No more partial birth abortions? There’s always disarticulation abortions.
Syndicated columnist Kathleen Parker wants to reassure those frightened about dwindling abortion options following the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the Partial Birth Abortion Ban. (I know pro-aborts hate that term, preferring it called the Dilatation and Extraction Abortion Ban or the Intact Dilatation and Evacuation Ban. Sorry.)
Says Parker:
In fact, women can still render themselves unpregnant, in the vernacular of choice-speak, by several means. They can “disarticulate the fetus” and even “reduce” or “separate the fetal calvarium.”
If the vocabulary is confusing, that’s the point. Using Orwellian language to sanitize the issue, so to speak, is a time-honored tactic of the “pro-choice” arbiters. If we don’t say what it is, we can pretend what it isn’t.
Herewith, a brief translation:
Disarticulating a fetus, which sounds like suspending a pre-born’s instant-messaging privileges, means to dismember it. Reducing a calvarium – a thoroughly desirable-sounding procedure, like lancing a boil – means to suck the brains from the baby’s head. Separating the calvarium means to sever the head with scissors….
Paying attention to the language of abortion – or anything else for that matter – is instructive when trying to consider right from wrong. If you have to dress something up to obfuscate the truth of what’s in play, you can probably assume it’s wrong.
When a man murders his wife, we don’t say, “Mr. X rendered his wife unalive by efficiently evacuating her cranial cavity with an instrument customarily associated with construction.” We say, “He bashed her brains out in a brutal attack with a claw hammer.”
We apparently have no stomach for similarly descriptive (honest) terminology when it comes to the unborn….
Reality pop quiz: When rational people can dispassionately discuss whether it’s better to dismember or collapse the skull of a pre-born baby, are they still allowed to call themselves rational?
Is anyone prepared to take that pop quiz?
[Hat tip: Patte S.]
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.
LMAO… the inanity here never fails to amuse!
Have any of you even read 1984? Do you know what the definition of doublespeak is, or even what you are intending to mean by invoking Orwellian??
Be honest now, which sounds less concise/ambiguous or euphemistic (i.e. doublespeak); fetus or pre-baby? Partial birth abortion or Dilation and Extraction?
This is perhaps the ironic thing I’ve ever read here, the Orwellian morphing of the word Orwellian to include clinical terminology.
Jill,
Excellent post. Right on the money.
Obfuscation of words is something the pro-abortion movement as well as other similar organizations are expert at.
Gay used to mean happy and not homosexual.
Joseph Goebbles, Hitler’s propaganda artist, was expert at it, and look what they were able to do.
Tell people the same thing over and over again until to them it becomes truth. The evidence of that is overwhelmingly demonstrated on this site as to how the young generation’s minds have been thoroughly corrupted by the liberal feminazi, kill unborn children, abortion as women’s rights propagandizers of our generation.
I’m going to my real time, ingestion of organic matter, work interruption choice now.
I think HisMan must work for the Ministry of Love
Wait a minute. Stop the presses. You mean the ‘choice’ side now says it is okay to use non-medical terms?
ahh… the irony of it all….
disarticulate – medical dictionary – disarticulate is not available in the medical dictionary. Try:
general English dictionary and thesaurus
calvarium – calvarium is not available in the medical dictionary. Try:
general English dictionary and thesaurus
I thought when it came to medical procedures you HAD to use the medically correct words.
Now these definitions actually found in the medical dictionary:
Baby – baby /ba
“Joseph Goebbles, Hitler’s propaganda artist, was expert at it, and look what they were able to do.”
Wow. Are you not sometimes disgusted by yourself? I can’t understand how anyone can compare abortion to Holocaust and Third Reich.
So how does this support your argument that a fetus is a baby?
HisMan, good idea. I am ingesting my enriched flour [wheat flour, niacin, reduced iron, thiamin mononitrate, riboflavin, folic acid], water, sugar, soybean oil, yeast, salt, flavor [dextrose, cornstarch, natural flavor], reduced fat mozzarella cheese [cultured milk and nonfat milk, modified food starch, salt vitamin A palmitate, enzymes], garlic sauce [water, seasoning, skim milk, cream skim milk, sodium caseinate], garlic powder, modified food starch, soybean oil, salt flavor [enzyme modified butter oil[, xanthan gum, flavor [maltodextrin, lipolyzed cream], spice whey power, yeast extract, cooked chicken [white meat chicken, water, seasoning, salt dried garlic sugar, modified cornstarch, yeast extract, dried onion, chicken broth], flavor [maltodextrin, butter flavor, annatto, turmeric], spices, natural flavor, natural chicken flavor, caramel color, isolated soy protein, modified rice starch, sauteed onions [onions, soybean oil, citric acid], basil food product, heretofore in pre-Orwellian language known as a Lean Cuisine Roasted Garlic Chicken Pizza.
Valerie, 12:44p: Ewww! I just checked my Mosby’s Medical Dictionary and you’re right! Neither “disarticulate” nr “calvarium” are listed. What a quandary for pro-aborts!, poor things!
Mm….love lean cuisine. Their spighetti and pizza are my favorite.
Yes, I could eat their pizzas every day. I do, actually.
Ingrid,
You’re exactly right. The Abortion Holocaust is much, much worse and diabolical than Hitler’s Holocaust. Thanks for pointing that out.
JK,
The Ministry of Love is Jill’s, MK’s, Valerie’s, and Bethany’s responsibilites.
I’m responsible for the Ministry of Truth. What, can’t handle the truth?
Off-topic post:
Some weeks ago Jill and I had an exchange about whether physician’s assistants should be permitted to perform suction curretage abortions early in pregnancy.
Here’s an article on the subject y’all might find interesting.
http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/full/94/8/1352
Money quote: “Conclusions. Surgical abortion services provided by experienced physician assistants were comparable in safety and efficacy to those provided by physicians.”
That’s right, HisMan, I forgot that you preferred the spreading of ridiculous lies over the use of torture.
yes, their use of words is a convienant trick (backed up by the mainstream media), ex. “what the law calls Partial Birth Abortion”
at least Fox-news trys to be fair.
Jill,
Camsgottheruns and SMOG are are back.
Why are these guys so involved in supporting abortion?
Would you see them as knights in shining armor or just waterboys?
So how does this support your argument that a fetus is a baby?
Posted by: JK at April 23, 2007 12:48 PM
Well, if it isn’t a baby then what is it that is unborn? Offspring? Young?
How does using non-medical terminology support your argument that abortion is a medical procedure?
No JK,
Truth is truth and lies are lies.
If I told you that I was responsible for the disseminating of lies I’d be pro-choice. That is, I would be saying I was against abortion but for right of the mother to abort. Now if that isn’t convoluted (a twisted lie), I don’t know what is.
HisMan, don’t know Cams. Must have started posting since I vacated on vacation. SOMG, now there’s an interesting guy. His posts simply shock me, which isn’t easy to do. SOMG, I checked out your link above. You’re right, it is off topic, and I’m buried in emails or I’d spar with you on it.
