Bitter pro-abortion rant
By Bethany Kerr:
About the Supreme Court’s Partial Birth Abortion Ban decision, blogger Peskymac writes:
I’m incredibly bitter today. And disgusted. What the Supreme Court did today is nothing short of repugnant. I can’t say that I’m exactly surprised that a group of conservative men chose to expand federal powers and sanction torture for women today by declaring the ban on late term abortions that President Bush signed in 1993 does not violate the Constitution….
No, not surprised that people who will never have any idea of what it means to be forced to choose between your own life or that of the fetus you’re carrying would make such an emotional and irrational decision. None of these men will ever be forced to carry a fetus against their will. This decision will never impact them at all – all their wives, daughters, and mistresses are well off enough that they can fly to a more humane country if something unforeseen and awful happens during their pregnancies. It’s the normal, every day women who will suffer. And what do they care? They got to make their point.
Link
(1) A defendant accused of an offense under this section may seek a hearing before the State Medical Board on whether the physician’s conduct was necessary to save the life of the mother whose life was endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.
There is an exception for the life of the mother. The only reason the pro-abortion liberals can possibly be angry with this decision is the fact they don’t have the loophole of “health” anymore. No more vague language safeguarding the supposed “health” of the mother to fall back on.
The life of the mother is covered. She is protected, if she so needs the protection.
Besides, there is (as far as I know) no health condition out there that crushing a child’s skull cures.
It kills me – kills me – that pro-forced childbirth advocates are so happy about this!
Do they think they’ve just saved countless lives? Do they honestly and truly think that this decision will stop late term abortions from happening? I know, I know, they don’t give a rat’s ass about the reality of the situation – just their f***ed up, rose-colored glasses worldview.
Here are just a few examples of why we are so excited about this decision:
here
here
and here
The concurring opinion seems to be, “This is one step closer to the stopping the medical practice of murder!”
We are rejoicing, not because we are naive and think that late term abortions are suddenly going to stop now (we know abortionists better than that), but because we know a significant change has occured, and now an unborn child has legal rights!
We’ll keep pressing on! We have been given HOPE that things can change for the better, and we’ll keep fighting as long as we have to to make sure that no more unborn babies can die legally (one day, I believe it will happen- and I hope I will live to see the day)….and so that no more women can be exploited and used by the abortion industry….and that is a wonderful feeling.
It’s too bad that women like “Peskymac” can’t rejoice with us.
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.
Gotta love the picture…
I can’t tell you how many times I have seen Pro-choicers waving plastic coat hangers around…
Like duh? Do they really think women were aborting their babies with plastic coat hangers.
There has never been a documented case of a coat hanger abortion to begin with…let alone a plastic one.
How desperately we cling to our fantasies. When do we let go? What proof do you need? Your own people admit it’s a baby.
I performed abortions, I have had an abortion and I am in favor of women having abortions when we choose to do so. But we should never disregard the fact that being pregnant means there is a baby growing inside of a woman, a baby whose life is ended. We ought not to pretend this is not happening.” Judith Arcana, abortion activist, at a London seminar, October 1999
mk
just their f***ed up, rose-colored glasses worldview.
ahhhh, but isn’t the world nicer in shades of pink?
mk
“There are absolutely no obstetrical situations encountered in this country that would require partial-birth abortion to preserve the life of health of the mother.” – Dr. Pamela Smith, Director of Medical Education, Department of Ob-Gyn, Mt. Sinai Hospital, Chicago.
80% are purely elective – Dr. Martin Haskell (admitted to performing at least 700 by 1992).
Majority of D&X done on healthy mother and healthy fetus – Ron Fitzsimmons, Executive Director, National Coalition of Abortion Providers, NY Times interview, 1997.
I don’t understand why she is complaining. It’s only outlawing PBA… not a total women’s right to choose. That .14% will just be lowered quite a bit. You’d think that even pro-choice people wouldn’t be bothered.
PIP,
You’d think that even pro-choice people wouldn’t be bothered.
You would think…
These are the people we call “Pro-aborts”.
See?
mk
No MK…you call all people who consider themselves “Pro-Choice”, “Pro-Aborts”. I honestly have no problem with banning PBA. Doesn’t bother me a bit. As no respectable gynecologist would perform a PBA for no reason other than the life of the mother (as that is the only time the AMA has deemed it proper).
Anyway.
“None of these men will ever be forced to carry a fetus against their will.”
There it is again! They act as if they are the victim of a fetus invading their body!
And…
“I can’t say that I’m exactly surprised that a group of conservative men chose to expand federal powers and sanction torture for women today by declaring the ban on late term abortions that President Bush signed in 1993 does not violate the Constitution.”
Torture women?? I understand raising a child can be tough, but torture?
but of course, I’m just an simple-minded, ignorant, rosey shaded pro-lifer that needs the enlightenment of a pro-choicer.
Rae,
No MK…you call all people who consider themselves “Pro-Choice”, “Pro-Aborts”. I honestly have no problem with banning PBA. Doesn’t bother me a bit. As no respectable gynecologist would perform a PBA for no reason other than the life of the mother (as that is the only time the AMA has deemed it proper).
Whether you have noticed it or not, I have never referred to you guys as pro abortion. I have respected your wishes even tho I disagree. Which is why I felt justified in pointing out that the above attitudes are “one” of the reasons some pro-lifers use the term.
mk
lol Ryan :D
Boy, that woman looks grumpy.
Ryan,
I have never properly welcomed you.
So.
Welcome.
You are an asset to our team.
I’m very glad you’re here!
mk
PIP –
“I don’t understand why she is complaining. It’s only outlawing PBA… not a total women’s right to choose. That .14% will just be lowered quite a bit. You’d think that even pro-choice people wouldn’t be bothered.”
In my opinion it isn’t the procedure being banned that has got them upset. It’s the ‘fetus’ having rights as someone with personhood. If this ‘fetus’ were actually just a parasite, then this ruling would have been different. But in the eyes of the law now, the ‘fetus’ is a ‘baby’ who has the right not to be unnatrually taken from the mother’s body with the purpose of killing it.
This is why I, as a pro-lifer, rejoiced when the ruling came out. The pregnant Mother is carrying a living human person with rights.
It may be the smallest, minimal amount of rights, but it IS rights.
I personally am not bothered by the banning of PBA, although given the nature of the debate, I do dislike the fact that, given the wrong justices, this precedent could be used to justify serious impingements on the right to choose. I am, however, bothered by the lack of a health exception. Documented cases of a need for it or not, it should in principle be there.(I’ve heard about the need for it with respect fetii with hydrocephalus, but I’ve no hard facts. Nonetheless, it should in principle be present) And I’m sorry, but I don’t consider the following a health exception:
“A defendant accused of an offense under this section may seek a hearing before the State Medical Board on whether the physician’s conduct was necessary to save the life of the mother whose life was endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.”
Note the word “defendant”, a.k.a, an individual who has already been charged with a crime under the statute. It is unreasonable to think that doctors will risk performing the procedure in the hope that they will be cleared by the medical board rather than going to jail. This might be mitigated by the AMA instituting completely explicit standards as to what is justified and what is not, so that doctors know whether they would be in violation of the law, but until such standards are in place, this is, in my opinion, grounds to hold the law void for vagueness.
Ryan said: “There it is again! They act as if they are the victim of a fetus invading their body!”
And imagine that! They are! Let’s grant your premise that the fetus is a person. The use of an individual’s body without their consent is still a violation of their bodily autonomy, even if they are dependent on your body for their survival. It’s analogous to having a violinist plugged into you (despite the scoffing of those without philosophical training – you don’t like this, you should see the trolley cases in normative ethics, or the crazy metaphysical cases in the debate about time). And I’m starting to think that in many ways it *is* actually analogous to being raped. Same use of the body without consent. Same violation of bodily autonomy. But this is the side of the argument that nearly all pro-lifers, and a good deal of pro-choicers, fail to recognize, despite the fact that it is central to the dispute over legality (whether or not it is a good or bad thing is a separate issue).
