Well, then, what do they cause?

Pro-aborts are trying to force all Iowan pharmacists to stock the morning after pill. Faye Waddington at RH (Reproductive Health) Reality Check said yesterday a study involving "phone surveys and mystery shopping" found:

Of the independently owned stores, there were 68 pharmacists who mistakenly believed emergency contraception would cause an abortion. Forty-six of the chain store pharmacists also held this mistaken belief.

Yet the maker of the morning-after pill, Plan B, website admits:

Plan B... prevents pregnancy mainly by stopping the release of an egg from the ovary, and may also prevent the fertilization of an egg (the uniting of sperm with the egg). Plan B may also work by preventing it from attaching to the uterus (womb).

So what exactly can the MAP cause? Are not feminist groups and the abortion industry intentionally misleading women?

fertilization.jpg

[Photo above, courtesy of Family Policy Network, shows the fertilization process.]


Comments:

Some times I can't believe you were a nurse. Seriously... are sure you were actually holding a dying fetus at some point in your life? I wonder if it the after birth... actually it struck you somehow as precious so maybe it was something more charismatic, like a chinchilla.

Pregnancy does not begin until implantation, and abortion is the termination of pregnancy. As a result, preventing implantation is not an abortion.... it's contraception.

I would accept an argument about this abortion missconception campaigne mostly being semmantics, because it does still end a life. However, good arguments aren't your forte, are they?

Posted by: Cameron at July 13, 2007 9:13 AM


Camchilla, so you agree the abortion industry is using semantics to avoid admitting MAP's may end human life?

Posted by: Jill Stanek Author Profile Page at July 13, 2007 9:18 AM


Personally, with the way the theoretical 3rd function of MAP operates (not allowing the fertilized zygote to implant), one could view it as safeguarding a woman's right to keep something from using her body in the first place. Just because something is created does not mean one is obligated to maintain its state of creation. If it is indeed a "human", and the woman is a human, both have the right to life, correct? The fact that the zygote may pass out of her uterus is irrelevant...both it and the woman are given the right to exercise life, but the fact that the zygote cannot without infringing on another human being is irrelevant. If the MAP prevents a conflict of rights between the woman that does not desire something living off of her and the potential offender, it prevents the need for a bonafide abortion to take place.

Posted by: Lyssie at July 13, 2007 9:30 AM


Aww, well, Christina, I honestly could care less that you don't have a friend like me. However, if you actually would THINK about it, there is no difference between your friend and me...the difference is between my friend and you. She did not want to maintain her pregnancy, you did. And your friend and I did the best we could to help out our friends the way they wanted to be helped. I already said that I helped another friend finance and maintain a pregnancy (I have never asked for repayment, thank you). You seem to think that I "encouraged" my friend to abort. It was her choice, not mine. If I had been your friend, and you had gotten pregnant, I would have helped you in ANY way you needed, or chose.

And my friend doesn't have a dead baby. She has an amazing opportunity at life. Period. Sorry, some women just don't view a 7-week embryo to be important enough to waste one's life on. That's my friend's decision, not yours. I'm glad you made the choice that was best for you in your circumstances and that it worked out the way you had hoped.

And my other friend has a two-year old. And she's happy with her life. Both choices were for the better. Amen. Period.
Posted by: Lyssie at July 13, 2007 08:34 AM

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at July 13, 2007 9:46 AM


Alyssa,

She has an amazing opportunity at life. Period. Sorry, some women just don't view a 7-week embryo to be important enough to waste one's life on.

Sweetie, you know I love you.

But...

She has an amazing life because she has a dead baby would be a more accurate description. I'll even give you "she has an amazing life AND a dead baby" or "She has an amazing life in spite of a dead baby"...

Anyway you put it, she still has a dead baby.

And I'm actually a little disappointed in this statement: Sorry, some women just don't view a 7-week embryo to be important enough to waste one's life on.

That is really cold, Lyss. I can understand (vehemently disagree with, but understand)the view point that some women view the responsibility of caring for a newborn and raising a child as so overwhelming that it becomes, in their mind, necessary to end their pregnancy...but important enough to "waste" one's life on? ooohhh...hand me some mittens.
Posted by: MK [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 13, 2007 09:43 AM

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at July 13, 2007 9:46 AM


Jasper, again, you seem to be disregarding the fact that I actually helped a friend maintain a pregnancy. She GAVE BIRTH AND IS RAISING HER DAUGHTER. HELLOOOO??? Do you people think?

Honestly, I wish you could meet my friend who had an abortion. If you really don't think she's happy (highly successful in school, working a great job, has so much potential), then you're a complete dimwit. If you told her today that she did the wrong thing, she'd laugh in your face and show you how wonderful her life is. She'd have killed herself long ago if she'd been forced to let something use her body and ruin her dreams. She DIDN'T WANT TO BE PREGNANT. I WAS NOT GOING TO FORCE HER TO GESTATE AND WATCH HER LIFE DETERIORATE. How effing dumb are you people?

Again, if she had needed the exact same thing that Christina had, I would have helped her like Christina's friend. You act completely idiotic, when I only would have helped someone achieve what they needed. And I would rather have some make-believe "satan" working through me than whatever facsimile of "righteousness" you think you have working for you. I did what was RIGHT. I KNOW it was right. I could care less what your judgments are, and you can piss off.

By the way, if any of my friends got pregnant now and wanted to continue with the pregnancy, I'd help her again in a heartbeat. Just as I would if she wanted to abort. What do I do in the second situation? Leave her out in the cold, you sick, sanctimonious, falsely-concerned bigots? I would rather have my friend alive and happy than suicidal, pregnant, and eventually dead.

No regrets, Jasper and Christina. Would help her again without batting an eye. Wouldn't care what you have to say. :)

Oh, and Jasper: *smooch* Figured you needed it.

(Since MK moved this up here, figured I could add my following post).

Posted by: Lyssie at July 13, 2007 10:03 AM


Alyssa,

Not that you don't have the right to blow up once in awhile, Lord knows we all do, but are you okay? Your posts today seem out of character. I'm not getting on your case, just noticing. Need to talk? You have my email. Not complaining, just concerned.

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at July 13, 2007 10:08 AM


My friend did not believe that a 7-week embryo was worth wasting the work she had already put forth (and it was alot) to get to college and that it wasn't worth forgoing her dreams and opportunities. That's HER belief and decision. I never said that it was my view, as I fully supported my friend who carried her pregnancy to term because she felt it was part of her goal to have a child, and that the child WAS her goal and opportunity. My friend who had an abortion did NOT view pregnancy and a potential child as a goal, and therefore decided to pursue what was MUCH more important to her. It's that simple.

A lot of people don't view children as a goal in their lives. I know you'll sit here and say "what a shame", but it's not necessarily wrong to not want children. And it's not wrong to never want to endure pregnancy, as many of my friends never want to go through it. They have other, more important (in their eyes) goals to achieve. And that's respectable.

Posted by: Lyssie at July 13, 2007 10:11 AM


And yes Alyssa,

I wanted to continue here. That other post was actually pretty good and there were a couple of good debates going on that I hated to see get cut off.