I’m not arguing either way merely asking a question to your post that seemed to contradict your stance.
But I’d say that abortion is a medical procedure because you would want someone medically trained and knew what they were doing.
HisMan, have you even read 1984? Or did you get by in school on a football scholarship or something?
“I’m not arguing either way merely asking a question to your post that seemed to contradict your stance. ”
How did I contradict myself? I’m not the one who constantly screams we have to use so called medically accurate words when discussing abortion.
How about some more medically accurate definition:
moth
JK,
Read 1984? Methinks so. And Catcher in the Rye, and Lord of the Flies and about 5,000 books since. Aced all my Lit courses in college even though they were taught by this somewhat gay guy….good teacher. BSME-1976, PE – 1981, MTH – 2006, Doctoral Candidate – 2008. Own an engineering firm and foundation company and distribution company. Studied Ancient Near East Literature also as it relates to development of modern philosophy, i.e., Plato, Aristotle, Judao-Christian ethics, etc.
QB at top NYS all boy Catholic High School. No scholarship though, all academic scholarships, didn’t need it. Played baseball, ran track.
Sons and daughter are all scholar athletes, in fact, my oldest son played rugby at the US Air Force Academy.
Trying to imply something, like being pro-life is dumb?
What’s the point. Got a problem with a real man?
Jill,
Cameron is a living fart.
The site just stinks up when he’s on it.
When you have a minute go back and look at his posts.
He’s a blaspehmous wimp.
Hisman-
Why the nastiness? Why all the ad hominem arguments? If you have no way to legitimatly attack Camerons points using cogent reasoning, why don’t you just not address them. Or as all of our mothers used to say “If you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all”. Only in this case, if you don’t have anything pertinent to add to the dialouge.
And truth is subjective, even God’s truth is somewhat subjective, that it why the bible is allegorical. And evangelism and judgement are not true Christian traits. Love and meekness are.
Peace.
Erin
I second HisMan, The guy is smart plus his posts are great.
Although I’m sorry that my Redsox swept the Yankees over the weekend.
*that is why the bible is allegorical
Erin,
Sorry, the Bible is the Sword of the Spirit.
I choose to wield it.
Be honest now, which sounds less concise/ambiguous or euphemistic (i.e. doublespeak); fetus or pre-baby? Partial birth abortion or Dilation and Extraction?
First of all, it’s not “pre-baby”. Pre-baby is what a sperm is.
“Pre-born baby”, “unborn baby”, or “unborn child”, those are some of the terms that we use, and anyone knows what those terms mean. They are clearly not ambigious terms.
Erin, ignore him. He enjoys judgement, you’ll not get anywhere with him. HisMan quite loves being held as the moral standard for all people, which is, of course, why he goes around calling people living farts.
I dunno about you, but I’d take Cams over HisMan any day, blasphemy and all.
As for “Dilation and Extraction”….besides people who are involved in abortion politics, and people who are involved in medical situations, etc…. what layperson generally knows what that means?
Can you walk up to anyone on the street and ask them “Can you define dilation and extraction for me?” and they’ll tell you exactly what it involves? Most people understand what “Partial birth abortion” means, or at least what it sounds like (which is very accurate)…most people do NOT know what “dilation and extraction” means, and it doesn’t give them a clear picture of what it might be. (Dilation of what? Extraction of what?) It leaves too many unanswered questions using the term alone. The term “Partial birth abortion” is much more descriptive within itself and makes much more sense as a title, as it correctly describes the barbaric process.
So of course we believe the latter of your choices are ambigious and misleading.
Jasper,
I love athletics.
If is wasn’t for my hometown team the D’Backs, i.e., Curt Schilling, Boston wouldn’t have had a chance. Schilling went to same high school as my three oldest sons, Shadow Mountain in Phoenix. My eldest son was friends with Mike Bibby (Sacametno Kings) and Misty Hyman (Gold Medalist swimmer). My third son ran track with Shawn MacDonald (St. Loius Rams)at Shadow.
Took my ten year old to a Matt Leinart camp a few weeks ago. Donovan McNabb was there. Matt through a 50 yard TD bomb to him and can you believe, McNabb through an interceoption. It was hilarious.
My daughter’s cheerleading squad did a cheerleader birthday party for Gonzo’s daughter last fall.
It was great to see the Snakes beat the Yanks in ’01. Went to all 4 games. Some solace after 9/11.
I’m glad the Sox won, they deserved it and were the better team.
Gotta make a confession though, the Yankees will always be THE TEAM.
I’m a blessed man as you can see. It’s all about Him.
I’m a rabid pro-lifer. Why? No life, no blessing. No kids to brag about and hold in awe and watch what God does with them.
Simply, abortion is stupid.
Less,
You never answered my question of a few days ago. Were you a Leech before you were a Less? I mean weren’t you the one calling pre-born babies leeches? So, what gave you the right to be born? Did someone make a mistake?
And Erin,
Please don’t ignore me, I couldn’t stand it really.
And no, the Bible isn’t allegorical. Who told you that, some harvey-milk-toast college professor? He’s gonna die too someday and what’s his solution….anhilation? Deny the truth and destroy yourself and others you mislead in the process. That’s brilliant!
I’ve got a solution, how about a documented Savior on a cross, then resurrected? Gonna call that allegorical? What about those allegorical miracles? Guess Jospehus’ eyes were lying eyes?
HisMan, of course I was a “leech.” I was a fetus leeching of my mother’s nutrients, we all were. I was wanted, however: my mom chose to have me. I’m thankful she had that choice, frankly: I know I’d be quite angry if my mom had been forced to have me.
Amen HisMan,
That’s true about Shill (he has a blog called 38pitches).
I’m a big Tom Brady fan but I was kinda disappointed when he didn’t stand with his girlfriend after she got pregnant. But I guess I don’t know the whole story….
I never have been able to understand the intellectual arrogance of the pro-choice position. I used to be a pro-choicer in my early days, mainly because I was a young, whore-mongering Marine who needed to keep my options open. Then one day, I woke up to the stark realization that my position was logically indefensible. Hard as I tried, I couldn’t come up with an argument justifying abortion that didn’t also justify infanticide. I finally came to realize that I couldn’t do so simply because they are actually the same thing.
Pro-choicers assuage their consciences by convincing themselves that the “products of conception” are not human life and, therefore its removal is not murderous or immoral. However, even the pro-aborts with whom I typically argue will concede that the “products of conception” become a human life at some point in its development. After all, they, themselves, were once “products of conception” and became a human being at some point afterwards.
What I have been searching for all these years is a pro-choicer who can tell me, definitively, when the “products of conception” become a human life, endowed with all the rights that they, themselves, have, and actually defend their answer using logic and reason.
My search has endured for 15 years. Perhaps here I can find a pro-choicer worthy of the intellectual superiority that they seem to claim.