Oh, and if you’re around, HisMan, to respond to your post to me a few days ago. No, your argument was not that abortion is murder. An argument consists of premises and a conclusion that is purported to follow from those premises. A statement, no matter how dressed up with rhetorical flourishes, is not an argument. It is, however, great sophistry.
Diana, the violoinist analogy is easily debunked when we look at the very nature of a parent child relationship.
All children are leaches on their parents resources, finances, housing, privacy, autonomy, and in regrads to nursing mothers-bodies.
The fetus has the “right” to his mothers body in the same way a 5 year old has the “right” to his parents house. It is the same right, extended to all minors and disabled persons. It is the right not to be neglected.
Lauren,
I don’t believe that the analogy is “debunked” that easily. There is a difference between being dependent on certain external resources and dependence on one’s actual body. Our rights with respect to external goods like houses, money, and time are weaker than our right to bodily autonomy. The government can take your house for it’s own purposes (with compensation), they can take your time for jury duty, and they take your money every time you make a purchase and then again every year. But the government cannot take your kidney, nor can they legislate your use of it. They cannot force you to donate that kidney to another person, even if you are the only person who matches the individual in need of a transplant. You part with that kidney only with your consent. Similarly, you allow the use of your body by another person in the sexual act only by your consent. The government cannot force you to consent to such use. So why should they be able to force you to donate your uterus? Why should they be able to force you give up your body’s nutrients?
I should note, further, that the government cannot force you to donate your kidney even if the person in need of the transplant is your child. Would it be nice of you to do it? Would it be fitting, given that this is your child? Sure. But whether or not the action is mean, selfish, coldhearted, or not right given the parent-child relationship is irrelevant to it’s legality.
Diana, not giving someone a kidney is completely different than letting a natural process like pregnancy continue.
There’s no surgical procedure required in order to give your baby nutrients during pregnancy. It happens automatically and naturally.
Abortion is a surgical procedure, and it is unnatural and STOPs a natural process..abortion is an action, a process of willfully terminating someone..it is nothing like simply removing life support from someone who is about to die.
.. and it is not comparable to not giving someone an organ, because nutrition and organs are not the same. You have to feed your children as long as they live with you.
Oh please Diana, our government tells us all the time what can and can’t be in our body. Prostitution is a wonderful example of this.
Aside from that, the fact that this necessitates bodily giving entirely misses the point. I’m sure the government could force someone to breast feed if for some reason formula wasn’t availible. If the ONLY choice was breast, and the woman was capable of breastfeeding, you can bet that the mother would be required to provide nurishment for her child.
If the only way a care giver can keep from neglecting their child is through phsyical means, they are required to do so.
Furthermore, the situation in pregnancy is far different than donating a kidney. If the child’s kidney fails, this is outside the general realm of normal development. It goes beyond “not neglect”. The child’s body has failed.
Pregnancy, however is a normal part of development. It easily falls into the catagory of “neglect” if the parent should choose to take away housing and nurishment for the fetus. It would be the same as taking away housing and nurishment for their toddler.
There is much difference between neglecting a child of basic nutriants for growth and not intervening when the child’s body has gone off the natural growth cycle.
Aside from that, the fact that this necessitates bodily giving entirely misses the point. I’m sure the government could force someone to breast feed if for some reason formula wasn’t availible. If the ONLY choice was breast, and the woman was capable of breastfeeding, you can bet that the mother would be required to provide nurishment for her child.
Great point, Lauren.
As I’ve stated in previous posts, any woman who’s health or life is jeopardized by pregnancy need go no further than the nearest hospital where she can safely and legally receive whatever care she needs and every effort will be made to protect her health and life.
An inconvenient fact overlooked by the coat hanger wavers is that prior to Roe, most illegal abortions were done in doctor’s offices, not with coathangers. Another bothersome fact was that the death rate from illegal abortion had been declining steadily and according to the Center for Disease Control, the number of women who died from illegal abortion the year before Roe was 36. According to Dr. Bernard Nathanson a founder of NARAL (another founder was feminist Betty Friedan who, according to another poster, was found with magazines depicting women in bondage), which was then called the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws, was well aware of this, but they still promoted the illegal abortion death rate at 10,000 a year knowing this was a blatant falsehood. Thanks to a compliant and sympathetic media, they could.
PBA was invented to produce a late term abortion resulting in certain death. Prior to this there had been late term abortions resulting in living infants, a most embarassing nuisance. PBA is never necessary, far more safer and humane methods exist to protect the mother and if possible, the baby as well.
Lauren’s point is excellent about children continuing to be “leaches”, a term I don’t particularly like. No newborn or small child cares how exhausted, overworked, sick, or desperate for some time alone a parent or caregiver is in need of. I have seen the same situation with adults who care for elderly parents, or grandparents who must care for children because their own parents cannot. There can be any number of ways for us to be “leached” on.
The lady with the coat hanger needs to get with the times as well. These days its rusty crochet hooks that she should be waving.
Bethany,
Does that woman in the photo on your post have a concealed weapons permit?
She is one scary, well……..
I bet she’d use that thing on any pro-lifer she could, and that with glee.
I know, she wants the instrument of death to be surgical scissors, a suction device, and forceps, and of course injectible poison, the kind that stops the heart. That way it’s a politically correct murder.
Perhaps we could get Hillary, Nancy Pelosi, and Rosiolla, to outlaw coat hangers or how about we just have them outlaw coats?
I think the pro-death movement should use this same woman dressed in physician’s garb with a stethoscope around her neck (to confirm death of course), and all the sanitized instruments of death by abortion in each hand….with a smile.
All children are leaches on their parents resources, finances, housing, privacy, autonomy, and in regrads to nursing mothers-bodies.
Lauren, you can give your kids up for adoption. After birth, you can hand your kid off to the state and he’s not leeching off of you. Can you do the same with a fetus?
Less, Lauren already answered on that point. Go up and see.
Mary, as always, such a well thought out post. You could have written on this topic so much better than I did. :)
Hisman, I can visualize that ad. Very creepy, but very realistic!
Bethany, I’m sorry, I can’t find it.
Aside from that, the fact that this necessitates bodily giving entirely misses the point. I’m sure the government could force someone to breast feed if for some reason formula wasn’t availible. If the ONLY choice was breast, and the woman was capable of breastfeeding, you can bet that the mother would be required to provide nurishment for her child.
Less,
Am I to assume you would have no problem with a full term viable fetus being destroyed while still in the womb? Yes children can be given up for adoption, but what about a disabled spouse or elderly parents in need of care? A planned and wanted child who turns out not to be so perfect, either mentally or physically. As I said, there are any number of situations where great demands can be placed on our bodies, minds, and emotions. And yes, these can have serious physical consequences for us such as stress, exhaustion, great demands on our time, and limiting our personal freedom to name just a few. Is this not leaching?
Does this give us the right to dispose of any such persons in our lives?
Bethany, Thank you.
Bethany and Lauren,
You both seem to be focusing on the difference between natural and unnatural processes. Sex is a natural process, but the government cannot force you to do it. Furthermore, I don’t believe that a process’s being natural versus one’s being unnatural has anything to do with the legality of insisting on or prohibiting that process – nor should you take up this stance if you wish to remain consistent. After all, artificial life support, feeding tubes, etc are unnatural (in nature there are no feeding tubes, there are no ventilators), but you all seem pretty definite in your stance that it violates the rights of someone to discontinue those unnatural procedures. You can’t then turn around and say that the fact that another right procedure is unnatural is a mark against its legality.
And I disagree about breastfeeding. I don’t think that the government would have a right to legally force women to breastfeed if no formula wasn’t available, for the exact same reason that I think the government cannot force you donate a kidney, or blood, or your body for sexual use.
I’m not quite sure I understand your point about neglect, Lauren. You seem to be wanting to say that because parents can be held legally responsible for withholding certain resources from their children, this applies in the cases of pregnancy. But the fact that bodily autonomy is a stronger right than the right to property or time makes this a moot point.