Plus the phrase 7 week old embryo sort of fits into this post as far as "does 7 weeks make a difference, or is the a human being the minute the egg and sperm meet"

Cameron contends it's not a pregnancy til it implants. You contend 7 weeks is an acceptable age to abort. Midnite says not after viability.
Rae, says not after 13 weeks. Diana says it doesn't matter if it's an adult if it's using her body against her will. I say the moment of conception.

So you're line about the 7 week old fetus is a good seque...

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at July 13, 2007 10:13 AM


I see this too. Sorry, why didn't your friend think about how an unwanted pregnancy could affect her life BEFORE she screwed around? After she became pregnant, she wanted to kill herself? I doubt she would have done so. I get the same song and dance from my girlfriends. They all had the means to support a child!!! They had abortions because they were selfish, and to this day they STILL aren't happy women!! They have their careers, fancy cars, educations. The abortion was supposed to make them happier people right? Sorry, my mood is pi$$y today.

Posted by: Heather4life at July 13, 2007 10:19 AM


"Camchilla, so you agree the abortion industry is using semantics to avoid admitting MAP's may end human life?"

I'm saying they're insisting on proper vocabulary is all, and the distinction is meaningless if you think life begins at conception. I don't think they're avoiding anything. The alternative is anti-choice industry making every situation sound like a fully developed baby struggling and screaming as it's ripped apart.

However meaningless the clinical distinction, as far as fiction v. reality... anti-choice still gets the delusional fiction award for calling it an abortion pill.

Posted by: Cameron at July 13, 2007 10:24 AM


I was just thinking the same thing about Lyssie. Is everything okay?


I am like Lyssie, if a friend of mine became pregnant, I would support her in any decision she chooses. Choosing to abort is a hard decision to make, as is choosing to carry to term. She would need a supportive friend.


MK- As you know already, this is what makes the abortion debate so difficult. When does life begin? When is it okay and not okay to abort?

Posted by: JM at July 13, 2007 10:30 AM


lyssie,

"...one could view it as safeguarding a woman's right to keep something from using her body in the first place."

While your point seems to have been lost on the foolish fetus-philes, I caught it.

Good point!

It renders the already meaningless "responsibility" argument even more meaningless if the embryo is not yet dependent on her.

Posted by: Cameron at July 13, 2007 10:30 AM


So many of my post abortive girlfriends love to pat themselves on their selfish backs. "I pay all my bills on time." "I have never gotten a speeding ticket." "I have an education." "I make excellent money." "I have never broken the law." Sometimes I feel like adding "However, you are a murderer."

Posted by: Heather4life at July 13, 2007 10:31 AM


"I see this too. Sorry, why didn't your friend think about how an unwanted pregnancy could affect her life BEFORE she screwed around?"

While I see your point of view and agree to some extent... I still think she should have the right to choose. We must not forget about those who are raped, while I realize it is RARE, they didn't "screw" around.

I'm glad your friends would have had a way to support the child... Not everyone is as lucky.


And heather4life you don't seem pissy or crabby to me.

Posted by: JM at July 13, 2007 10:37 AM


Heather....

Judgmental jerks like you don't actually have friends. They're just acquaintances politely humoring you.

Posted by: Cameron at July 13, 2007 10:38 AM


Cameron, if you have so many friends, then why are you here day in and day out? I couldn't imagine being friends with an arse like you.

Posted by: Heather4life at July 13, 2007 10:40 AM


MK...I'm much like Midnite when it comes to the viability aspect of abortion. My premise rests on the argument that we should safeguard as many rights as possible at the time of the termination of pregnancy. That means after viability, removing the fetus intact and alive if possible should be the method of termination, respecting the rights of both woman and fetus. This would still be an abortion, as the woman's bodily autonomy would be safeguarded (but the fetus' right to live would be safeguarded, as well). Since it can live without using another being's body and life blood to do so, it should be given the right to continue life outside the body of the woman if said woman wishes for it to stop its use of her bodily resources.

When it comes to before-viability abortions, I would rather argue the method, not the madness. I believe abortions before this time should not be performed specifically to KILL the z/e/f, but to remove it as an infringement on a woman's body and life. Methods should be developed to remove z/e/f's alive, so as to at least attempt to recognize a right to life (like you said, it's all semantics, MK. Abortions for the life of the mother are permissible to you and the Catholic Church because the intention is to save the mother's life, not kill the z/e/f. I say that abortions performed this way have the intention of safeguarding the right to bodily integrity and protection of a woman, not the intention of killing a z/e/f). Prior to viability, even if the fetus had a right to life, removal from a woman would indirectly lead to its demise. The fact that the attempt was made to allow it to exercise its right to life without allowing it to violate a woman's right to determine what goes on in her body would be the issue...the fact that it does not exercise its right to life is irrelevant. Using another being to do so against her consent would result in a conflict of rights only resolvable but the methods above.

This is assuming, however, that the z/e/f actually has a right to life. That is left up to the rest of our debate, ladies. :)

Posted by: Lyssie at July 13, 2007 10:42 AM


Sorry JM. I just get so angry about abortion.

Posted by: Heather4life at July 13, 2007 10:42 AM


You guys, I'm sorry for blowing up. This is my friend we're talking about, not just some stranger off the street. She's as close to me as a sister, and I kind of flew off the handle at people trying to make me feel bad for doing what was best for her. I'm fine. I'm calm. I'm woo-sah-ing. :D


In fact, I should be extremely happy. I get to see my wonderful boyfriend tonight!! (He's driving 140 miles to see me). I love him dearly. :)

Posted by: Lyssie at July 13, 2007 10:46 AM


Heather,

I'm sure you have far more friends than I do heather, seeing how your so hypocritical... However, the people I consider friends, and that consider me their friend, I don't call them "selfish" "murderers" or even pious nutjobs.

Posted by: Cameron at July 13, 2007 10:47 AM


Cameron, If they didn't have any loyalty to their own unborn children, I'm quite sure that their loyalty to me is zip-nada. For once you may be right. Acquaintances it is.

Posted by: Heather4life at July 13, 2007 10:49 AM


Cameron, you just moved to the south. My family lives down south. Most southerners don't like pious nut jobs like you. Of course you don't call them selfish murderers! You're pro choice and pro murder you doomass!!

Posted by: Heather4life at July 13, 2007 10:53 AM


"This would still be an abortion, as the woman's bodily autonomy would be safeguarded (but the fetus' right to live would be safeguarded, as well). Since it can live without using another being's body and life blood to do so, it should be given the right to continue life outside the body of the woman if said woman wishes for it to stop its use of her bodily resources."

Oh, how kind of you.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/healthmain.html?in_article_id=437236&in_page_id=1774

Posted by: jasper at July 13, 2007 10:59 AM


Jasper? And...?

The mother was not able to continue the pregnancy without risking her own life. You're using this poor exception to the rule of (thus far) viability to make a point? And your point is?

Posted by: Lyssie at July 13, 2007 11:03 AM


heather4life... take a deep breath.... Don't let Cam get to you.

I'm moving down south, arizona, in less than 8 hours, I sure hope people accept me.

Posted by: JM at July 13, 2007 11:07 AM


JM, Isn't Arizona out west? His Man lives there. I have passed through there on my way to Vegas. It is beautiful!! Are you flying? Where are you moving from?

Posted by: Heather4life at July 13, 2007 11:12 AM


Lyssie, were you talking about the senario when the mothers life is at stake?