Less,
Sorry, don’t tell me I was a leech. No I was made in the image and likeness of God as we all were. And if someone forced my mother to have me agasint her will, I’d be just as thankful and happy to be alive now and just as glad that someone had the courage to stand against an evil act.
Your statement that you’d be angry if someone forced your mother to have you is absolutely hilarious and dishonest. That’s like saying you’d be angry if a police officer rescued you from a rapist simply because he took the rapist’s choice to rape you away. Astounding, the total sense of illogic and dishonesty presented on this site by pro-aborts.
Your attempt at nobility is a failure.
His Man,
I was an unwanted child. I don’t quite recall how I found out, but I did and it’s been with my ever since.
My mother did NOT want me. My grandmother kept her from getting an abortion and basically made her raise me.
It sucks growing up knowing your mother, as much as she loves you now, did NOT want you. Don’t get me wrong, I am glad to be alive.
But the whole thing damaged our relationship. We’re not nearly as close as we might have been.
Just a thought.
Jeremy,
A simply excellent post. You made a mistake though; the pro-aborts will use the fact that you were a Marine as evidence from their point of view that you were and are a Neanderthal and hence not worthy of listenig to. Never mind that you risked your life for them to be able to make such stupid assumptions and freely speak them. Thank you for your service, real man. Semper Fi.
Jasper,
One of the dark sides of profesinal athletics is that you will find that money and arrogance don’t alwaye make the best choices for a mate.
Anyway, I’m out. I have finals to begin studying for.
Good day, all :).
Heather B.:
The point is God wanted you.
Heather,
In truth, it wasn’t YOU your mother didn’t want. She didn’t even know YOU. Like my mother (who had just turned 16 when I was conceived), she just didn’t want to be a mother (for whatever reason made her pregnancy a crisis).
If she loves you now, I would bet that she regrets the feelings she had way back then. I know my mother does, but it comforts her when I tell her what I just told you. She didn’t dislike ME. She disliked the CIRCUMSTANCES surrounding ME.
Hope that helps.
I was unwanted. My Dad told me that when he saw me in my Mom’s arms she looked at him and said “Isn’t she beautiful?”.
After my birth she had to have a full hysterectomy. I could have been aborted because of ‘health of the Mother’. I asked her several times if she wished she had not had me. She always said that her decision to have me was the best one of her life.
I have a friend who WAS wanted by her Mother. Her childhood abuse case has been studied and documented in textbooks. All 5 of the daughters were wanted. All 5 experienced the worse abuse that some social workers had ever seen.
I don’t think it matters if anyone is wanted or not as to the outcome of the relationship with their parents. It is the attitude of raising their children that counts.
His Man,
I find it more arrogant and unbelievable to think that I EVER had a right to anyone’s body, ESPECIALLY MY MOTHER’S. I love her and respect her rights so much that I’d die to save her, and you are causing me so much heartbreak to think that I ever had THE RIGHT to put such a wonderful woman in harm’s way. My mom went through hell with her pregnancy with me and the subsequent labor, which easily could have killed her. I am crying right now, thinking of how if you were in charge, you would have sentenced so many women like my mother to death because of the hardships they have in their pregnancies and the hazards they face toward their lives in delivery. My mom had every right to abort me because of the danger I posed to her life and health. Don’t you ever tell ME that someone who CHOSE to put herself in harm’s way has the OBLIGATION to DIE for another being. I would LAY DOWN MY LIFE TO PROTECT MY MOTHER’S LIFE AND THE RIGHTS TO HER BODY. Don’t you dare tell me that I’m immoral.
By the way, she’s still pro-choice.
And I understand the story with your wife and her last pregnancy. I’m glad you made the choice that was best for you. Don’t apply your story to the lives of all people. Just because one route worked for you does NOT mean it is applicable to all.
“I don’t think it matters if anyone is wanted or not as to the outcome of the relationship with their parents. It is the attitude of raising their children that counts.”
I agree with you there, Valerie. My mother wasn’t exactly quiet about the fact that she didn’t want children. She made it known that raising us was a chore and that if not for us, her life wouldn’t be what it is.
Heh. I remember, whenever she was lecturing me, she’d yell at me to get a certain look off my face (I would tend to pick a point and stare at it with my jaw set, apparently just like my father…she can’t stand him).
Hm.
Not sure if I interpreted that correctly.
Why is it that wanted babies are more subject to abuse than unwanted ones? It seems like such a paradox.
Hisman-
“An allegory (from Greek
To me a choice is what shoes to buy,what flavor of icecream to eat,what color or car model to drive,etc. The word CHOICE has been so twisted, and the word has been so perverted by the pro-choice crowd.Since when has murder been an acceptable choice?
As to the procedure in the article,very equally sickening! All of them are!! I personally have never come across a happy pro-abort-I mean it.
“I don’t think it matters if anyone is wanted or not as to the outcome of the relationship with their parents. It is the attitude of raising their children that counts.”
Well said!
Are Pro-Lifers Obliged to Present Our Case “Unemotionally”?
Commonly, Republican leadership stresses how important it is that when we present our case on an issue, we most do so with out being emotional. In fact, it was recently heard at my county convention this weekend. Jill Stanek’s column
PS.I hope the courts ban this heinous procedure too.
“Hard as I tried, I couldn’t come up with an argument justifying abortion that didn’t also justify infanticide. I finally came to realize that I couldn’t do so simply because they are actually the same thing.”
Your problem was you were asking the wrong question with respect to the true ethical concerns of the debate. You were sucked into the fetus-centric question which ignores that a fetus and mother are inextricably linked. The more appropriate question is: When and why should pregnancy be compulsory?
Thanks Erin!!
HisMan, that’s great that you’d be happy if your mother was forced to have you. I wouldn’t be. As you have very little knowledge about me, I find it rather hilarious that you would call my statement dishonest. You have no basis on which to judge the truth of my statement besides what you can glean about me from this posts: precious little, as your faith blinds you to anything besides my lack thereof.
Heather B –
If you were talking about my post that you don’t know if you interpreted correctly, I think you did. At least your response made alot of sense to me.
Alyssa –
“I would LAY DOWN MY LIFE TO PROTECT MY MOTHER’S LIFE AND THE RIGHTS TO HER BODY. ”
Its a shame that not all Women feel this way. I’m not critisizing you Alyssa – it is just a really good point. This is how everyone should feel about their parents and Children (born and unborn). The phrase “rights to her body” does leave a real bad feeling in my gut though. I do have the right not to get raped, and the right not to get beat up, and the right to shelter and safety. But I do not have the right to harm anyone else in my quest for my rights. I do not have the right to take someone else’s house so that I can have shelter. I do not have the right to blame innocent men of rape because I’m not sure which one did it. I do not have the right to “hit first” because I ‘feel’ someone may hit me. Sometimes bodily rights must be sacraficed for the right of someone elses bodily rights.
If we dont’ take into account other people’s rights and are only concerned about our rights, what will happen to society as a whole?