Your statement about breastfeeding, however, has made me think that you are at least being consistent in your views, although I think that to be completely consistent, you would also have to hold that the government can force organ transplants and sexual conduct. I’d like to know, especially given that the difference between natural and unnatural processes is irrelevant to the their legal status, why, say, breastfeeding can be forced but sexual conduct cannot.
I’m assuming that your initial response will be to appeal to the infant’s right to life. Okay. The right to life is also at issue in the organ transplant case, or in the case of donating blood for transfusion as well. And, as I noted earlier, the unnatural character of these procedures is not sufficient. Should you be forced to give your kidney to your child? I have a feeling that you will reply that the loss or damage of a kidney is not a part of normal development. What’s normal development, then? If the baby is hydrocephalic and hence will result in a very difficult birth (or a necessary, and unnatural, C-section) then can you abort? Hydrocephally is not part of normal development, and will require an unnatural procedure to safely end the pregnancy. So it would seem by the standards that you have been setting forth, abortion would be permissible in this case.
The case of sexual conduct is not, of course, the same, but I’m curious, (and I ask this question in a completely non-combative way, just curious about your intuitions about our rights over our bodies) if everyone but a few people became sterile (because of, say, some radioactive disaster), would you say, then, that the government would be able to force them to engage in sex with one another in order to ensure the survival of the species? Or is it only the survival of individuals that overrides the right to bodily autonomy for you?
I know that I’ve read a bit into your posts, Lauren, in an attempt to further the debate. I apologize in advance if I’ve misread you. It was not my intent.
Bethany, that doesn’t address the issue at hand. The reality of the situation is that breast feeding is not required, adoption is completely legal, and a fetus can’t be transferred to another person. When a fetus becomes viable, it can be handed off to another person if the mother does not want it. Until that point, the fetus does leech nutrients from it’s mother.
Mary, are there laws that force spouses to take care of the other spouse, should disability become an issue? No, as care for the spouse can be shifted to a nurse, a home, the spouse’s parents, any number of people. Are there laws that force children to take care of their parents? No, as parents can be put into a home, given nurses, or be taken care of by other children. If a child is born mentally or physically deformed, adoption is an option. There are no other situations where another human is entirely dependent upon another single human, with no possiblity of transference.
Edit: that “right procedure” should read “rights preserving procedure”
Here’s another intuition pump with regard to rights- something that I’ve been curious about for a while. Jehovah’s Witnesses refuse to accept blood transfusions, given certain teachings about blood in their faith. If a pregnant Jehovah’s Witness were to be in a position to lose her baby if she did not accept a blood transfusion, what would you guys say? Does the government have the right to violate her free exercise of religion rights to protect the right to life of the fetus?
Less,
I’m afraid you didn’t answer my question concerning the full term viable baby in the womb.
No, there are no laws forcing us to care for loved ones, however that doesn’t mean situations arise where we don’t have to. I was talking about children who are born healthy, normal, and wanted who may later develop disability due to accident, illness or an undetected genetic defect. Turning someone’s care over to another is not always as simplistic as you make it sound. Facilities may not be available. The person may not want to leave their home, no one else may be available to care for the person. And if this is a person you truly love, it can be a devastating decision to have to make. I’ve seen many people wracked with guilt over placing loved ones in facilities. I’ve seen people angry and bitter over the fact they were removed from their homes. A decision like this can come with a great emotional cost.
Again, do we have the right to dispose of people “leaching” on us by placing demands on us physically, emotionally, and mentally?
One point about full term pregnancy, its one of the best defenses against breast cancer. I don’t know of any other kind of “leech” that offers this kind of protection.
Bethany and Lauren
I think Diana may have a point about government forced breastfeeding. I seriously doubt the government could make a woman do it. The option would best be a wetnurse, a common practice years ago before bottles and formula. My great aunt was one such person, and was often called upon to breastfeed children who’s mothers were unable or unwilling to do so.
Diana,
the concept of autonomy was refuted the other night by a pro-lifer called pisquari, when helping out HisMan. The concept came about that pregnancy was one of the consequences of sexual activity. If a woman engages in sex, she automatically assents to pregnancy. If at a later time she wishes to have her autonomy re-gained, there may be significant consequences.
You like analogies – so, I’ve expanded somewhat the midway concept. The analogy goes … you’ve bought a ticket for a midway ride [had sex … pregnancy is certainly different than sex … but you’ve entered into a contract (of sorts). Pregnancy is not the result of every sexual relationship, but being pregnant HAS TO HAVE some sexual activity or be an IVF conception. The growing child is only following its biological necessity to remain alive because it did not intend (higher mental function than it has) to implant and stay. In a bio-chemical way the womb is a welcoming site!]
You give the ticket to the operator of the ride. [the time frame between the sex act and confirmed pregnancy is 5-6 weeks] The ticket is not special, so he follows the routine and locks-you-into-place with a ‘safety-harness’. Once the ride starts you need extraordinary manipulation [abortion] to ‘jump out’ [reassert body autonomy]. Such re-assertion (at this time) is not natural and may even be harmful.
The emotional response of learning about pregnancy can border on panic. So is abortion a return to pre-sex days (history) or, is it a response to panic (present)? Because the natural thing is to wait until the end of the midway ride … the responsible-normal thing is to wait until the pegnancy ends/birth.
There are also other parallels between the two like a propensity to vomit.
1) I’m getting sick of His Man and his comments.
2) I don’t care if “partial birth abortion” (or, if you want to use the medical term, D&X) is banned as long as there is a health exception.
3) I still think there is no chance in hell that banning all abortions will happen.
4) I still believe we’re better off giving kids a better sex education (which means, abstinence AND contraceptive methods) and providing more support for single teen mothers to lower abortion rates.
Hi John!
“the concept of autonomy was refuted the other night by a pro-lifer called pisquari, when helping out HisMan. The concept came about that pregnancy was one of the consequences of sexual activity. If a woman engages in sex, she automatically assents to pregnancy. If at a later time she wishes to have her autonomy re-gained, there may be significant consequences.”
I’m afraid I don’t see a refutation here at all. First of all, if you remember our previous conversations, I do not believe that sex = consent to pregnancy, in much the same way that getting into a car and driving really fast (which is very likely to cause an accident) still does not mean that you consented to the accident, despite the fact that you may have known that you were running a very high risk of getting into an accident.
Second of all, even if we assume that sex is consent to allow the fetus to use the woman’s body, consent to use of one’s body can be withdrawn at any time. If, in mid-coitus, a woman withdraws consent to sex, her partner’s continuing the act would be rape. Plain and simple. To say that once consent is given to permit use of one’s body it can not be withdrawn would be tantamount to claiming that a man or woman, once having consented to sex, cannot for any reason withdraw that consent. That, I’m afraid, is an untenable position.
As for your midway analogy, I still don’t see how you don’t have the right to jump off the ride. It’s your life! Sure, it may be crazy, it may be stupid. But crazy or stupid are not sufficient reasons for making something illegal.
Mary, if you’ve waited that long to have an abortion, it would be much simplier to do a c-section and place the baby up for adoption.
I do believe that if someone is leeching off of you and there is absolutely no possible way to transfer said leech onto another person, than it is perfectly acceptable to dispose of the leech. For example, the cases of conjoined twins: if one doesn’t form correctly and is leeching blood from/using the organs of the correctly formed twin, doctors will often seperate the twins anyway, despite the risk of death to one twin. I believe that to be perfectly acceptable.
I understand that the choice can be difficult. But I will always stand by the fact that this is the individual’s decision to make.
Oh, and John, I agree that the normal thing to do is stay on the ride. And with the case of the ride, the responsible thing to do is to stay on )(unless you are dead set on committing suicide). But abortion is not suicidal, and while I may think that it is mean, or selfish, and that carrying the fetus to term is the nice thing to do, that is not sufficient reason to force a woman to do it. Nor do I think that all cases of abortion are irresponsible.
Diana,
If pregnancy is not a natural process what in heaven’s name is?