Posted by: jasper at July 13, 2007 11:15 AM


JM, moving is scary. You will make friends!

Posted by: Heather4life at July 13, 2007 11:15 AM


"Plan B... prevents pregnancy MAINLY by stopping the release of an egg from the ovary, and MAY also prevent the fertilization of an egg (the uniting of sperm with the egg). Plan B MAY also work by preventing it from attaching to the uterus (womb)."

If you believe that pregnancy starts at fertilization (and medically, it doesn't as Cameron said), the key words are emphasized. The last two workings of Plan B are only theoretical.

And how are they misleading women if that's what it says on EVERY Plan B package?

Posted by: Stephanie at July 13, 2007 11:50 AM


Jasper: Yes and no. The vast VAST majority of abortions after viability are for the reason of maternal health/life. I believe that they should be carried out so as to safeguard as many rights as possible. The overwhelming majority of women do not carry pregnancies for 20-some weeks only to "decide" they don't want to keep maintaining the pregnancy. Therefore, most of these pregnancies are terminated only for health issues. So, if they are terminated, they should be terminated with the thought of maintaining as many rights as possible.

Posted by: Lyssie at July 13, 2007 11:56 AM


"The vast VAST majority of abortions after viability are for the reason of maternal health/life"

yea, Ok Lyssie:

The most famous denunciation of the claim was by Ron Fitzsimmons, head of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers. Said Fitzsimmons:

"When you're a doctor who does these abortions and the leaders of your movement appear before Congress and go on network news and say these procedures are done in only the most tragic of circumstances, how do you think it makes you feel? You know they're primarily done on healthy women and healthy fetuses, and it makes you feel like a dirty little abortionist with a dirty little secret."
Source: American Medical News, Abortion rights leader urges end to "half truths"

Posted by: jasper at July 13, 2007 2:05 PM


"This is my friend we're talking about, not just some stranger off the street. She's as close to me as a sister"

which makes your false case of helping her even worse. shame on you.

Posted by: jasper at July 13, 2007 2:10 PM


Until 1965, the accepted medical definition of conception was fertilization. In fact, most dictionaries define the one by using the other. In 1965, ACOG changed the definition of conception to mean implantation. However, most medical dictionaries (i.e. Mosby's Medical Dictionary, 7th Ed. (c) 2006)still define conception as fertilization and pregnancy as starting at fertilization. Those who are in the business of abortion, human embryonic stem cell research, and IVF like the newer but totally inaccurate definitions because they give them the cover that they need to continue their human life destructive work.

To be fair, the research so far on Plan B does not support the fact that Plan B prevents implantation and would thus act like an abortifacient. However, since we are such a litigious society, drug companies usually cover all possibilities on their drug labeling. It's called CYA. Research is ongoing, though. Personally, I always prefer to err on the side of life until I know for sure.

Concerning implantation being the beginning of pregnancy: consider, if you will, an ectopic pregnancy. The embryo never makes it to the womb, but medical doctors still consider the woman as being "pregnant".

Another analogy which is food for thought for those of you who think that until implantation, a woman is not pregnant: Can a person have cancer before it is discovered? Don't doctors usually say something like "We caught it early" or "on time"? Implantation might be the earliest that we can detect a pregnancy, but that doesn't mean that it hasn't existed from it's earliest state which is fertilization or conception.

Sorry, for being so long. I just think that we can't have a meaningful discussion about Plan B unless we can agree on the definitions of some terms.

Posted by: Dr. Lyn at July 13, 2007 2:18 PM


Those of us who have no problem with abortion also have no problem with Plan B regardless of whether it prevents implantation or prevents fertilization, or both. We can stay out of this dispute. Have fun with it.

Posted by: Hal at July 13, 2007 2:22 PM


see? no mention of adoption!!!

Posted by: Rosie at July 13, 2007 2:24 PM


Hi Stephanie or Cam,

"If you believe that pregnancy starts at fertilization (and medically, it doesn't as Cameron said)"

I am one of those ignorant souls who not only believe this but regard this as a medical FACT. It seems you and Cam are privy to some information that I have never seen. So, I'll have to ask you to prove it.

Posted by: John McDonell Author Profile Page at July 13, 2007 2:28 PM


thats true Hal, it doesn't take much for pro-aborts to justify killing the unborn. No science will change their minds.

Posted by: jasper at July 13, 2007 2:33 PM


It's not that science won't change our minds. It's just not a debate that matters. The government should not have the right to outlaw a pill that prevents fertilization nor the right to outlaw a pill that prevents implantation.

Posted by: Hal at July 13, 2007 3:13 PM


Lyssie,

(I posted this argument a few weeks ago, and am looking for the actual article, but since it was in the late 90's I am having a hard time locating it.)
With that said.....
During the PBA debate while Clinton was in office a local reporter in the city I lived in went to an abortion clinic to support PBA as she had the firm belief that late term abortions were necessary and done only for women's health or fetal anomoly issues. She plunked herself in the clinic for some amount of time to interview these women who were making the decision to abort late term.

To her amazement, the women she interviewed were healthy as well as their babies. She found NO late term abortions being done for "health reasons".

She changed the focus of her article and became a supporter of the PBA ban.

The guidelines for aborting due to women's health issues is so loose, a woman can abort for a hangnail and claim it was for health issues.

I also read a really good but very sad article on-line posted by former workers of a mill who also stated that the main reason women abort late term is just that they let the pregnancy go on too long without making a decision.

They both quit the clinic.


Posted by: Sandy at July 13, 2007 3:29 PM


Sandy, I can't name one woman I know who did it for rape, incest, or health reasons. It was usually because their relationships were on the fritz, they wanted to go back to school, or they just didn't want to be bothered. One woman told me, "I already have 2 kids." "I DON"T want to raise another one." She had the abortion.

Posted by: Heather4life at July 13, 2007 3:38 PM


Sandy, your story intrigues me. Like I said, if late-term abortions are taking place, all should be done to safeguard two sets of rights. I'm not a fan of post-viability abortion. I have no qualms with changing the method of terminating pregnancies after viability to where both women and viable fetuses are afforded their individual liberties.

Posted by: Lyssie at July 13, 2007 4:17 PM


""This is my friend we're talking about, not just some stranger off the street. She's as close to me as a sister"

which makes your false case of helping her even worse. shame on you."

And....? I'm not ashamed for doing what was right. Period. What did you honestly expect me to do? Hmm? Tell me what you would have done. I can tell you right now, it wouldn't have been as helpful or as successful as the help I and a few others put in to save our friend's future. We did the right thing. Too bad you're too blind to see that she's happier than ever.

She simply had something taken out of her that was jeopardizing her right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The fact that it didn't exercise the "rights" you say it has is irrelevant. It can't use another to do so without that being's approval.

On a happier note...my friend from summer class is pregnant, and she believes her boyfriend is proposing tonight. She's a senior in college and will be graduating soon, so there's no conflict there. She's hoping she'll have a girl. :) Does that at least make you happy, Jasper?

Posted by: Lyssie at July 13, 2007 4:25 PM


Heather,

That is so sad. As a mother I just can't imagine picking and choosing what children you want to keep. I look at my kids everyday and am so greatful to be blessed to have them both.

Per Lyssie:
"I have no qualms with changing the method of terminating pregnancies after viability to where both women and viable fetuses are afforded their individual liberties."