Alyssa – like I said, I’m not critisizing you I’m just thinking. It seems our Mother’s both had the same kind of experience with our births. But they chose to deal with it differently on how we were raised. My Mother is Pro-Life. Your Mother is Pro-Choice. I find that interesting.
Also to hitchhike onto Val’s post.We couldn’t stick up for our mothers if we weren’t here.
Sorry for the Val,Valerie. I have 2 friends named Val.[Valerie] It just comes out naturally.
Val,
“disarticulate – medical dictionary – disarticulate is not available in the medical dictionary. Try: general English dictionary and thesaurus calvarium – calvarium is not available in the medical dictionary. Try: general English dictionary and thesaurus”
Calvarium is an improper application of latin term, try calvaria if it doesn’t work. Also, disarticulate is what is done to the calvaria, so try disarticulation.
I’d forgive you given it’s not your area of expertise, but I’m really biting my tongue not making fun of you at the moment.
http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/omd?query=calvarium
http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/omd?query=disarticulation
http://www2.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/mwmednlm?book=Medical&va=calvarium
http://www2.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/mwmednlm?book=Medical&va=disarticulation
http://www.online-medical-dictionary.org/omd.asp?q=calvarium
http://www.online-medical-dictionary.org/omd.asp?q=disarticulation
http://www.stedmans.com/section.cfm/45
Alyssa,I think it’s great that you do love your mother so much! I see so many people disrespecting theirs today.
Cameron,all those stats for what we already knew. Fancy wording for killing children.
Cameron said:
“Your problem was you were asking the wrong question with respect to the true ethical concerns of the debate. You were sucked into the fetus-centric question which ignores that a fetus and mother are inextricably linked. The more appropriate question is: When and why should pregnancy be compulsory?”
Have you not been sucked into the materno-centric question which ignores the fact that a fetus is a separate human being with its own DNA?
I will also answer your “more appropriate” question: Pregnancy is compulsory when its termination involves the killing of another innocent human life. You may as well ask, “When and why should parenthood be compulsory?” The answer is the same.
Right on Jeremy!!!!
“materno-centric question”
LMAO!!!
Let me see if I understand; apparently using the term pregnancy ignores that there is something gestating inside the mother in favor of focusing on the woman???
Is this some more of that brand of orwellian doublespeak you all have twisted and redeployed??
Your welcome to ask me unloaded questions if you’d like me to respond with something other than my own loaded questions.
Best,
Cameron
“Cameron,all those stats for what we already knew. Fancy wording for killing children.”
So you agree that Val’s assesment was incorrect then. Thank you and case closed.
Cameron,what could it be gestating inside of the mother? A German Shepard?
Cameron,you wish. My case is so far from closed.
PS Cameron,the Supreme Court closed one of your cases for you. The whole US of A was watching.
Cameron,
We are wrestling with the question of whether or not a fetus is a human life, worthy of the most basic human right. As such, we cannot simply focus on one or the other (mother or fetus). We MUST consider both parties involved.
If a fetus is NOT a human life then our focusing on the fetus in any way, whatsoever, is a moot point. However, if the fetus IS a human life (the question we are tackling), then we would be the most cruel and inhuman monsters to focus solely on the mother at the expense of the fetus. At that point, we must consider both the mother and the fetus.
But, if we’re weighing the life of the fetus against the “convenience” of the mother, then there should be no competition, whatsoever. The life of one human being always supercedes the convenience of another. If that weren’t the case, my wife would have killed me long ago.
So really, there is only one question that is appropriate to any discussion of abortion: Is a fetus a human life, and when did it become so?
Are you up to that challenge?
Jeremy,well put!I’d like to know the answer to this. When does life begin? 11 weeks,2 months, 9 months,or whenever WE say so?
Apparently the law says that a fetus is not a human life. If the law thought that way then the US Supreme Court would have outlawed all abortions. Seeing as that did not happen, the fetus is a fetus. Case closed.
every now and then Cameron you do pose some interesting questions … and they tend to reveal what is uppermost (for you) in this debate …
the reason why we are fetus-centric is likely illustrated best by the birth of Madison Ruth (Heather’s baby). We are not as fetal-centric as you think; more appropriately we are likely baby-nuts … no-no … maybe a wee bit daft (and in-love) with ALL people (even you and SOMG, Cam!).
True – true … “that a fetus and mother are inextricably linked” always …. In life and in death – abortion!
again: “When and why should pregnancy be compulsory?” because the human species lives via its fertility …. it is one aspect of being ‘human’- accepting responsibility for our own fertility, our life! I purposely used the word ‘our’ and not ‘my’ because we in this together and not as isolates!
Is there no joy in you to hear that Madison Ruth lives?
It appears life begins if and when the child is born @ nine months. Not when it is a fetus. Up until then, the woman in questions has the right to abort.
Jer,
“So really, there is only one question that is appropriate to any discussion of abortion: Is a fetus a human life, and when did it become so?”
That’s a stupid question.
Perhaps some pro-choicers like to argue otherwise (really they are arguing self-aware member of society), but the fetus is indeed human and living.
Are you up to the challenge of considering the appropriate question??
When it comes to rights, the argument is not whether it has rights or not, it’s to what extent that fetus’ right to life exceeds the right to life enjoyed by those outside the womb. Should a fetus enjoy more rights than all other humans???
We’re weighing the fetus’ right to life with respect to the mother’s right of self-determination, aka bodily autonomy, not presumptions about each mother’s personal rationale (e.g. convenience).
Bottom line; nobody outside the womb has a right to anyone’s body, or parts of it, unless they are volunteered willingly. Why should a fetus?
Best,
Cameron
I know of many women who still cling to the “blood clot” nonsense. Blood clots don’t have eyes,ears or developing fingers and toes. These women are clearly soothing their own souls after abortion.
Ashley said…
“Apparently the law says that a fetus is not a human life.”
I’d like to know where it says that.
“Clearly soothing their own souls after abortion”
So tell me Heather, which would you rather happen? A woman has an abortion, becuase she can not take care of her child. So instead, she gets not pre-natal care and then when the child is born, she smothers him/her with a pillow and then dumps the body?
Who gives you the right to judge anyone? Who died and left you in charge?
Thank you John. Haven’t seen ya. God Bless!
shhhh cameron, i am on your side here
So tell me Heather, which would you rather happen? A woman has an abortion, becuase she can not take care of her child. So instead, she gets not pre-natal care and then when the child is born, she smothers him/her with a pillow and then dumps the body?
Both of those situations are EQUALLY horrid.
No only one is horrid, the mother killing her child after he/she is born. Abortions are not horrid, and you are apparently closed-minded for thinking that.
Ashley,neither. Infanticide does happen though. I feel that these women should be brought up on murder charges.I’m all for stiff sentences!
Ashley, 5:23p, said: “Apparently the law says that a fetus is not a human life.”