And sex, that’s real natural and the government does have a say in that. It’s illegal for an adult to have sex with a minor. So the government does have a say in our sex lives or do you support sexual molestation and pedophilia? It is also AGAINST the LAW for a man to rape a woman and a woman to rape a man. There are whole police departments in most cities that are dedicated to forcing you to have sex in only approved ways, not based on natural v. unnatural, but wrong v. right.
Excuse me, to withold food or any other life need from someone, independent of the delivery method, is wrong. The need justifies the action not the method by which the need is fulfilled.
If a person is alive and that includes a human in the womb, and the method exists to support that life, be in natual or unnatural, any witholding of it application (including its unnatural interruption) is immoral.
So, I guess I agree with you that making something legal or illegal based on whether it is natural or unnatural has nothing to do with legality. Where we diverge off the straight and narrow is in your insistence that moralilty not play a role in making something legal or not legal. Is it legal to steal that unnatural TV set from your living room or those 100% natural tree hugger Quaker Oats sawdust bars in your pantry?
For that is the fundamental argument.
Got to admire you for trying to deconstruct about 4,000 years of legal code though.
“I do not believe that sex = consent to pregnancy, in much the same way that getting into a car and driving really fast (which is very likely to cause an accident) still does not mean that you consented to the accident”
If you get in a car and drive really fast, you didn’t consent to the accident, but guess what, you still got in one. So why should the person you hit be the one that is responsible even though you were the one at fault?
“If, in mid-coitus, a woman withdraws consent to sex, her partner’s continuing the act would be rape.”
Can you cite a case that has been upheld on appeal that in the middle of a consensual sexual act one party can refuse, and now, viola, rape.
Less,
Can you have a little more respect for the 50,000,000 murder babies killed in our country over the last 34 years by not calling them leeches?
By the way, were you a Leech before you were a Less?
Hi Diana,
As for your midway analogy, I still don’t see how you don’t have the right to jump off the ride. It’s your life! Sure, it may be crazy, it may be stupid. But crazy or stupid are not sufficient reasons for making something illegal.
Sure hope you can tell that to the judge after running a red-light or driving while drunk + many more! Ever yell ‘FIRE’ in a theatre?
Most importantly here pregnancy is only attained via sex … your wanting-so’/not-wanting-so is a fact of the power of will. It has very little power over physical actuality … it would be pretending to be fine with playing on the white line of a highway. You cannot get onto any midway ride without a safety harness, a person would need perform some extraordinary moves to negate safety features.
Its almost like you are arguing that the woman and her womb are different beings. She’s not pregnant – just empty her womb!
HisMan
“100% natural tree hugger Quaker Oats sawdust bars ”
I have been drinking tea all day and you almost made me wet myself with that one.
And I didn’t consent to wetting myself.
Hi Less,
“There are no other situations where another human is entirely dependent upon another single human, with no possiblity of transference.”
very, very true …. but is this ‘bad’ or does it spell of the uniqueness of the mother-child bond. Isn’t this bond absolutely essential in the times when kids are NOT adorable … like when they are sick; or, their nose has a zit?
Abortion does not return a woman to pre-pregnancy days. It means she has killed her baby within = she is now Mom to a dead child.
Valerie,
and I ain’t cleanin’ it up. You made the mess. You clean it up.
Oh, Hey, that sounds like a pro-life argument!
mk
Diana,
When I came here over a month ago you were arguin’ the kidney thing then.
I know that in your mind in is an impenetrable argument.
But you are starting from a different premise.
One, you do not believe that sex leads to pregnancy.
Two, you do not believe that people need to take responsibility for their actions.
Three, you do not think babies have the same rights as adult women.
So no matter how many times you come here and throw the same old kidney thing at us, you never gonna get anywhere because;
One, We believe that sex leads to pregnancy.
Two, we believe that people should take responsibility for their actions and
Three, we believe that babies have the same rights as adult women.
If you were the one that caused the man’s kidney to fail, (possibly by driving too fast in your car?) then you would be responsible for paying his medical bill.
But as far as I can see, not only is your kidney argument old and tired, it is also wrong.
PLEASE,
come up with a new one?
mk
Valerie,
This abusive father, woman hating, anti-pro-deather does have a warped sense of humor.
How can one not when you’re dealing with the illogical arguments posted on this site by them?
“Being fools they profess to be wise”…..
Glad I made you laugh.
I don’t know how Jill does it, we need to faithfully support her, if not just make her laugh.
Stephanie:
OK, becasue you think I have cooties I’ll stop.
I’m totally destroyed by your dislike of me and my sense of self-hood has been thoroughly put into question by what you think of me.
I have no deep seated values and yes I now consent to the murder of even more innocent babies in the womb because, Stephanie has spoken from on high. Steph-does-not-like-me. Powerful!
Do you treat all of your wimp men friends like that or perhaps you use sex to control them? For your sake, I hope your pretty.
As my beloved MK would say, Phooey!
Less,
You are the one who says an unborn child is a “leech” and as such can be disposed of at will by the woman so long as it is inside her body. The full term viable fetus, 8-9months, (and even now 7 month fetuses are surviving, my nephew included) is no less dependent on the body of the woman than is the 2 month fetus. So long as she destroys the baby while it is still inside her, there’s no problem, right?
You state: If someone is leeching off of you and there is absolutely no way to transfer said leech onto another person, then it is perfectly acceptable to dispose of the leech. Am I to assume you would support disposing of elderly parents, a disabled spouse, or a severely autistic child because a facility or other persons cannot be found to care for them?
I agree that it is perfectly acceptable when doctors must decide to spare one twin or lose both. This also occurs in non-conjoined twins in the womb. One can only imagine what agonizing decisions these are for parents and doctors.
Stephanie,
The PBA is never necessary for the health of the mother. Please refer my above post. The “health” exception has been used to justify the use of PBA. The vast majority of mothers and babies aborted by PBA have been perfectly healthy and normal.
As I stated in my previous posts, if there is ever a health issue for a pregnant woman, she should be placed in the care of specialists and she can get whatever care she needs, legally and safely, at the nearest hospital. If she must be aborted, or a premature delivery is necessary to preserve her health or save her life, the hospital has every right to do so. I don’t know about you Stephanie, but I would feel far more secure in a hospital with trained and licensed staff to provide my care and who are able to handle any emergency.
John, she’s actually be the mother of a dead fetus, if you want to get technical. And you do bring up a good point: when a child is wanted, I’m sure that the bond, the absolutely unique bond, is incredible. I can’t speak from first-hand knowledge, but my sisters-in-law certainly described it that way. But I’m just as sure that, when the bond is not desired, that uniqueness is terrible. Just because it’s natural doesn’t mean that it is desireable: war, to some extent, is natural: does that make it desirable?
Though I do have to say, John, that my boyfriend never tugs at what little maternal instincts I have more than when he’s all sickly. :)
Mary, a viable fetus is less dependent upon the body of the woman than a non-viable fetus. You can preform a c-section and put the baby up for adoption: can you do that to a three week old fetus?
The difference between an autistic child or one’s elderly’s parents is the fact that you are able to put these individuals in the care of someone else. Heck, you could drop them off at the local mall and the individual would revert to state cusotdy if no one came forward. A fetus cannot be given to anyone else until viability.
John,
Less has probably never been in an F18, trying to land on a carrier deck in a Noreaster, at night. The pilot and navigator are practically joined at the hip in those moments. Transference? I guess they could eject and both take an equal risk of being killed.
Or, stuck in a Vietnam jungle hell-hole, with your bud, surrounded by VC, 110F, 100RH, bugs as big at your arm crawling up your leg as you hold your lips together for fear of screaming and revealing your position. Possiblity of transferrence? You bet, to the next life?
What as asinine concept. What cowards.
Yeah His Man, and you are so terribly brave sitting behind your computer complaining about horrible pro-choicers are and how evil and cowardly we are.
Thanks, I’m sure we all appreciate your wisdom.
And you, HisMan, have never been female.
You’ve never been walking home from a late-night class in sweatpants and a tee-shirt, fumbling for the keys in your purse, when someone grabs you from behind. A masculine hand puts a gun to your temple while it’s partner roams your side. Suddenly, you find yourself on the ground, a heavy shadow on top of you, and no one about to help.