Lyssie, can you explain this statment? I am confused. How does terminating a pregnancy afford a fetus their individual liberty.

You just terminated any liberty this baby had.

Posted by: Sandy at July 13, 2007 4:41 PM


Sandy, ending a pregnancy doesn't necessarily mean killing a fetus. Birth is terminating a pregnancy. I'm referring to using a method that gives both woman and fetus rights...such as a c-section or induction. That's what I mean by giving individual liberties post-viability.

Posted by: Lyssie at July 13, 2007 5:20 PM


There is another issue that happens on occasion- some women just don't realize that they are pregnant until it's too late. It sounds odd, but it really is rather common.

Posted by: Erin at July 13, 2007 10:06 PM


Heather's drunk again.

Posted by: SoMG at July 13, 2007 11:26 PM


"which makes your false case of helping her even worse. shame on you."

What the F**K, jasper. How dare you belittle and attack Lyssie for supporting her friend through a hard decision. You weren't there. You have no right.

Stop ruining my Friday nights. Everytime I go to an awesome small group meeting, I come here wanting to talk about it, and you ruin it with your hateful comments. I'm thankful that not all Christians are not like you.

Posted by: Stephanie at July 14, 2007 1:01 AM


John,

"Before pregnancy begins, a female oocyte (egg) must join, by spermatozoon in a process referred to in medicine as "fertilization", or commonly known as 'conception'...Though pregnancy begins at implantation, it is often convenient to date from the first day of a woman's Last Menstrual Period (LMP)."

A little further down...

"In medicine, pregnancy is often defined as beginning when the developing embryo becomes implanted into the endometrial lining of a woman's uterus. "

Before you bash me for using Wikipedia for a source, this is a quick thing until I find the better source. Wikipedia is quite good for general information.

Posted by: Stephanie at July 14, 2007 1:27 AM


Cameron, by your logic a flight doesn't begin until the plane leaves the ground, therefore it wouldn't be a terrorist attack if somebody blew up a 747 full of people where it sat on the tarmac waiting for clearance for take off.

Posted by: Christina at July 14, 2007 5:14 AM


Cameron, an ectopic or abdominal pregnancy never implants in the uterus at all. I guess those fetuses don't actually exist, either.

Posted by: Christina at July 14, 2007 5:19 AM


Jill, I've notice that you seem to attract ... people who are not exactly steeped in logic and/or compassion. Where do you get some of these commentors? And can't you ban them? They contribute nothing but nonsense. They don't even meet their own criteria for human life because they lack any capacity for rational thought.

Posted by: Christina at July 14, 2007 5:21 AM


SOMG, wanted to know if you are drunk while making death threats? Or are you sober. You're just angry because I stumped you the other day. Where is that list of 100 good abortionists?

Posted by: Heather4life at July 14, 2007 7:22 AM


Paging Somg..... paging the Nurse Quacktitioner! Answer the question. This is the second question you have avoided, and all you can do now is hurl insults. Paging the Baby Killer....paging!!!

Posted by: Heather4life at July 14, 2007 7:30 AM


Christina, they're brainwashed with this bodily autonomy nonsense. That mainly goes to Diana and Cameron. Somg is just a nut job.

Posted by: Heather4life at July 14, 2007 7:36 AM


Hi Stephanie,

I must apologize for my thinking here. After getting to read Cam's posts in the past-few-months, I begin to understand some of the precision of thought his posts have. However, such precision is applied only if this is convenient for him. [Such a lucid description as Dr. Lyn's (above) will not be part of Cam's postings.]

Any medical name ... be it fetus, zygote, blastocyst are names of timing/stages ... much the same way teen, infant, child, octogenarian and senior are used. These words imply that the human species is being referred to but I've seen shows where other primate-species are referred to as teens ... the upshot of this is that medical terminology follows biological terminology which does NOT differentiate between species.

As such, it is more proper to speak of human-fetus {or human-zygote; and, human-blastocyst] for precision and clarity rather than the general term 'fetus'. Its very similar to the stem cell debate, when a general use of the words 'stem cells' is purposefully used to confuse where precise wording avoids abuse.

In biology, there are what are called racemates ... kind of like left-handedness and right-handedness ... in some sports there is not much of a big deal. But if a person plays golf, having the proper clubs for handedness is extremely important.

So for Cam ... before a fetus even exists, pregnancy does not occur ... and a fetus (and pregnancy) only start at implantation.

All this and we are still not speaking of when human life begins. We are talking about when fetal life begins ... not the same thing.

Cam often sarcastically refers to us as fetal-centric .... incorrect! We are HUMAN-centric!

Posted by: John McDonell Author Profile Page at July 14, 2007 7:41 AM


Bravo, John! Excellent!

Posted by: Bethany at July 14, 2007 8:18 AM


And....? I'm not ashamed for doing what was right. Period. What did you honestly expect me to do? Hmm? Tell me what you would have done.

I know this question wasn't directed at me, but just wanted to answer. If it was myself, I would give the woman words of comfort and assurance that she is capable of handling it. I would try to help ease her worries and concerns, giving her advice from my experience as a mother. It's really not as hard as some people believe. My husband and I were only making a little over minimum wage when we had our first child. We used Wic for a while and it really helped us. I would help her find the assistance she needed to make it through this. There is plenty available. I might help her to get to her ob-gyn appointments and be there for her when she was worried about something during her pregnancy. It's common to be worried about the unknown...most of the time, the things you worry about don't even happen. And most of the time, women are far more capable than we give them credit for. I would (and have done this before) start a fundraiser to help her make ends meet if she needed the help, or I would ask my church to help her. Also, if she needed someone to watch the child when it was born, you can bet I'd be glad to do that...I LOVE babies....plus, there are plenty of ways to get free or low priced daycare, if you know where to look. There are so many ways that women can be helped, and abortion is not a solution to any problem. You say she's happy today...but how do you know she wouldn't be happy today with her child?


Posted by: Bethany at July 14, 2007 8:26 AM


Funny how you can take a pregnancy test before implantation and get a postive...

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at July 14, 2007 8:43 AM


Christina, 5:21a, asked: "Jill, I've notice that you seem to attract ... people who are not exactly steeped in logic and/or compassion. Where do you get some of these commentors? And can't you ban them? They contribute nothing but nonsense. They don't even meet their own criteria for human life because they lack any capacity for rational thought."

Christina, I love the conversation. I agree the other side's arguments are illogical and irrational, but I welcome the debate. I welcome the opportunity to force us all beyond spouting cliches. I welcome the opportunity to change minds. And I'm confident that any minds changed won't be ours. So I don't fear the debate one iota.

And I like our adversaries, individually speaking. For instance, I miss Less, who's on vacation this week (almost - but not quite - as much as I missed Bethany!). It would be a dream come true for all of us to sit down with a pitcher(s) of beer in a bar.

As to your point that I "seem to attract ... people who are not exactly steeped in logic and/or compassion," lol. Hm. Not sure what that says about me. I think I should be insulted? :)

Posted by: Jill Stanek Author Profile Page at July 14, 2007 8:58 AM


Cam, 10:24a, said: "I'm saying they're insisting on proper vocabulary is all, and the distinction is meaningless if you think life begins at conception. I don't think they're avoiding anything."

Cam, your ideology requires so much faith. I'm impressed.