Wrong. Certain laws say a fetus is a human, and harming the fetus is prosecutable. Even the CHIP program (Children’s Health Insurance Program) was expanded under President Bush a few years ago to cover children from conception on.
Ashley, 5:23p, said: “If the law thought that way then the US Supreme Court would have outlawed all abortions. Seeing as that did not happen, the fetus is a fetus. Case closed.”
Ashley, you’re quite uneducated. I advise you to stop typing. I read somewhere that even fools look smart when silent. The Supremes ruled on a very specific point. That’s what they do. They even left the door open for a specific woman to challenge the PBA Ban for a specific health reason.
Cameron, 5:29p, what, questioning one of your own’s ignorant remarks?
I’m for a stiff sentence if the mother kills her child after he/she is born. That is murder. The child was born, and breathed air.
Abortions should not carry a stiff sentence becuase they are not murder in my eyes (or in the law’s eyes).
“Is there no joy in you to hear that Madison Ruth lives?”
Nice ad-hominem syllogistic mistake! Can I use that one?
“…it is one aspect of being ‘human’- accepting responsibility for our own fertility..”
So infertility is irresponsible?
Wow, Jill personal attacks on people. Very classy! : )
I am not a fool, and I am not un-educated either. I Have a college degree. And yes, some states have laws protecting the fetus if something happens to the woman or if she is attacked. No where is there a law that says a woman can not end her pregnancy at 12 weeks, if she so choses.
Frankly pro-choicers, Not all of this madness is your fault. Society definitely plays a huge part. A man can kill his wife, molest a child,rape a woman and society screams “Hang the s– of a B—-!!!!” A woman can stab,choke,microwave her unwanted newborn,and society is sympathetic. This still has me confused as hell.
Also Jill, will you stop calling it a partial birth abortion, that is not the medical term if you want to technicall about it.
Heather4life:
When have you ever seen the public sympathetic towards a woman who killed her newborn? When Andrea Yates killed her kids the public more or less wanted her to be shot. That girl up in Oakdale, MN who stabbed her baby over a 100 times has been vilified as a horrible, selfish teenage girl who deserves all the punishment she can get.
I see no preferential treatment.
Cameron asked:
When it comes to rights, the argument is not whether it has rights or not, it’s to what extent that fetus’ right to life exceeds the right to life enjoyed by those outside the womb. Should a fetus enjoy more rights than all other humans???
So, let me understand you. You admit that a fetus is a human life, but you believe that the rights of those outside the womb supercede the rights of those in the womb. Please explain how the physical location of a human either bestows or removes basic human rights.
We are not asking for MORE rights for fetuses. We are simply asking for the same rights. More specifically, we’re only asking for ONE equal right — the right to life.
Cameron said:
We’re weighing the fetus’ right to life with respect to the mother’s right of self-determination, aka bodily autonomy, not presumptions about each mother’s personal rationale (e.g. convenience).
I’m all for bodily autonomy. I feel like I can legally do whatever I want with my body, as long as it doesn’t hurt another human being. In other words, my right to swing my fists ends at the tip of your nose.
Cameron said:
Bottom line; nobody outside the womb has a right to anyone’s body, or parts of it, unless they are volunteered willingly. Why should a fetus?
It’s a false analogy. In order for me to exert my rights over a woman’s body, I must exercise my will, maliciously, to do so, from without. A fetus cannot maliciously exert its rights over a woman’s body from without. Even still, it’s an incredibly ridiculous argument. With the exception of rape, a fetus enters a womans body through her own willful actions. It is the height of absurdity to compare an innocent fetus to a person who willfully and maliciously exerts his/her will over any part of a woman’s body.
Amy Grossberg and Melissa Drexler,two New Jersey teens that comitted infanticide. These 2 skated. Each woman served only 2 years.Sick! At least in Grossberg’s case the prosecutor really tried to get a longer sentence.The guy knew the value of human life!
Rae,sorry we posted at the same time.
Whoa hold your horses there Heather.
I never said I would be sympathetic to a woman who microwaved her newborn baby. I am pro-choice, not pro-murder. I (personally) do not believe abortion is murder. What you just described is murder in my eyes (as well as the laws).
If a man kills his wife, he should be tried by a jury of his peers. Depending on the verdict, he should get an appropriete jail sentence. Same for a woman who kills her child after the child is born, the same should apply to her.
Andrea Yates and Susan Smith both got life sentences. However their cases were not infanticide.
Either way killing a human (not an abortion) is murder. Unless it is self-defense and that can be proved in court. I am not a homicidal maniac that thinks all murders ok.
Ashley,most people in their right minds wouldn’t. However,I have to question our judicial system in cases like these.
Cameron –
Very strange the definition thing. I went to medicine.net which is the website that the Mayo Clinic sends you to for medical terminology and none of the words are there. Clavaria, clavarium, disarticulation, etc…. The free dictionary, medical dictionary doesn’t have clavaria or clavarium but it does have disarticulation.
Intelihealth.com (Havard Medical school) has the definitions for the words.
I do have to say that I am a bit disturbed that several medical dictionaries have the words and some don’t. Personally, I thought the mayo clinic was a good reference. Even you have to admit it odd.
I would say Thank you for pointing that out to me, but naahhh… Not in the mood for that.
in what cases? Abortion? Please explain to me why you think abortion is murder? I am very open-minded and would love to hear a good argument for it that does not involve religion…
Ashley, 5:44p, said: “I am not a fool, and I am not un-educated either. I Have a college degree. And yes, some states have laws protecting the fetus if something happens to the woman or if she is attacked.”
If you were educated, you would know how to spell uneducated. If you were educated, you would know this is a FEDERAL law. If you were educated, you would know that law uses the term, “unborn children,” not fetus.
Ashley, 5:46p, said: “Also Jill, will you stop calling it a partial birth abortion, that is not the medical term if you want to technicall about it.”
Ashley, I told you for your own good to stop typing. “Partial birth abortion” is both a medical and legal term. I don’t know how many times I’ve linked to the AMA letter approving the Partial Birth Abortion Ban: http://www.gargaro.com/ama.html
The term is also in medical dictionaries: http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/PBAdictionary.html
Please, please stop typing and exposing your ignorance over and over and over again, Ashley. I’m trying to help you here.
Jer,
“So, let me understand you. You admit that a fetus is a human life,”
Yes… quite clearly, it is living, and it is human.
“…but you believe that the rights of those outside the womb supercede the rights of those in the womb.”
You are infering supercede for your own purposes, a strawman, and that’s not what I said.
“Please explain how the physical location of a human either bestows or removes basic human rights.”
Please explain why a fetus has a right to an unvolunteered organ when nobody else does.
“We are not asking for MORE rights for fetuses.”
I’m not saying that a fetus having more rights is necessarily in error, it’s the crux of the debate… and we are debating it.
“We are simply asking for the same rights.”