Then a month later, you discover that the seed from that attack has sprouted something inside you.
You’ve never been 19 and in school, curled in the arms of a man you love. Then a month later you discover that the condom ripped and the pill failed and something has latched on to your insides. You’re in college, no insurance: you’re incinvible, why would you need it? You have dreams, a life, that you’ve planned.
You’re trying to legislate something that you have NO concept of. You might have kids, but you didn’t birth them. Nothing came out of your non-existant birth canal. You didn’t carry them for nine months. Once the kids were born, sure, you helped out. But until then? When it comes down to it, all you did was donate some sperm.
HisMan,
Your claims have completely missed the point of the argument. I’m afraid I don’t have the time to explain it to you. On a side note, though, if you had actually read my post, you would know that I never said that pregnancy is unnatural. And, on a side note. I’m not a liberal, nor do I really like health foods. Perhaps you take some time to learn about people before jumping to conclusions.
John,
The difference between running a red light jumping off the ride is that you unjustifiably threaten the rights of others. If you are claiming that jumping off the ride would threaten the rest of the riders, then you are correct, there would be laws against it, since this individual is unjustifiably violating the rights of others. In the case of abortion, however, the argument is that the the mother’s right supercede the fetus’ rights (and this is on the assumption that the fetus has the same rights as a person), and thus the violation of rights is justifiable.
Valerie,
“If you get in a car and drive really fast, you didn’t consent to the accident, but guess what, you still got in one. So why should the person you hit be the one that is responsible even though you were the one at fault?”
All I needed from you was to assent to the fact that you didn’t consent to the accident. That your action, despite the fact that you knew it was likely to lead to a certain consequence was not consent to that consequence. And of course you don’t hold the person you hit responsible. But I don’t see how holding them responsible would be in any way analogous to an abortion.
I will search for a site for you, but to be honest, I am completely shocked that you would even suggest that a situation in which a woman orginally consents to sex and then changes her mind in the middle of the act, is screaming “No! Stop! Please Stop! Get off me!” but her partner continues pounding away is not a case of rape. I’m seriously in awe. Are you perhaps one of those people who thinks that marital rape does not exist? That once a woman is married she has consented to the sexual act with her husband after that? Honestly, the two seem equally abhorrent to me, so I’m just curious.
Valerie: It’s from Ireland, but here’s a case of marial rape.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/1120/rape.html
Less,
Yes, and I’d put a rapist in the same class as an abortionist. At least the woman could fight back, a baby in the womb has no such luxury. Perhaps you can imagine what a baby being aborted might go through in the womb, no language to even understand what they were feeling, no one to hear, just pain, bewilderment, loneliness, abandonment. Their angels see the face of God though and they wake up from the nightmare of abortion in the arms of Everlasting One, never to remember the pain.
Perhaps I’d should be blogging on rape, however, I don’t think there are too many pro-rape sites around to blog on adn I don;t see a Planned Rapist center in my local Yellow Pages either. Someone ever hurts my daughter like you described would wish he would have been aborted.
However, the baby that sprung from that tragedy, well, as I have said before, she would have the baby, and if need be I would raise it, love it, support it, and would welcome that baby into my family. Not easy, but that’s what would happen in my world. My daughter would draw from that strength and be healed.
Yes, I was 19, and there was no condom, and yes I cowardly thought of telling her to get an abortion when she was late. If I were a man then and really loved that girl, I wouldn’t have used her like that. I wouldn’t have put her into that situation. I can’t believe you’ve betrayed your womanhood to not be able to agree with me. Are you that jaded? Love, it’s not found in a sexual encounter.
The birth canal, can’t argue with you there. No, I’ve just spent 30 years of my life, sacrificing myself and what I wanted for all 5 of those beautiful gifts from God. I’d do it again, and again, and again, forever, and ever, and ever. If you knew my kids you would see what a blessed man I am…by His grace. Besides, God never gives us any more than we can handle and I’m sure that’s why He didn’t create me as a female.
So, stop selling yourself short by believing the lies of the abortion industry. You are fearfully and wonderfully made and God can redeem any past. His blood is that powerful.
MK,
“When I came here over a month ago you were arguin’ the kidney thing then.I know that in your mind in is an impenetrable argument.”
By “kidney thing”, I assume you mean the variety of cases put forward to indicate that your right to bodily autonomy outweighs another persons right to life. I’ve not seen a decent refutation of any of these cases yet, or even a worthy challenge.
“One, you do not believe that sex leads to pregnancy.”
MK, I’m not stupid. I know very well that sex leads to pregnancy. If I believed to the contrary I wouldn’t be a terrible sinner on hormonal birth control.
“Two, you do not believe that people need to take responsibility for their actions.”
I never said that people do not need to take responsibility for their actions. But responsibility is not the issue. Bodily autonomy is. You want to punish women for having sex by binding them to something that they did not consent to in having sex. By insisting that their rights are violated because they were the cause of their situation. So why not tell the smoker to take responsibility for his actions, why use unnatural procedures to keep him alive? Or why not tell the obese person to take responsibility? You ate the hamburger, so why should we give you life saving surgery. You’re in the position that you’re in because of your own actions, so your rights can be violated. Doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me.
“Three, you do not think babies have the same rights as adult women.”
I do not think that embryos have the same rights as adult women or men. I’m tempted to conclude that second semester fetii do have the same rights as adult women. But if you had been paying any attention to my argument at all, it ASSUMES that fetii have the same exact rights as any other adult human.
“So no matter how many times you come here and throw the same old kidney thing at us, you never gonna get anywhere because;
One, We believe that sex leads to pregnancy.
Two, we believe that people should take responsibility for their actions and
Three, we believe that babies have the same rights as adult women.”
Guess what, MK, I can believe all three of these things and my argument goes through. You know why? Because all three are completely irrelevant to whether or not the right of bodily autonomy of one person supercedes the right to life of another person (note “PERSON”).
“If you were the one that caused the man’s kidney to fail, (possibly by driving too fast in your car?) then you would be responsible for paying his medical bill.”
Indeed, I would be responsible for paying his medical bill. But even if I caused the accident that resulted in his kidney failure, AND I was the only person in the world who could donate a kidney to him, the government still couldn’t force me to do it. So, apparently, one’s responsibility for a situation has no bearing on one’s right to autonomy in cases such as these.
“But as far as I can see, not only is your kidney argument old and tired, it is also wrong.
PLEASE,
come up with a new one?”
PLEASE, MK, show me how it is wrong. As I’ve said, as yet I’ve seen no one who has demonstrated it to be incorrect. As far as I can tell, it is a sound argument (the conclusion follows from the premises and the premises are true). I therefore see no need to use a different argument when this one works.
However, I could say similar things to you. The typical argument used around here is:
Premise (1): Killing an innocent person is murder
Premise (2) Abortion is the killing of an innocent person
Subconclusion (3): Abortion is murder (from 1 and 2)
Premise (4): Murder should be illegal
Conclusion: Abortion should be illegal (from 3 and 4)
But premise (1) is false on its face (lots of killing of innocent people is not considered murder), and premise (2) is highly, highly contentious, and I’ve not yet seen an argument in favor of premise two that is not religiously based. And a religiously based premises are not sufficient for making secular law. And since, last time I checked, this was a secular democratic republic, and not a theocracy (I know, much to your chagrin), we are governed by secular law.
So how ’bout you come up with a new argument before complaining about my use of one that no one has leveled any interesting challeges to? Mmmkay?
Hi Less,
got into this a few weeks back with Diana – the term ‘fetus’ is a medical term that designates age, but it is a term that is not species specific. The word ‘neonate’ is also used as the descriptive word for a being of post-birth age. Neither word in used appropriately for the human species. After birth the word ‘infant’ is most-often used. And (to me) the word ‘baby’ is quite acceptable as the word for a pre-born human.
Much to often the word ‘fetus’ becomes interchangeable with ‘it’ … and in some people administer undeserved sinister characteristics. This happens with rape … the baby implanted is not there by choosing. So will abortion be an additional trauma? If however, her baby goes to term, the mother knows up-front she did everything possible.