Posted by: Jill Stanek Author Profile Page at July 14, 2007 8:59 AM


"ending a pregnancy doesn't necessarily mean killing a fetus. Birth is terminating a pregnancy. I'm referring to using a method that gives both woman and fetus rights...such as a c-section or induction. That's what I mean by giving individual liberties post-viability."

Posted by: Lyssie at July 13, 2007 05:20 PM]


Lyssie,
I am further confused.
Are you suggesting to induce a preemie???

Why would a woman agree to a C-section only to want to dispose of her baby??

If this is what you are suggesting the medical costs to the mother and baby are astronomical, not to mention you are putting a baby in a position of fighting for it's life and possible major life long complications.

Why deliver a preemie when the woman can and should carry the baby to full term????

She's already more than half way there. Again a few months of your life is a blip in time to bring a live healthy baby into the world.

Posted by: Sandy at July 14, 2007 10:30 AM


Sandy,

before you got here: I posted the results of the Ob-Gyn Dr. Patrick Dunn of New Zealand. He was interested and traced the pregnancy-related mood changes. He found that the 1st depressive state began typically @week 7 and lasted until @week 11 (he also found that 80% of all abortions occurred exactly during this period. A second period of depression begins in the first days of the 3rd trimester and continues to deepen until birth. [He does not say, but the abortion-even-if-the-baby-is viable seems consistent ... the mother wishes her pregnancy to end.] There is a euphoria glitch at birth [... likely endorphin-related]. Then a continuation/deepening of depression postpartum.

I find it intriguing that ALL these periods precisely mirror the times when a developing human use unusually large amounts of the mineral zinc.

Such a stance is too often ignored because it imposes no guilt trip. [Is abortion mainly a response to depression?] Much too often people respond to 'feelings' quite independently of their reasoning abilities. [Maybe this is why some women prefer to kill ... what is making-her-feel-bad rather than adopt her child. This requires magnanimity - something not found in zinc deficiencies.]

Why do we pro-lifers accept the feminist assessment that the decision-to-abort was a calculated one? Maybe you are a pro-lifer only because you have more zinc. [Zinc is held-in-place by taurine ... the body's and brain's cell-membrane stabilizer.]

Posted by: John McDonell Author Profile Page at July 14, 2007 11:59 AM


Okay, John McD, now we're talking.

We've heard the old real estate mantra "location, location, location". So when it comes to these life-on-the-line issues, I'd pipe in with "nutrition, nutrition, nutrition".

We often hear of pregnant or post-partum women undergoing some form of depression-like symptoms. For my 3 babies, it's always hit me around 24 weeks gestation. For others, it takes place after birth. Assuming there isn't a pathological something brewing in a mother's body, the delicate balance of vitamins and minerals necessary for her state can literally mean the difference between life and death for baby as well as mom as your post suggests. In my own situation, after consulting the nutrition books, a daily pill of calcium/magnesium helped me feel like myself and lifted the fog that I felt was smothering me.

Perhaps this is an opportunity for Planned Parenthood to jump on the holistic bandwagon. Imagine it: zinc tablets next to scented oils and candles.


Jill: twould be quite the gathering if we all were in the same room. I would replace the beer with something non-alcoholic given the short fuses. One benefit of blogging is that we can't interrupt each other; don't think the same could be said for face-to-face.

Posted by: carder at July 14, 2007 2:44 PM


Per John:
"Why do we pro-lifers accept the feminist assessment that the decision-to-abort was a calculated one? Maybe you are a pro-lifer only because you have more zinc. [Zinc is held-in-place by taurine ... the body's and brain's cell-membrane stabilizer.]"

Thanks for the info John. I am always interested in a holistic approach to healing.

I would have to say as a pro-lifer though, my beliefs are based on the fact that life begins at conception.

Women voluntarily start a life through consenual intercourse and that life has every right to be nurtured in the womb and born into this world just the same as the mother who conceived this life.

Zinc or low zinc. I am pro-life.

Posted by: Sandy at July 14, 2007 4:27 PM


Hi Sandy,

the main reason I posted about zinc was to help people get away from the 'blame, 'victim', 'self-incrimination', 'holier-than-thou', 'superiority-inferiority' concepts, that we are SO prone to on such a topic as abortion.

Disdain-made-easy would make a self-righteous cop-out. If indeed the major difficulty is a zinc deficiency, then I can consider myself damn lucky to be where I am ... [it's a great lesson in humility.]


the task becomes trying to sell people on living life to its fullest.... to give them new hope. ... no incrimination because I'm struggling too!!!!

Posted by: John McDonell Author Profile Page at July 14, 2007 5:34 PM


Jill, it doesn't seem to be much of a conversation. The pattern is:

JILL: (Statistic, analysis.)

AA: Ha! As if!

JILL: (Additional statistics. Further analysis.)

AA: Yeah! You antichoicers are all alike!

JILL: (Yet more statistics and analysis.)

AA: We all know that choice is right!

JILL: Can you address the issue raised about statistics and analysis?

AA: (Does excellent Humpty Dumpty impersonation.)

I mean, if you enjoy it, there's no accounting for taste. But I find it very boring and depressing to read. It's like trying to navigate one of those "Press 1 for Customer Service" menus. You listen and you respond but you only run around in circles and hear the same thing again and again ad nauseum.

Posted by: Christina at July 14, 2007 7:08 PM


John, I tried to go to your link and got nowhere. Can you provide a link to this study? This is really good stuff!

Posted by: Christina at July 14, 2007 7:12 PM


Sandy, please do find that article and post it!

If it was local you may be able to get a copy of it from the newspaper in question and scan it.

Posted by: Christina at July 14, 2007 7:13 PM


Lyssie, I'm glad that you have helped friends who didn't want to abort, and would help them again.

But your friend's happiness over her dead fetus is still no reflection on the rightness or wrongness of what she did. John List, after all, found true happiness after slaying his entire family and starting a new life in another state under an assumed name. Does this mean we should recognize the "right" of depressed and stressed-out breadwinners to just snuff their entire family and start over from scratch?

Posted by: Christina at July 14, 2007 7:17 PM


Lyssie, there's nothing at all wrong with not wanting children. But abortion isn't about not wanting a child. It's about killing one that already exists because you don't want to care for it.

If women have, as you assert, this right to opt out of motherhood, ought not we extend it to women like Susan Smith? If "forcing" a woman to "be a mother" when she doesn't want to be is wrong, isn't it always wrong?

Posted by: Christina at July 14, 2007 7:20 PM


Cameron, I think you don't get that for prolifers, the very smallness and helplessness of the unborn cry out for protection. It's a matter, to us, of protecting the weak from the strong, the powerless from those who want them dead. To repeatedly point out just HOW small and HOW helpless the intended victim is doesn't change our minds!

Think of it this way: Imagine that you found out somebody had beaten a toddler to death. You were outraged. Then this guy tried to defend what he did on the grounds that the toddler had a broken leg and thus couldn't run away, and had laryngitis so it couldn't scream for help. And he wanted, by these arguments, to convince you that what he did was perfectly okay. Wouldn't the fact that the toddler couldnt' run away or scream for help make what the man did seem even worse?