Again, you seem to think that having more or less rights is somehow always a bad thing, and I’ve unfairly debased your argument. You are, in no uncertain terms, asking that the fetus has a right to an organ that is not volunteered. You may in fact be able to make a reasonable case for that assertion, when and if you’d choose to at least acknowledge the genuine nature of all this.
“I’m all for bodily autonomy. I feel like I can legally do whatever I want with my body, as long as it doesn’t hurt another human being. In other words, my right to swing my fists ends at the tip of your nose.”
You’re equivocating… please let me know if you ever come across somebody employing self-determination in defense of asault and battery… or even asault.
“It’s a false analogy.”
It’s a fact, and I’ll ignore parsing-out and deconstructed the amusing application of false analogy that follows it. The appropriate analogy for your purposes would be to direct me, please, and by all means, to a scenario in which we’ve taken an organ from someone unwillingly in order to save another person’s life.
Heather: One of Andrea Yate’s children was under a year old and was thus an infant…hence it was infanticide.
Jer,
“So, let me understand you. You admit that a fetus is a human life,”
Yes… quite clearly, it is living, and it is human.
“…but you believe that the rights of those outside the womb supercede the rights of those in the womb.”
You are infering supercede for your own purposes, a strawman, and that’s not what I said.
“Please explain how the physical location of a human either bestows or removes basic human rights.”
Please explain why a fetus has a right to an unvolunteered organ when nobody else does.
“We are not asking for MORE rights for fetuses.”
I’m not saying that a fetus having more rights is necessarily in error, it’s the crux of the debate… and we are debating it.
“We are simply asking for the same rights.”
Again, you seem to think that having more or less rights is somehow always a bad thing, and I’ve unfairly debased your argument. You are, in no uncertain terms, asking that the fetus has a right to an organ that is not volunteered. You may in fact be able to make a reasonable case for that assertion, when and if you’d choose to at least acknowledge the genuine nature of all this.
“I’m all for bodily autonomy. I feel like I can legally do whatever I want with my body, as long as it doesn’t hurt another human being. In other words, my right to swing my fists ends at the tip of your nose.”
You’re equivocating… please let me know if you ever come across somebody employing self-determination in defense of asault and battery… or even asault.
“It’s a false analogy.”
It’s a fact, and I’ll ignore parsing-out and deconstructed the amusing application of false analogy that follows it. The appropriate analogy for your purposes would be to direct me, please, and by all means, to a scenario in which we’ve taken an organ from someone unwillingly in order to save another person’s life.
Erin,
You abhor biblical revelation don’t you?
If the Bible is allegorical, perhaps Christ died for you and perhaps you have a chance at heaven or, perhaps it doesn’t matter? Whatever works for ya, right?
Erin, are you an enlightended post-modernist speaking about how she feels or about your personal values and experiences, the highest standards by which the likes of you live? This undermines absolute truth or universal truth that applies to all peoples.
You can’t simply admit that there is absolute right or wrong, independent of your own opinion, can you? You make yourself a goddess. It’s always about how you feel or what your personal experience are on the issue.
This is liberalism and mysticism at its best and it leads to destruction.
Ashley said:
Apparently the law says that a fetus is not a human life. If the law thought that way then the US Supreme Court would have outlawed all abortions. Seeing as that did not happen, the fetus is a fetus. Case closed.
So, Ashley, when Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, during the Dred Scott case of 1857, ruled that a black man had no rights that a white man was bound to respect, was he right? After all, he was representing the Supreme Court, and you seem to view the Supreme Court as the final arbiter of all moral questions.
His Man: I’ve said it once and I’ll say it a billion more times…there is NOTHING and I mean NOTHING wrong with liberalism. Good lord, we live in a LIBERAL democracy for crying out loud.
Jessica Coleman gave birth to a boy in her bedroom,stabbed him in the chest with a pair of scissors,and had her b-friend dispose of the body into a quarry. She confessed to the murder 2 years later after making a confession to her “then” b-friend.This conversation was overheard by one of Jessica’s friends.The girl went to authorities.Jessica is arrested and goes on Oprah to tell her story.Jessica begs for leniency. She is only given 6 years.Jessica says that upon her release,she wants to finish her education,and become a mother.
Alyssa,
Sorry you weren’t your mother’s choice. She’s not that powerful.
It was God’s choice.
His Man: It would help if there was a God…but there isn’t. So you fail. Sorry.
Val,
“Even you have to admit it odd.”
Yes, I think the problem is that some “medical” dictionaries have different emphasis (e.g. pharmacueticals, procedural, anatomical, etc…). I’m just guessing though. The last one I provided only had one of the terms, and it appeared to be wholly avoiding latin, probably because of improper form problems. Disarticulate will appear on some, but then disarticulation does not, and vice a versa. Despite the seeming madness without method, ironically these are the most concise vocabulary.
Chus,
Cameron
Thanks Rae,I stand corrected. I don’t think that Andrea is going anywhere though.
Abortion is okay because it is legal.
I’ve heard this alot today.
It was once legal to watch Gladiators fight to the death.
It was once legal to have Christians fed to the lions.
It was once legal to nail someone to a cross and let them hang for days to die.
It was once legal for a man to ‘own’ his wife.
It was once legal to own humans as personal property and call them slaves.
It was once legal to have parlor tricks play out during a court case to make sure the outcome.
It was once legal to hang someone accused of being a witch.
It was once legal to have children start working at the age of 5.
It was once legal for a factory owner to work his employees as many hours and for as long as he wanted.
I’m so glad that when something is legal it means it is right. Arent’ you?
Heather4Life: Well last I heard, her original conviction was overturned because an idiot shrink referred to a nonexistent Law and Order episode but I think she was re-convicted (or possibly found not guilty by reason of insanity or something) but was sent to a mental hospital where she is to reside for the rest of her life, doped up to the gills on anti-psychotics to the point where she isn’t even a person anymore…just an existing lump of flesh (which is what uber anti-psychotics do to you…they “numb your soul” so to speak).
Cameron said:
You are, in no uncertain terms, asking that the fetus has a right to an organ that is not volunteered.
For the moment, let’s set aside the case of pregnancy by rape since they only comprise a tiny fraction of abortion cases.
I am genuinely floored by your line of reasoning. My prior arguing has mainly been with those who, if they came to believe that a fetus was an innocent human life, would see the evil inherent in ripping it from the womb. The absolute selfishness and unbridled rejection of personal responsibility that I see in your argument is shocking, quite frankly.
In cases other than rape, the uterus IS indirectly volunteered during the act of conception. It is imminently reasonable to believe that a woman who willingly engages in sexual activity understands that pregnancy is a very real possibility, even while practicing so-called “safe sex”. At that point, common sense dictates that any resulting pregnancy is the DIRECT RESULT of a willful action on the part of the woman.
Your whole argument seems to hinge on bodily autonomy. Couldn’t your argument be extended to include “lifestyle autonomy”? Who has the right to exert themselves over and against my lifestyle without it being willfully volunteered?
As a parent, my son CONSTANTLY exerts his rights over and against my lifestyle without my volunteering it. Do I have a right to kill him?