The other thing that you bring up is that somehow mothering is a cakewalk next to a profession. Nothing, and I mean nothing could be farther from reality. My Mom taught school for years, but she likely grew more as a human being with her family than her class. In the latter she transferred her expertise, in the former group her total being was involved.
HisMan, fetii don’t feel pain until 23ish weeks. I can show you study after study after study that shows as much. There’s no pain to remember. Fetii aren’t advanced enough to feel any “bewilderment, loneliness, abandonment.”
So you’re willing to tell your daughter whether or not she should have a child? That’s my point. You’re telling people to do something you yourself cannot do. You will never understand what it’s like to spend nine months pregnant, to birth a baby, to know the terror of an unplanned pregnancy. That are no circumstances even similar.
I believe that love can be found in sex. I don’t see it as “betraying my womanhood” to believe that sex is an important part of a romantic relationship. You might have been 19 when a condom broke, but were you the one facing the choice? Were you the one who had to face nine months of glances towards her left hand, then dirty looks? Nope?
That’s great that you love your kids, but you didn’t birth them. Would you force other females to give birth, despite having never done it yourself?
Diana,
I really try to learn about people but when all they show me is their dark side I can only ask myself, ah iniquity, who can understand?
Why is it that when an abortionist is hit in the face with the truth they just run away? I’m not joking, it’s a pattern.
Ok, you’re not a liberal? Let’s see your a pro-choice conservative? You voted for all those pro-choice Republicans, all 2 of them? You can’t fool me. I traveled extensively with a gubernatorial candiate last year and a Pro-choice Republican is about as close to an oxymoron as you can get. You know, like calling Al Sharpton reverend.
C’mon, you like Arnold, that fake, presidential-hopeful-but-can’t-run-because-I’m-a-Nazi-pro-deather? Don’t tell me you live in the fruit and nut state, do you? You like Sushi, too? There’s mercury in that stuff and I understand it affects the brain.
OK, it’s Rudy right? The haven’t-gotta-chance- in-hell-Italian-wish-I-were-a-Kennedy-so-I’ll- play-both-sides-of-the-fence-and-see-what-happens guy? He gives new meaning to the words flaky crust.
His Man: Quit making assumptions about people. It’s incredibly annoying.
Sushi is delicious though. :) You should try it sometime…but then again, it’s raw and from Japan…which is a nation full of godless satanic heathens.
John, believe me, I don’t think motherhood is a cakewalk. I never said that, and I certainly don’t think that.
will abortion be an additional trauma? If however, her baby goes to term, the mother knows up-front she did everything possible.
Don’t you think it’s the mother’s perogative to judge whether or not abortion would be an additional trauma? How do you know that carrying the child to term wouldn’t be an aditional trauma?
HisMan, Sushi doesn’t have mercury if it’s prepared right. It’s quite delicious.
Could be wrong, but I’m pretty sure not ALL sushi has seafood in it. I could be wrong, though.
I had a cucumber/cream cheese piece, myself.
Yeah, there are vegetarian sushi…often made with avacado or asparagus or cucumber and what not. Quite tasty.
“Quite tasty.”
It took a bit to get used to the texture and whatnot. I don’t like fish or seafood, so I usually end up eating the vegetarian options.
No, you’re right, Heather. There’s avacado rolls, there’s dikon (radish) rolls, and there’s cucumber/cream cheese rolls. I heart salmon and avacodo rolls, myself.
Salmon rolls are delicious. I’m also partial to shrimp tempura rolls and salmon nigiri. It’s sooo good. Frak, I’m really hungry for sushi now but there is no sushi by my dorm.
*is sad*
I (heart) avocado. Soooo good.
There’s a Japanese restaurant in town with excellent sushi (from what I’ve heard), but they’re really expensive. Darren and I were going to go there for our one-year anniversary, but couldn’t afford it.
Oh, and lest I seem obsessed with sushi, the only reason I know all of that is because my fiance is part Japanese, and so we make sushi quite frequently.
Less,
And that word fetii, it’s so trendy, so cool, so ice cold. Kind of like Fendi. Perhaps you pro-deathers can perfume some embryonic stem cells from aborted fetii and sell bottles of it as “Eterntii, essence of the Fetii”? What do you think?
What you say only means they can’t measure or quantify what a baby feels because the technology doesn’t exist to do so. Are you gonna crap your pants and change to a pro-lifer when it can someday be measured, or just look for more lies and excuses to back up your hatred of babies in the womb? That’s not sound scientific practice you know. Ever heard of nano-technology? If not, buy some stock in select companies. You’ll be rich in 20 years.
Can I see your thoughts or the manifestation of those thoughts? Well, if yor words are any indication of the presence of thought, you may be on to something. Perhaps fetii can’t thinky tinky either.
Those little spermatozas look pretty excited to me. Gotta be something going on. It’s a baby for God’s sake!
HisMan,
My dark side? I don’t know if I have another side than the one I show here (perhaps one that is less pedantic, but when I get frustrated with certain things, I get pedantic. I apologize for that). I guess I must just be pure evil.
I have no idea why you assume that I am some damsel of iniquity. I am pro-choice, I engage in pre-marital sex and use birth control, and I’m an atheist. So I guess I’m Satan’s b%&#*. Too bad I see Satan as nothing more than an interesting myth. But I’m also well educated. I love to teach, to spark the desire for knowledge in as many students as I can, and I live my life in search of truth. I’m generous, industrious, honest; I’m a good friend, and a loving daughter. I’ve worked in numerous programs whose sole goal was helping other people (actually left water and cellphones in the Mexican desert to prevent needless deaths – but I guess that makes me evil too, letting those terrible Mexicans get into your precious country – just remember, they’re mainly Catholic. Be nice!). I certainly have my faults, but there is no need to paint me or any of the other pro-choice women here as queens of the damned.
And no, his man. The choice is not liberal or conservative, democrat or republican. I’m a registered libertarian, although I don’t espouse absolutely everything about the libertarian platform. Really, my registration with the party is more of an expression of my distaste for the two party system. In fact, I believe that complete attachment to any ideology reveals only dogmatism and not reason.
I don’t particularly like any of the candidates on offer this year (or any other year, for that matter). They all want to take your money and your rights, they just want to take different rights and desire to use your money for different, usually self-serving purposes. As every other presidential election I’ve voted in (all two) it will be a choice of the lesser of many evils.
Just a thought, and I’m not trying to debate anything, so please don’t jump all over me.
But….
Until a certain stage in development, a human fetus is quite similar to that of a feline fetus, among other creatures.
And they all have pharyngeal slits.
I just think it’s interesting is all.
Actually, HisMan, if the day comes where that technology exists, I would really hope that some way to make abortions no longer needed (artificial wombs?) would have happened first. If, of couse, fetii do feel pain by that time: I sincerely doubt it.
You can see manifestations of thought in art, in words, in body language, in facial expression. Not sure where else you’re going with that.
Oh, and the word fetii? I like it because it has the double ‘i’s.
Rae,
I love Sashimi actually and all kinds of California roll. And Wasabi, whoa, that’s like sex without risk of pregnancy.
My first son loves seafood and all of the other kid call it…debilfood.
Gotta go.
Okay, food for thought for all you sushi nuts out there…
You know why, according to legend, wasabi is eaten with sashimi? Because it has antiseptic properties, and will kill any nasty sorts of bacteria or parasites in the fish.
There’s even an urban legend that talks about a guy who ate sushi every day without wasabi, and his scalp started itching. He just couldn’t figure out why, and so he finally went to the doctor. They did a scan and couldn’t see anything, did a biopsy and something came up strange. So they went into his scalp. They found an entire nest of worms dug into his scalp skin, proportedly from the sushi.
Now, I don’t believe this, but I regularly have wasabi eating contests and usually win, so…I won’t be getting worms either way. :P
Ew.
Worms? Gross.
Less,
I know abortion causes additional trauma because all abortion procedures involve the use of zinc to heal any wounds … burns or lacerations.