That's how we are about the unborn. Their very smallness and helplessness is what makes us protective of them. If you want to convince us that killing them is okay, "They're so small and can't do squat for themselves" isnt' gonna do it! Any more than the toddler's broken leg and laryngitis could convince you that beating the toddler to death was okay.

You have to use arguments that have some foundation in our moral universe, which is that the bigger and stronger and more capable have a responsibility to protect the smaller and the weaker and the less capable.

Posted by: Christina at July 14, 2007 7:26 PM


Lyssie, you said, "The vast VAST majority of abortions after viability are for the reason of maternal health/life. "

That's simply not true. Simple logic will reveal this.

Ever since the advent of antibiotics and blood transfusions, the treatment for a life-threatening event late in pregnancy has been induction or an emergency c-section. (My best friend had to have three pregnancies terminated this way -- with live births.)

Any hospital equipped to handle obstetrics has the capacity to have the baby out of the mother and in a basinette or NICU within the hour. The mother spends her time in a fully-equipped hospital, being monitored by trained medical professionals.

So what possible reason would there be for a woman to travel a long distance, past any number of hospitals that could safely end her pregnancy in less than an hour, to go someplace for a procedue that's going to take three days and leave her spending most of her time in a motel room under the medical supervision of whatever friend or family member she brought with her?

The post-viability abortions Tiller did were for women who were demoralized. They were upset at things like -- I am not making this up -- being unable to attend concerts or participate in a rodeo. They were upset that they lacked support. They were concerned about their educational prospects.

They gave the same reasons women give for early abortions.

Of all the maternal deaths I've written up, very few post-viability abortions involved maternal health at all. Most of them were elective abortions performed on self-referred women who came in off the street.

Posted by: Christina at July 14, 2007 7:35 PM


Christina,

It may seem as if the arguments go round and round, but sometimes a morsel comes up and we get new insight into how the "other side" thinks.

For instance, I was under the impression that most choicers believed that the 8 week old unborn child was "just a blob of cells". Through this blog I have come to find out that they actually think many things about the unborn.

Some of them think pregnancy is a disease, something to be avoided at all costs.

Some of them acknowledge that the baby is indeed a human being, but not a person.

Some of them agree that it's a person but that it's right to life is not as important as their right to something called bodily autonomy.

These ideas were new to me.

The Camerons and Smaugs are allowed to stay on because we think they are perfect examples of faulty pro-choice thinking. They are glaring models of irrationality, nastiness, immaturity and selfishness. We keep hoping that by allowing them to hang themselves, members of the other side will see it and ask themselves "Hey, do I really sound like them?"

It's also good practice for when I stand out at the clinic. I think after some of these philosophies, I can honestly say that I think I've heard it all.

Plus, I have made many new friends, on both sides, and I wouldn't want to have missed that for anything.

Do you remember Lauren from PLAL? I still email her. And yes, she emails me back.

These guys for the most part are young and while we might not seem to be making any headway now, I have faith that someday in the future, when we are not around to see it, a lightbulb will go off in their heads and they will remember this site was where they heard it first. If not, well I can face the Big Guy with a clear conscience and the knowledge that I did my best.

These aren't bad people. There are actually many, many good qualities about all of them (except SoMG, and while I haven't found them yet, I'm holdin' out hope for Cam). I'm glad to have met them. I'm better for it. Give it time and I'm sure you will be too.

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at July 14, 2007 8:28 PM


Hi Christina,

don't know if this will help or not ... I've tried to get some researchers interested in this reasoning process ... no luck at all:

the original blurb about depression during pregnancy must be decades old, by now. The only confirmation I've gotten on Patrick Dunn was from his son - now a RC-bishop in New Zealand. He has the same name as his dad!

about the zinc connection ... it was gleaned from the text 'Zinc and Copper in Medicine' eds. Sarper and KarÁioglu @1983. This is not a simple on-line reference ... the data is sprinkled throughout a 300 page text.

Cam like you has asked for and been given these references ... wish they were pursued, but they weren't.

your wishing for the-stronger-to-take-care-of-the-weaker, is lost on Cam - an ardent fan of Darwin's 'survival of the fittest'. He likes to site how the male lion will kill all the pups of a new lioness when she enters his 'family'.

Posted by: John McDonell Author Profile Page at July 14, 2007 8:48 PM


Hi Christina,

I 2nd MK's thoughts, I've learned so much here... and find there are been many intelligent conversations since I've been posting here for the last 5 months...

Posted by: jasper at July 14, 2007 10:25 PM


Christina, have you ever been to a pro choice site? Those are the WORST! They won't even allow you to participate in their discussions if you aren't pro choice. They all spew the most vile, vulger, and hateful venom that I have ever read! I tried to post with great respect, and my comment was promptly deleted. Now that's boring!

Posted by: heather4life at July 15, 2007 8:07 AM


John,

"So, I'll have to ask you to prove it."

Check any medical dictionary. You're equivocating life with pregnancy, and foolishly so considering the sperm and egg were alive preceding fertilization.

"... refers to us as fetal-centric .... incorrect! We are HUMAN-centric!"

Someone that actually cares about humans wouldn't disregard the mother when considering the fetus... hence fetus-centric. Let me know when you have a good argument for compulsory gestation, and I'll reconsider calling you fetus-centric.

Christina,

"...by your logic a flight doesn't begin until the plane leaves the ground, therefore it wouldn't be a terrorist attack if somebody blew..."

By your lack of logic.... a petri dish is pregnant if there's a fertilized embryo in it.

"an ectopic or abdominal pregnancy never implants in the uterus at all. I guess those fetuses don't actually exist, either."

The key word here being implanted... hence pregnant. Thank you! Of course, by your faux logic, then all pregnancies are ectopic pregnancies, at least initially... so you could just think of plan b as taking care of an ectopic pregnancy before it causes any serious problems. Be careful what new and novel forms of the english language you'd like to assert.

"Cameron, I think you don't get that for prolifers, the very smallness and helplessness of the unborn cry out for protection. It's a matter, to us, of protecting the weak from the strong, the powerless from those who want them dead. To repeatedly point out just HOW small and HOW helpless the intended victim is doesn't change our minds!"

Yes, I understand quite well that the only argument you have is faulty logic; appeal to emotions. I think what you and other prolifers swapped their wits for sappy crap do actually "get" is that no one has a right to unvolunteered body or ograns of another person, even if it means there life... however, you prefer to project your morality-for-self-promotion onto the argument; "I'm fighting for the babies... and hence I'm virtuous via that lip service." Pro-life is about appearances only, and not exactly the challenging position either.

"Think of it this way: Imagine that you found out somebody had beaten a toddler to death."

OMG... an anology... I love this stuff.

"Wouldn't the fact that the toddler couldnt' run away or scream for help make what the man did seem even worse?"

That's not where I thought you were going to go with it... none the less still amusing as hell. To answer the question, Not really. Beating a toddler is beating a toddler. So, by your analogy, punishment should increase the more helpless the victim was, regardless of whether it's the same crime? If I rob a blind person as opposed to someone whe can see... then more time in the clink than those robbing normal people?

Ironically, you are making a case for justice by robbing her of that blindness. I suspect you vote based on hair styles too.

"You have to use arguments that have some foundation in our moral universe,"


I do and you don't. In my moral universe, you can't take organs from people against their will in order to save another's life. In your immoral universe... you think we can, and that anybody who wouldn't volunteer their body or organs, which then affects the death of another, should be accused of murder so you can validate your feelings of moral supiriority over them.