“Please, please stop typing and exposing your ignorance over and over and over again, Ashley. I’m trying to help you here.”
Gosh Jill… to bad you weren’t around when they were writing the bible!
Rae,I read Andrea’s story. I do believe that she was mentally ill. I’m convinced she was delusional. It’s such a shame that she wasn’t able to get the help that she needed in time.
PS-Also hear she is going to a mental institution.However,they say that it beats prison.
Rae,
Sorry, we live in a Republic.
If we lived in a true democracy abortion would not be legal because the majority of Americans are against it.
Maybe we pro-lifers should shoot for a national referendum against abortion?
Try again, sunshine.
Heather4Life: I agree, it is rather tragic and I believe while yes, it is partially her fault, I think some of the blame ought to go to her husband…he kept making her have children even though it was quite apparent that she suffered from Post-Partum psychosis which would exasterbate her schizophrenia. I believe it was just after her first child that she started having problems yet hubby kept having her pop out kids every year.
*shakes head*
Rae,If you really think about it,what choice does society really have.They have an obligation to remove her from society.
Rae,
I’ll say it again: “A fool says in his heart, there is no God”.
As hard as you wish it to not be, God says before you were, “I AM”.
Rae,I guess it was just one of those lose, lose situations *shrugging*
His Man: Yes, we do live in a republic, but it was based upon LIBERAL democracy…the very idea of having a respresentative democracy was a liberal idea (still is). Most of the founding fathers were considered liberal (and their ideals are still considered liberal today). Get over it. The United States was founded on liberal ideals.
And no, majority of Americans are pro-choice and would not choose to ban abortion all across the board. Though I will give you that most disapprove of late-term abortions…still a majority would allow first trimester abortions (which even highly conservative nations like Portugal and Spain allow).
And thank you for calling me sunshine. That’s so sweet of you. :)
Heather4Life: I agree that she is better off in a mental hospital as opposed to prison. And I agree that it was good that she’s removed from society, however this whole thing could have been avoided had she stopped having children as soon as they realized her schizophrenia was made worse by post-partum depression/psychosis and she had she received proper treatment.
“I am genuinely floored by your line of reasoning. My prior arguing has mainly been with those who, if they came to believe that a fetus was an innocent human life, would see the evil inherent in ripping it from the womb. The absolute selfishness and unbridled rejection of personal responsibility that I see in your argument is shocking, quite frankly.”
The graphic appeal to emotion I see in your’s is quite shocking considering we are supposed to be engaged in reasoned and thoughtful debate.
“At that point, common sense dictates that any resulting pregnancy is the DIRECT RESULT of a willful action on the part of the woman.”
This is the old “tacit consent” and “responsibility” argument all mashed together. You need to pick one or the other, since I lack the eloquence to elaborate on both simultaneously. Is consensual sex also consent to willingly genstate, aka contractually inferential, or is the unwanted pregnancy resulting from an act of sex, now presumed irresponsible by virtue of having gotten pregnant, require an obligatory burden of gestation, aka you screwed up now suffer the consequences?
“Your whole argument seems to hinge on bodily autonomy. Couldn’t your argument be extended to include “lifestyle autonomy”? Who has the right to exert themselves over and against my lifestyle without it being willfully volunteered?”
LMAO… Last I checked… “lifesyle” is not among universally recognized human rights.
Have you found a situation in which we take peoples organs unwillingly in order to save the lives of others??
Rae –
“I think some of the blame ought to go to her husband…he kept making her have children even though it was quite apparent that she suffered from Post-Partum psychosis which would exasterbate her schizophrenia. I believe it was just after her first child that she started having problems yet hubby kept having her pop out kids every year.”
You are very right on this. We talked about this on another post. But the scenerio was if you were taking care of yourself properly or others were watching you. It just floors me that the husband didn’t seem to notice. Don’t forget, I think she homeschooled to which would add to any psychiatric problems. (nothing bad on homeschooling – just too much for someone as sick as she is)The whole situation could have been avoided if someone had acknowledge the problems.
However, on an ironic twist – one of the reasons she wasn’t on any medications was because she wouldn’t take them. Bodily autonomy perhaps?
(oh come on – you knew I had to do it!)
Glad you understood what I was trying to say earlier, Valerie. Running on three hours of sleep doesn’t exactly do much for ones cognitive skills, you know? That’s why I’ve been lurking for the most part.
Valerie: Oh snap. :)
I think the reason many people don’t take their anti-psychotic medicine is that it pretty much kills you inside. You feel numb and they tend to have really gosh-awful side-effects. I think if they ever find a better way to make anti-psychotics that had fewer side-effects or just treated the specific symptoms better rather than numbing everything people would be more likely to take their meds.
But that’s just my non-expert opinion. :)
Cameron is what we Christians would call a, “wolf in sheep’s clothing”. The worst kind too.
He pretends to be for women but really, he would abort one in a heartbeat, pun intended.
Why he hates women so much is beyond me, perhaps he’s mad at his mother for not aborting him.
Rae –
The worse part of the meds is getting the right dosage. I think that is where most people get in the most problems. You know that in the long run you will feel better mentally and it is just very difficult to wait for the results. It’s better to not be so hyper-focused on your health and go off the meds. I’ve been there done that!
HisMan –
Which is worse? Your comment to Mr. Sheepman or the fact that I laughed my behind off?
Cameron said:
This is the old “tacit consent” and “responsibility” argument all mashed together. You need to pick one or the other, since I lack the eloquence to elaborate on both simultaneously. Is consensual sex also consent to willingly genstate, aka contractually inferential, or is the unwanted pregnancy resulting from an act of sex, now presumed irresponsible by virtue of having gotten pregnant, require an obligatory burden of gestation, aka you screwed up now suffer the consequences?
Incredible. Are you suggesting that when we engage in ANY willful activity that we have a right to be exempt from the consequences of that action?? If I willfully engage in intravenous drug use, do I still have a right not to contract HIV?? If I willfully engage in a street race, do I still have a right not to be killed in a fiery crash?? By your rationale, if I choose to hit my wife, the police have no right to lock me away.
Here’s my bottom line: in EVERY choice we make, we give our tacit consent for whatever consequences may follow. Do you disagree with this?
Indeed. It is very difficult to get the right dose. I’m thinking of switching medications because I’m nearly at the highest dose and I think I may need an increase. :( That and the psoriasis is getting annoying and I’m planning on experimenting this summer by going off my meds (safely…I’m gonna check with my doctor) to see if it clears up. And while I’m off my med-meds I’m gonna try some alternative therapies for a bit like light therapy, omega 3’s and exercise, just to see if that helps any.
Jeremy, if you engaged in drug use and contract HIV, should you not be treated for it? If you willfully engage in a street race and are hit, do you forfit your right to treatment?
Less said:
Jeremy, if you engaged in drug use and contract HIV, should you not be treated for it? If you willfully engage in a street race and are hit, do you forfeit your right to treatment?