Ask yourself: Is not having the option-to-kill an invitation to do just that? What kind of self-image does a person have if they harbour the option of killing their own child?
John, provide some documentation of that please?
And I’m obviously pro-choice, and funny, my self-image is quite fine. : )
You know, my mother’s had an abortion. She’s the strongest, most self-confident woman I know, and she’s a single mother to top it all off.
Less,
A viable fetus or a non-viable fetus still in the womb is totally dependent on the mother for nutrition, oxygen, and protection. So the viable fetus is no less a “leech” (your words not mine) than the non-viable one. Using your rationale on “leeches” a woman should have as much right to destroy a full term baby so long as it is still inside her as she has to destroy a two month fetus.
About the autistic child and the elderly parents. Yes, you could drop them at the mall, but that is a bit extreme and cruel don’t you think? Heck you could arrange to have someone knock them off. Since they’re “leeches” I suppose that would be an acceptable alternative as well. You can name any number of scenarios but I seriously doubt the vast majority of people are going to resort to these means. Also, abandoning a child, especially an autistic one not only endangers him/her, but could get you thrown in the slammer for child endangerment.
I suppose if the state took over the “leeches” left in the mall, then the state would have the right to dispose of them, correct?
Mary, you’re missing the point. A viable fetus is not totally dependent upon the mother: a c-section would remove the fetus and the fetus would survive. A non-viable fetus would die should the same action be taken.
Would people fault you, though, for legitmately not being able to care for elderly parents or an autistic child? There are ways to terminate the “leeching.” With a fetus, the only way to terminiate the leeching without waiting nine monthsis via abortion.
Diana,
“Premise (1): Killing an innocent person is murder
Premise (2) Abortion is the killing of an innocent person
Subconclusion (3): Abortion is murder (from 1 and 2)
Premise (4): Murder should be illegal
Conclusion: Abortion should be illegal (from 3 and 4)
But premise (1) is false on its face (lots of killing of innocent people is not considered murder), and premise (2) is highly, highly contentious, and I’ve not yet seen an argument in favor of premise two that is not religiously based. And a religiously based premises are not sufficient for making secular law. And since, last time I checked, this was a secular democratic republic, and not a theocracy (I know, much to your chagrin), we are governed by secular law.”
you seem to have fallen for the oldest ploy in debate: set up a false premise – then refute the faulty premise (that you set up). In premise (1) No one said: that killing an innocent person was murder … even in law there are numerous instances of manslaughter, accident and victims-of-war, besides those who succumb to disease, and malfeasance, etc
your premise #2 is false because the acceptance of the term to describe the initial stages of human life … you call this a fetal-stage and so it rightly is medically designated. But the word is not species-specific, but time specific, and could as easily be designated as ‘baby’ for the human species. The concept of murder comes about because of the targeting of a baby (who is living) for destruction. {A destruction so complete that the baby’s life is terminated).
[Please indicate where religion is brought to bear in this argument.]
Diana,
I tool am highly eduated, PE, MTH, doctoral candidate, but I consider all those things as rubbish compared to the superiority of knowing Jesus Christ my Lord.
Being highly educated does not reflect wisdom which is the correct application of knowledge. Since you choose, by your own admission to deny God, His word says this about you, “A fool says in his heart there is no God”.
If you were truly wise, you would hold the Lord in awesome reversnce as the word says, “the beginning of wisdom is the fear of the Lord”.
It does not surpise me that you’re compassion is mispalced since, if you were wise, you would understand that leaving cell phones and water in the desert actually encourages more illegals to enter the hot desert and die. So, while it makes you feel good, and that’s no virtue, it is consistent with your other ideas of misplaced compassion, i.e., killing a baby in the womb as if that were a good thing for the mother.
I’ve been on zilllons of mission trips to Mexico building houses for poor people while teaching my family that happiness is not found in wealth or pre-occupation with self. The primary emphasis is to love the poor and share the Gospel of Jesus Christ with them so they will be saved eternally from a really hot place, hell, no Verizon, no Evian there, ever, no way out. Guess you could refuse to believe that and replace that nagging sense that you’ve got to make a difference, but alas, the emptiness remains. You don’t fool me. Your life is as hollow as your posts.
You say you’re honest. The Bible says that if we seek Him we will find Him; the Way, the Truth and the Life. If you’re honest you’re only end will be to find Him. Hope you do.
If we sow to destruction we reap death, if we sow to righteousness we reap life everlasting.
Less,
the zinc connection is in the text ‘Zinc and Copper in Medicine’ eds Sarper & Karciaglu
and the assessment of self-image is not only about strength (Heather) but includes humility, self-abasement and several other characteristics … the least one is self-comfort …. ‘me’ as victim … the old poor-me ploy or, ‘woe to me’.
John, if that’s how you see self-image, that’s great. As the usual definition, however, is about how one sees one’s self, I’ll continue to go with that.
I’m not willing to abase myself for the sake of others, as I value myself too highly for that. I do not see humility as a virtue. I’m comfortable with myself, and very happy with myself, however, so I’ll stick with that.
Less,
Yes babies have two eyes.
Diana (and Less) –
Let’s get this straight. I’m in bed with a man. Our clothes come off. I allow him to penetrate me. Then in the middle, although I agreed when all this started, I can yell stop and if he doesn’t stop it’s rape. And then, all of a sudden, without warning, I believe in marital rape.
and as for the car scenerio. Why wouldn’t you hold the other driver responsible? To put it back to its original source. You have sex, knowing it could cause pregnancy. You get pregnant and you hold the baby responsible for this pregnancy. Call it a leech, or was it parasite, and get rid of it.
huh?
I do not and have never said that I believe in marital rape. What I am saying is that you (Diana) said “If, in mid-coitus, a woman withdraws consent to sex, her partner’s continuing the act would be rape”
Coitus – : physical union of male and female genitalia accompanied by rhythmic movements : SEXUAL INTERCOURSE 1 — compare ORGASM
So, in the middle (“mid”) of Coitus (sexual intercourse) you say that a woman can say no and if the man doesn’t stop then it is rape. Even though consent was given when all this started.
Rape – 1 : an act or instance of robbing or despoiling or carrying away a person by force
2 : unlawful sexual activity and usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly or under threat of injury against the will usually of a female or with a person who is beneath a certain age or incapable of valid consent — compare SEXUAL ASSAULT, STATUTORY RAPE
3 : an outrageous violation
I just don’t think the definition fits here.
That is why I asked for some verification of this. It is not because I believe in marital rape. Give me a break!
um…something very weird happened to my post…
Hopufully you can get what I was saying. I must have hit a wrong button or something and everything got in the wrong spot…
sorry!
Less –
“There’s even an urban legend that talks about a guy who ate sushi every day without wasabi, and his scalp started itching. He just couldn’t figure out why, and so he finally went to the doctor. They did a scan and couldn’t see anything, did a biopsy and something came up strange. So they went into his scalp. They found an entire nest of worms dug into his scalp skin, proportedly from the sushi.”
It’s actually not an urban legend. I saw the pictures. (EWWW!) I’m going to get my husband to try and find it again. It was on a medical website and the ‘news of the weird’ did a report on it.
If I find it, I will put a huge waring so people know what the link it….
Heather –
“Until a certain stage in development, a human fetus is quite similar to that of a feline fetus, among other creatures.
And they all have pharyngeal slits.
I just think it’s interesting is all.”
I think all mammals have that, don’t they? It is interesting…
See! That’s why wasabi is a GOOD thing!
Valerie, I do have to clarify something about your post, however.
Say my boyfriend and I are having sex. In the middle, I decide that this isn’t something I want to do, for whatever reason. I tell him to stop, to get off, and he won’t. He refuses.
Is this rape, or isn’t it?
Rae –
I ordered from Amazon. It should be in 3 – 4 business days I will get the CD.
I wonder how weird it is that in the same order I have The Backyardigans (preschool type kid show) CD and DVD’s ordered too…
;-)
“I think all mammals have that, don’t they? It is interesting…”
I’m actually not sure if it’s a common feature of all mammals or not. I could look up the information, but search engines aren’t quite my strength and I seem to have misplaced my biology book. I just remember it using felines as an example.