Posted by: Cameron at July 15, 2007 2:58 PM


I was wondering Cam,

after reading this: " Let me know when you have a good argument for compulsory gestation, and I'll reconsider calling you fetus-centric."

Many pro-lifers and some pro-choicers too tied an action with consequences - in this case pregnancy and sex are inexorably tied ie. to become pregnant it is essential to have sex, except for IVF. This is one consequence of sex whether intended or not. So, I was wondering how you see the tie between the consequence of an action. If distasteful, do you impose your wishes to have it out-of-your-life? Does your partner have a total freedom in her decision? .... is abandonment a implied threat?

Is the consequence for you to end the life of the fetus .... a second action based solely on the presence(verified) of an 'unwanted being'? I have to wonder how much this 'unwanted' status is the father's vs how much the woman's. Abortion is for who then? Is not abortion fetus-centric?

Posted by: John McDonell Author Profile Page at July 15, 2007 6:32 PM


John,

"Many pro-lifers and some pro-choicers too tied an action with consequences - in this case pregnancy and sex are inexorably tied ie. to become pregnant it is essential to have sex, except for IVF. This is one consequence of sex whether intended or not."

Up to here, you're on track with the logical fallacy is-ought argument, and the canned response to this canned argument is the smoker analogy; does knowledge of risk (cancer in the case of the smoker) make any particular response to the realization of the risk obligatory? No.

But then you go on to equivocate it with coercion:

"So, I was wondering how you see the tie between the consequence of an action. If distasteful, do you impose your wishes to have it out-of-your-life? Does your partner have a total freedom in her decision? .... is abandonment a implied threat?"

So.. if I've got this straight, you're saying that because someone in a relationship can unduly influence the otherís decision, it's OK to deny that coerced person bodily autonomy too?

What a frightful world you must live in!

Posted by: Cameron at July 15, 2007 7:09 PM


Christina, where did you learn the name of David Grimes? You listed him as one of the good abortionists.

He was a professor at UCSF, pretty much the best med school in the country. Now I think he's at Chapel Hill.

Posted by: SoMG at July 15, 2007 8:33 PM


"What a frightful world you must live in!"

- because people like you are in it! think about this Cam ...

Posted by: John McDonell Author Profile Page at July 15, 2007 8:36 PM


re. the coercion ... I was not coercing the pregnant woman, in my analogy the coercion comes from her male partner ... and has to do with .... what?

The secondary action be it abortion or a lung operation (for cancer) is consequent on the first action. This secondary action is initiated against a pregnancy/fetus. Similarly, an action to have a cancerous growth removed is a secondary action, dependent on the first and like abortion is initiated to remove a growth mass of cells.

The consequences to both are found in response to: " ... so what now?" However, the consequence to both of these is life-altering. So perhaps it is not the consequence that is the issue but the seriousness of the consequence. What do you think?

Posted by: John McDonell Author Profile Page at July 15, 2007 9:08 PM


Christina, 7/14, 7:08p: So funny! Likely true. Your other comments are excellent.

MK, 7/14, 8:28p: Excellent post. I agree on what we've learned from pro-aborts here. Lots of new, shocking, cold stuff.

Heather, 7/15, 8:07a made a great point: Go to a pro-abort site and see how long a pro-lifer lasts. Why don't they want to talk to us?

Posted by: Jill Stanek Author Profile Page at July 16, 2007 5:35 AM


Jill, they will allow you to participate, if you know every swear word in the book! The second requirement is a deep hatred for other people. How do these people live their lives? So bitter!

Posted by: Heather4life at July 16, 2007 7:39 AM


"So for Cam ... before a fetus even exists, pregnancy does not occur ... and a fetus (and pregnancy) only start at implantation."

What I have read and heard is medically, a pregnancy starts at implantation because of the high percentage of woman who DO get their eggs fertilized naturally flush them out before they do implant (something like 40%).

Posted by: Stephanie at July 16, 2007 11:04 AM


John,

"re. the coercion ... I was not coercing the pregnant woman, in my analogy the coercion comes from her male partner ... and has to do with .... what?"

I can't tell if you asking me to clarify your original question for you or answer another question.

"The secondary action be it abortion or a lung operation (for cancer) is consequent on the first action. This secondary action is initiated against a pregnancy/fetus. Similarly, an action to have a cancerous growth removed is a secondary action, dependent on the first and like abortion is initiated to remove a growth mass of cells."

Ha ha... you called the fetus a "mass of cells." ;-P

"The consequences to both are found in response to: " ... so what now?" However, the consequence to both of these is life-altering. So perhaps it is not the consequence that is the issue but the seriousness of the consequence. What do you think?"

So... if the consequences of the secondary action are deemed "serious" then the secondary action can be banned or made obligatory? So would you force chemotherapy on the smoker even if he declined it? Instead of any genuine individual autonomy, we should have some sort of tribunal to first decide if autonomy really applies in this case, and if it doesn't, pass it on to another tribunal to make the decision for the person? That's not particularly ethically or philosophically compelling. Maybe you need to elaborate.

Posted by: Cameron at July 16, 2007 12:48 PM


Hi Cam,

I try very hard to follow your logic, but it is as enigmatic as mine............ no doubt.

#1 - re. coercion ... there are no doubt pressures around when a woman makes the (tough?) decision to abort. People like SmoAG benefit financially with her decision (but plays a very minor role in the persuasion end). [Pro-life antics also have little bearing.] So what helps her to make up her mind?

I've posted elsewhere that likely she is in a very fragile - depressed - state due to a zinc deficit. Are there other influences too? - emotional support from her lover seems right at the top of the list. I can think of several psychological 'tricks' that males can use to coerce a woman to accede to his wishes (even if these are unspoken).

re. "the mass of cells"- please don't get all bent out of shape over this ... all we are as living adults is a "mass of cells". Just a larger "mass" than at the fetal stage. It's something akin to a well-known Rembrandt painting. Because we have a lesser known Rembrandt does not mean, we can destroy it. ... but according to you that's OK! - just a fetus after all!

Posted by: John McDonell Author Profile Page at July 16, 2007 3:25 PM


"I try very hard to follow your logic, but it is as enigmatic as mine............ no doubt."

LOL... well, some of it's just bad writing (both of us).

"So what helps her to make up her mind?"

When it comes to Plan B, I think sheís probably thinking I can prevent an unplanned pregnancy still. The decision isnít much different from choosing to use a condom, as she knows that it will most likely prevent fertilization, rather than prevent an embryo from implanting. On the off chance itís fertilized, itís still not particularly meaningful, given that it may not have implanted anyhow had she not taken Plan B. Even fully dispensing with any wishful thinking and embracing the unlikely scenario that it is most certainly destroying a fertilized embryo, itís still not a particularly meaningful life to most reasonable people.

So what do you think is helping a woman make-up her mind with Plan B? The same thing as abortion? From economics to dreading the physical realities of pregnancy? From her relationship with the father to her relationships with her friends and family? Mostly, whether or not she's been indoctrinated to believe that denying the fetus use of her body is murder? A great many women presume there is no choice because they have already been coerced or mislead otherwise.

