. And it’s sad that you can see someone recognize how sad and WRONG the world is for saying it should be considered acceptable and legal that mommy could have them killed as long as they’re young enough, and call that “indoctrination”. I’d earnestly like to know how you would present the facts to your child to let them know the circumstances in a way that you WOULDN’T consider indoctrination. Although from what you’ve said before, it appears you’d just do everything in your power to avoid the topic, sweep it under the rug, and pretend it never happened. Because THAT’S like, totally mature and healthy and stuff, and doesn’t speak VOLUMES about how shameful and flimsy your opinion on this matter is. Totally.
I didn’t want to become a mother when I did, how I did, with who I did. If I would’ve had a choice that wouldn’t have killed someone after the fact, I would’ve opted for that. But too bad, so sad, and I had to resign myself to the REALITY of the situation, and come to terms with what had happened-WITHOUT KILLING MY CHILD, BECAUSE THAT WOULD’VE BEEN WRONG AND UNJUST.
I’m a little troubled that in your logic-gone-mad kinda world, you can be connected to someone else and forfeit your right to live. I really don’t see why that should make such a difference, ESPECIALLY when that “someone else” is your own mom, who has a duty to provide you with nourishment and shelter, because she’s your biological parent and default legal guardian. The blatant goalpost shift was cute though, since you started with the statement “…not quite fully formed, a bit less than at full capacity, not quite ready to exist on their own in the world.” as grounds to omit one from being a member of society, but when I brought up disabled people, you were suddenly totally down with them and now just the magical birth canal and mystical umbilical cord are the only thing standing between gestating human beings and full inclusion in our society.
“no, they are not.”
“no, they do not.”
Your insistence is not proof. Your insistence has no bearing on the definition of “human being”, which is simply: a member of the species homo sapiens sapiens. Nothing mentioned of birth or umbilical cords or voting or being paid for jobs or any of the other arbitrary submissions you’ve put forth.
An aborted fetus can’t feel angry, happy or anything else. So it is simply a case of something or nothing. So as I said “My mother chose not to abort me so here I am. If she had then – nothing. So why should it worry me that she had the option. Its no different to deciding whether to actually get pregnant or not in the first place. There is either something, or nothing”
“And it’s sad that you can see someone recognize how sad and WRONG the world is for saying it should be considered acceptable and legal” – I think its sad and wrong that you think its sad and wrong that it is acceptable and legal.
“Although from what you’ve said before, it appears you’d just do everything in your power to avoid the topic, sweep it under the rug, and pretend it never happened” – untrue statement.
“But too bad, so sad, and I had to resign myself to the REALITY” – no, you resigned yourself to what you decided about the situation, for whatever reason. And that is fine, choice.
“The blatant goalpost shift was cute though, since you started with the statement “…not quite fully formed, a bit less than at full capacity, not quite ready to exist on their own in the world.” as grounds to omit one from being a member of society, but when I brought up disabled people, you were suddenly totally down with them and now just the magical birth canal and mystical umbilical cord are the only thing standing between gestating human beings and full inclusion in our society.” – now now, you are conflating two separate situations. The first was in relation to your equating slaves and their descendants to developing fetuses and the second was in realtion to factors which are part of what determines personhood.
“Your insistence is not proof” – neither is yours.
“every bit the human beings we are” – no, they are not actually.
“and deserve the same considerations of their rights as we have of ours” – subjective, you say yes, I say no.
xalisae, imo Reality doesn’t fail to understand that the preborn baby is a human being, Reality fails to value the right to life of the preborn baby while he/she is inside his/her mother’s womb.
Yes Tyler, I’m pretty sure that I have said that the fetus inside a human woman is a member of the human species. Like an acorn is to an oak.
I asked this question on another thread Reality:
Why don’t you think a mother has a responsibility to gestate the preborn child until it is viable?
You’ve asked it on two other threads you pest
No, just one other thread. (You keep hopping around. It is hard to keep up.)
I never said it did. YOU said they didn’t have any body parts. I corrected you, since a heart is an organ of the body-a body part.
Being sentient doesn’t make anyone anything, either. “When does the brain work?” Why does that matter? Sentience doesn’t change what kind of organism we are. Basic human rights should apply to all humans particularly innocent children, regardless of age, development, location, or capacity.
No you did not correct me, cells do not have body parts. Then you brought up an a fetus with a heart beat, so what. Animals have heart beats too, are you saying you are a vegetarian too? You think human rights should belong to all stages of development, that is your opinion, it is not mine. Do you understand that? Being able to think is what is important to me, an insect has more worth to me than a fetus that can’t think. I would never kill a fly, can you claim the same?
Tyler, you asked it on the ‘quote of the day thread’. And what is the meaning of your post on the ‘this is my body thread’ if it isn’t in relation to the same question. You don’t have any other question on that thread.
I wrote my question on the “quote of the day” thread and then I read your “acorn/oak” response on this thread. I thought my question was applicable on both threads. Anyway, we can keep the discussion going on the “quote of the day” thread. I apologize for any confusion.
Being able to think is what is important to me, an insect has more worth to me than a fetus that can’t think. I would never kill a fly, can you claim the same?
Being able to think is what is important to me, an insect has more worth to me than a fetus that can’t think.
Bad news for the vagina posse…