Less –
That is why I asked for verification. I would like to know too.
In my opinion. No it is not rape. If I was having sex with a man and I was on top, I don’t know if I could stop if he told me to.
It’s the whole responsiblity thing. You have to take responsibility for allowing it to start in the first place.
Now – another scenerio. A woman and man is making out, she is very hesitant, doesn’t really want her clothes off, but kinda, sorta allows it. Then he gets on top, and she is all tense and isn’t really showing any action in her body. And then doesn’t say stop until after penitration. Well…that is probablly rape. He should have known how uncomfortable she was and asked if she really wanted to. I mean, your very close to each other and can sense body language very easily.
But this didn’t seem like the scenerio that was originally stated.
Okay, that’s where we disagree. I’ve been on top and I’ve had that happened and I’ve stopped. It isn’t that difficult: it’s called self control, and caring for your partner. Should a man do that to me, I would see it as rape and treat him as a rapist.
Valerie: Ha, that’s awesome. I think you’ll reallly like that CD, it’s really good.
I bought a few t-shirts online today…one was a picture of Darth Vader sculpting a topiary of the Death Star from “Star Wars”. Another one I bought a few days ago says, “I should be in the kitchen”…a little tongue-in-cheek humor there. :)
Less,
I’m afraid you miss the point. So long as the fetus is inside the mother it is totally dependent on her for survival. I’m not talking about if the fetus will survive outside the womb, I am talking about when it is in the womb,period. Also, viability can vary. What the fetus does outside the womb does not change the fact that while in the womb it is totally dependent, in your words, a “leech”.
If the mother decides she does not want to go through a normal delivery or c-section, or she just decides she no longer wants to be pregnant, or decides she does not want to have the baby, then using your rationale it would be acceptable for her to kill the baby as long as it was still IN the womb, at any time during her pregnancy, since we have the right to dispose of “leeches”.
I’m sure no one would fault me for being unable to care for a loved one, and I would most certainly never fault anyone else. But I’m sure we would all agree that we would place our loved ones in the most humane and caring situation possible, as friends and family of mine have done. That’s not to say it wouldn’t be a very difficult and painful decision for all involved. Or that our lives will automatically return to normal. Being free of someone’s physical care does not free us emotionally. A very gifted and beautiful young woman in our community was left severely brain damaged and in a nursing home after being hit by a drunk driver. She died 11 years later. Her mother, unable to care for her at home, visited her daily at the nursing home. Was this woman free of the emotional anguish and physical strain because her daughter was in a nursing home? Could this mother and her family live normally, take vacations and really enjoy life? As a parent, I can’t fathom what this woman and her family, and others in similar situations, go through. But that’s my point Less, we just don’t put people away then pick up where we left off. The burden is always there.
Rae –
I have a whole book and postcard-type collection of some 1950’s looking women with real sarcastic comments on them like the kitchen one. It is funny! I’ll have to find them and post some on here, they are even funny without the pics.
Heather –
Now you’ve got me thinking about that. I’m going to have to get out my Vet tech textbooks and look that up.
Now I have to :
Look up the ‘maggots (which I think it was instead of worms) in that guys head.
Postcards with funny female remarks.
And the eyelids of developing mammals.
What was this post about again?
I love those Norman Rockwell-style things with silly sayings.
I also like things with cats with either funny expressions on their faces or in really awkward positions with cute or funny captions.
Valerie, was it a parasite from the fish?
Raw fish, no matter how prepared, can carry some serious sh**. And some carry the stuff even if it is cooked. Ask my mom, she will name you all of them.
PIP –
Yes, I think it was from the sushi, but if memory serves there was something strange about what kind of sushi he liked.
Rae –
Go here:
http://www.annetaintor.com/
I have one of her books and postcards. It is soooo funny!
oops –
I was so tired last night.
I confused up the word pharyngeal. I do know that is not the eyelids. back of the throuat right? I was just a little off..
It was midnight my time. Is that a good enough excuse?
Yes, but Mary, the fetus can be immediately made to be no longer a burden. That
Less,
No matter how many times I ask my question concerning viable fetuses still in the womb, or phrase it, you seem determined not to answer.
You state women feel no emotional ties to their fetus, especially if it is unwanted. As a woman who experienced 3 pregnancies, two unplanned and one that I truly wasn’t sure I wanted, I can tell you it is not that simplistic. Not every planned and wanted pregnancy results in a loved and wanted child, not every unplanned and unwanted pregnancy results in an unloved and unwanted child. Under the best of circumstances, even the woman experiencing a very planned and wanted pregnancy can be fearful, apprehensive, question her ability to care for a child, wonder if it is really the best time, and just flat out not want to be pregnant after all. These are all very normal emotions for the newly pregnant woman.
Yes, I am sure there are women with no qualms about their abortions, but there are organizations of women who deeply regret their abortions as well.
Concerning the young woman I discussed. She was brain injured, not brain dead. A huge difference.
She was able to maintain her life without artificial means such as a ventilator or tube feeding.
Her mother had no choices Less. She certainly did not choose this for her daughter, herself or her family. That’s my point, we can all be thrown into circumstances beyond our control. She had a daughter she loved and was devoted to and that is what caused her physical and emotional burden. Any of us mothers would do the same.
Less –
hahaha… no, The worms were in the dudes head.
I was talking about Heather’s post saying that felines and human fetus have pharyngeal slits and I thought that all mammals had that but we didn’t know. So, when I made my list of things I have to get done, I said eyes instead of throat. So I felt I should correct myself. I was very tired!
Also, with leaving instructions about your wishes with family. Did you put it in writing? That is what happened to Terri Shiavo. One said she wanted this and another said she didn’t want this. No one really knew what she wanted because it wasn’t in writing. Stu and I went to an atty and had our wills drawn up. I can’t believe how detailed it had to be to survive someone trying to break it. Amazing! Ever since I have been telling everyone to put it in writing, possibly by an atty, and leave copies with friends, family and in a safe deposit box at your bank.
Valerie, I’ve made my wishes known to my family and to my fiance, and have put it in writing. I’m bound and determined to learn from what happened to Terri Shiavo: it was a terrible situation no matter how you look at it, and I really think that it ought to serve as a wake up call. Sure, its depressing to think about death, but I think that it’s important to consider.
Also, Valerie, that makes me feel better. I was very, very, disturbed…kept picturing worms hanging all around the back of a guy’s throat like some bizzare piercings. Yes, it’s possible to get some bits of your throat pierced, and yes, I’ve seen it….but worms…ugk.
Mary, I understand it’s not as simple as all that. Nothing is black and white; very little is easy. I know that when I had a pregnancy scare, I had no emotion for whatever might have been growing inside me except for deep resentment. I’ve talked to other women who have had similar experiences. I also know, however, that I was the only planned kid of all my siblings, and my mom dislikes us all equally (her way of saying that she doesn’t pick favorites. :P).
To me, a woman who is carrying a fetus and it is at the point of viability, if she decides that she doesn’t want to carry it, she is morally obligated to have a c-section. I’m not going to force this on anyone/legislate it, but that’s how I feel.
Less –
http://www.snopes.com/photos/medical/maggots.asp
Snopes says that the story is false, but it does have actual pictures of something like that. So beware!
However, these are not the pictures I saw from News of the Weird. But I cannot find that, so I’m going to assume it falls in the same as this snopes one. So, it is false after all.
I’m glad you have it in writing, just make sure that multiple people have copies, and if it is not done by an attorney have the original notorized so no one can say the signature is fake. Trust me, this is the time to get paranoid!
All I can say is “YIKES”-what is her problem?
I get a kick out of all of Peskymac’s pro-choice commenters who are blaming the Court for banning their beloved partial-birth abortion.
Basic civics lesson: SCOTUS didn’t ban anything. Congress banned the procedure. The President signed the ban. All the Court did was to defer to the elected branches of government. If they’re going to be mad at anyone, they should really be mad at their elected representatives….