Basically, I'm seeing two arguments coming from you. A) It's not "really" her choice, and B) she can't make it because the embryo has robbed her of her wits. Argument B) is a foolish one in general, and particularly foolish in this case of Plan B considering that the egg hasn't even implanted. A) Throwing the baby out with the bath water. Your implied alternative to respecting her autonomy even if she may have been coerced, is that we should just take the decision from her. Seriously, what are you trying to say?

"just a fetus after all!"

Like HisMan, you seem completely incapable of even acknowledging what the genuine argument is. As long as your arguments are always based on false pretense regarding the opposing argument, they're not going to be successful rebuttals.


Posted by: Cameron at July 16, 2007 5:24 PM


(sorry about the delay - sudden power loss meant lost original response too)

Hi Cam,

trying to be lucid is very hard at times. Like my sibs most of the time I think far too quickly and tend to jump from one spot to another. My younger brother tends to speak the way you write ... and I have a very hard time following him except when he's mad at me ... then he speaks plainly, lol!

If I'm to follow your reasoning process: a pregnant woman wishes to end her pregnancy by evacuating her womb. My rebuttal does not get any hearing with you because this, for you is the 'basic argument' ... correct????????????

Posted by: John McDonell Author Profile Page at July 16, 2007 6:40 PM


Hi Cam,

in the above post, I purposely left out any mention of a fetus .... "just a fetus after all!" It was/is very difficult to attempt any sound argumentation without such a reference. It is very much like trying to explain an enthusiasm for music to a profoundly deaf person. Any argumentation that doesn't quite fit with Cam's sensibilities is necessarily false and 'foolish' (your term).

You keep plugging away at the mantra about 'body autonomy'. I assume you argue very much as Diana. And like Diana humans have no intrinsic value. At the very same time this 'body autonomy' is a value of the very highest order, How can any human exhibit a lack of value (a '0') as a total being and at the very same time one part (body autonomy) be extremely precious? I asked Diana where would such value come from ... others was her reply.

It is very odd ... that a being of no value can impart value on another being. I always thought that nothing comes from nothing. Similarly 0 + 0+0+0+0.... = 0 always. In simple words body autonomy = 0

Posted by: John McDonell Author Profile Page at July 16, 2007 7:35 PM


"It was/is very difficult to attempt any sound argumentation without such a reference. It is very much like trying to explain an enthusiasm for music to a profoundly deaf person."

For your arrogant purposes, you presume your argument is lost to me, but in actuality I understand it quite clearly, and it's still the wrong argument. Despite some prochoicers getting sucked into it or humoring you... this isn't about justifying when it is or isn't OK to kill a fetus... this is about justifying when it is or isn't OK to force someone to give up control of their body so that another person might live. It's about the rights of two people inextricably linked, and it doesn't matter what developmental stage one of them is at... it's still a question regarding two, not just one. However, absent any legitimate argument, the alternative is the appeal to emotions with the myopic attention to the innocent juvenile party. Ignoring the real argument doesn't make you some sort aloof torch-bearer, it makes you a fool appealing to emotions and apparently ignorant of bigger picture.

"Cam's sensibilities is necessarily false and 'foolish' (your term)."

Sorry, I confess, faulty logic offends my sensibilities... however it's foolish regardless of how I feel about it.

"..very same time this 'body autonomy' is a value of the very highest order,"

It's an intrinsic universally recognized human right. It's worth isn't open to subjective speculation. But I see you're just setting up the next logical fallacy, and redefining things for your purposes.

"How can any human exhibit a lack of value (a '0') as a total being and at the very same time one part (body autonomy) be extremely precious?"

It is being that is valued, and being autonomous is the most valued form of being. That was easy.

"It is very odd ...that a being of no value can impart value on another being."

Which is exactly what you assert when you advance the notion that a fetus' rights exceed that of the woman... and the rights all other humans for that matter.

"I always thought that nothing comes from nothing. Similarly 0 + 0+0+0+0.... = 0 always. In simple words body autonomy = 0"

LOL... oh @#$&%... where do I sign. Gosh I think you've sold me on that math. We'll be right over to harvest your organs for the closest match in jiffy.

I have another canned anology for you, now that you've brought up value, in a cognative vacuum, as a rebuttal. I like this one alot because it invokes numerous ethical issues, in addition to bodily autonomy.

Let's say you are abducted by aliens who have tremendous technological advancements. They know earth is in its final days but can't save it. Instead they want to blast you apart at the cellular level and use each cell of your being to clone new yous. These clones would be used to repropogate the human race. Are you more or less valuable based on how many clones you might make of yourself? What if they didn't even have to harm you? Is your inherent worth solely based on agreeing to the cloning? How could you justify declining if every being has value?


Posted by: Cameron at July 16, 2007 8:56 PM


hi Cam,

I understand from Diana that the source of rights comes from others. the math bit was to show that even billions of zeros still sums '0'. If these values/rights have intrinsic worth, from where does this intrinsic worth come from. Remember appeals to emotions or Higher Power do not count because His existence is not provable and is irrational.

You do follow me better than I do you. So please delineate what the source of intrinsic worth is. Or are you making an unattributed claim? If so, prove this right to be held as an unrivaled universal worth ... and no cheating permitted.

"Which is exactly what you assert when you advance the notion that a fetus' rights exceed that of the woman... and the rights all other humans for that matter."
I think perhaps you belittle what we mean by a right-to-life. [A fetus is hardly worth a mention in your mind.] A human must be existing and alive before such a right as 'body autonomy' can function. This is not about conflicting values but an teaching of others the supreme value of human life. I had dropped the name of Rembrandt because he is universally appreciated as a superb artist. So an analogy is that women are superb works of art. Pregnant women are superb works of art, giving life (from the same artist) to another painting.

Posted by: John McDonell Author Profile Page at July 16, 2007 10:58 PM


"....billions of zeros still sums '0'. If these values/rights have intrinsic worth, from where does this intrinsic worth come from."

Your zeros are arbitary, and vacuous truth. I choose ones. Clearly Diane's "others" are somethings, and invoking a successsion of nothings is just your self-serving and inaccurate re-interpitation. Whatever arbitrary number you'd like to assign them, they certainly aren't zero. Is being not valued? Kind of defeats your whole premise if it's not.

Worth and value are these reoccuring two words you keep using here because you can't actually make an argument with more relevant words. You move further and further from the orignial context (Plan B as an abortifacient), such that there is absolutely no evidence of it anymore, and one would be fully incapable of discerning with what context you have launced from, because you can't make any stand on any substantive line. You're asking questions, but seem uninterested in the answers and are in short engaged in sophism. Again, you're also dancing with your hand on my ass and not making any move, just invoking it in hopes of somehow being thought provoking or casting doubt on the oposing argument via confusion. The only thing apparent here is a complete lack of clarity on your part though. Seriously, what's your point? First you're talking about human worth/value.. then suddenly it's actually the worth/value of rights. At least pick one and try to make a cognative argument to some extent... and go somewhere with it.

"So please delineate what the source of intrinsic worth is. Or are you making an unattributed claim?"

Your question cannot be answered because it depends on irrelevant and incorrect assumptions/presumptsions--that value/worth require a source, and that value/worth claims are based on extrinsic authority.

Moving back to Plan B... is the value/worth of the embryo demished by the high probability that it may not even exist?


Posted by: Cameron at July 17, 2007 11:18 AM