If I contract HIV, yes, I can still retain the right to be treated for it, but I may still die from that choice. However, you seem to be suggesting that the only treatment for pregnancy is abortion.
If a woman willingly engages in sexual intercourse and becomes pregnant, she should absolutely be treated. However, treatment for a pregnant woman involves pre-natal care, counseling, financial support, if necessary, and adoption services, if desired. In no defensible way, should “treatment” involve killing the fetus inside her. Are you comparing a human fetus to a virus?
Who are you to determine what a woman’s treatment is? I believe that a woman ought to determine her own course of treatment, whether that be prenatal care, an abortion, or nothing at all: just as someone with HIV has the right to determine whether they want medication, alternative medication, or nothing at all.
Right now, any fetus inside me would be as unwelcome as a cold virus, yes.
Less,
Convolution.
Pregnancy is not a disease or comparable to a fiery crash that requires treatment (i.e, abortion or leech removal), although I think you irrationalize that it is. Is there a word foe an irrational fear of pregnancy? Uterophobia or something like that? Is that what you have?
Besides, when two people have sex they know there’s a possbility that pregnancy can result. It’s ludicorus, immoral and immensely stupid to engage in an activity for which you cannot bear the potential consequences of except by attempting to remove those consequences by doing even more immoral acts. It’s the definition of insanity. It’s called reaping what you sow.
Less replied:
Who are you to determine what a woman’s treatment is?
By the same token, I could ask, who are you to take the life of another human being simply because your willful actions brought about a consequence that you deemed “unwelcome”?
Do you admit that, in your eyes, a human fetus is NO DIFFERENT than a virus?
Re: Valerie,
Samantha,
Okay, now these are not as impressive as Medjugorje or the good Padre, but they are creepy, interesting, amazing in their own way.
Throughout the years, certain saints have had to exhumed and moved. Sometimes to be reburied in a church named after them. And other odd reasons.
But…
When they dig them up, they have not aged, decayed or changed one iota. They look as fresh as the day that they died.
Okay, a couple of them look a little worse for the wear…
But for the most part they are perfectly preserved.
check them out here:
http://www.livingmiracles.net/Incorrupt.html
and here:
http://www.overcomeproblems.com/incorruptables.htm
I think St Rita looks more decayed because she was black and it is deceiving…
Also notice at the bottom of the second link that some of them were from 1something AD…
I’ll give you another apparition soon…gotta do some more research…you’re tappin’ me out!
mk
Actually, His Man…insanity is only a legal term and it is the term that states that somebody is not competent to stand trial or be convicted of a crime they committed due to “not having all the lights on upstairs.”
Oh boy, Oh boy,
New things to call a baby:
Fetus/Fetii
Parasite
lunch
freeloader
virus
I know I missed some, but these are my favorites…
Did I miss any?
mk
I just have to say His Man you are being very hypocritical in the reaping what you sow department, but Im going to hold my tongue, as Id personally rather not be banned.
“Besides, when two people have sex they know there’s a possbility that pregnancy can result.”
or it could not result.
and seeing as how both require some form of treatment, whether prenatal or otherwise, other conditions can be analogous.
“It’s ludicorus, immoral and immensely stupid to engage in an activity for which you cannot bear the potential consequences of”
who are YOU to decide whats moral for someone and what isnt?
and to quote a certain song:
“And then she heads for the clinic and
she gets some static walking through the door
They call her a killer, and they call her a sinner
and they call her a whore
God forbid you ever had to walk a mile in her shoes
‘Cause then you really might know what it’s like to have to choose”
Just like you tell others not to assume (though you certainly do quite a bit of that) you cannot assume what is right, wrong or best for anyone in any given situation unless you hear EVERY piece of evidence/testimony.
It is not up to you alone to decide what is “right” or “wrong” for everybody.
Jer,
“Incredible.”
OMG… LOL! Again, I’m somehow not shocked by your rhetorical hyperboles.
“Are you suggesting that when we engage in ANY willful activity that we have a right to be exempt from the consequences of that action??”
OK.. that’s the responsibility argument. A woman cannot cause the fetus to exist without it being dependent on her, so she is not “responsible” for the fetus needing her in order to survive in any meaningful way.
“If I willfully engage in intravenous drug use, do I still have a right not to contract HIV??”
LMAO… go right ahead. Of course… last I checked, sex is not illegal, and a fetus is not an acquired disease transmitted to others unwittingly.
“If I willfully engage in a street race, do I still have a right not to be killed in a fiery crash??”
I have to say that I haven’t seen accidental death among universally recognized human rights either.
“By your rationale, if I choose to hit my wife, the police have no right to lock me away.”
Sex is not assault and battery.
“Here’s my bottom line: in EVERY choice we make, we give our tacit consent for whatever consequences may follow. Do you disagree with this?”
No!
Does a smoker consent to cancer just because he’s fully aware of the risks, thus he should receive no treatment despite wanting to live?
You are increasingly employing wild analogies and with increasingly crazed and irrelevant adjectives. I suspect I’ve exhausted your capacity for rational discourse, and a nazi or nambla comparison is likely forth coming. to save you any further embarrassment, I’m going to go elsewhere now, but I thank you for keeping it relatively civil and mostly devoid of insults.
Best,
Cameron
Jeremy, I have the right to do what I want with my body, and the organs inside it: no one can take one of my organs without my explicit permission. By that token, I have the right to remove anything using my organs without my permission, whether it be a tapeworm or a fetus.
Whether or not a fetus is akin to a virus would depend on the cirsumstance. If you want the fetus, I’d imagine it’s amazing and happy and not at all like the pesky cold your neighbor gives you. In my current circumstances, yes, a cold would be more welcome than a pregnancy.
These are, however, all merely colorful comparisons. A fetus is far different from a virus in that is has the potential to become somthing setient, is living, has DNA, is multicellular…there are a slew of ways how a fetus differs from a virus.
Ashley,
So tell me Heather, which would you rather happen? A woman has an abortion, becuase she can not take care of her child. So instead, she gets not pre-natal care and then when the child is born, she smothers him/her with a pillow and then dumps the body?
Pretty grim world you live in, eh?
Let’s see,
the choices are rip the baby to pieces, smother it with a pillow…
Ohhh now, that is a tough one.
I vote smother, cuz at least then mom can be charged with murder.
Otherwise it’s just another day on the farm, and that leaves all us judgmental people feelin’ kind of let down.
Wait, I just had an idea. What if said girl kept her clothes on and didn’t get pregnant to begin with, or how bout this for a totally crazy idea…she puts the baby up for a-d-o-p-t-i-o-n?
mk
Dan,
Thank you for clearing up the questions I had about objective truth. It is clear to me now that there is no such thing as objective truth…uh oh. That’s a statement of objective truth…oops, there was another one.
Aaaargh!!! Your argument appears to be eating itself.
How do you, Dan, determine what is right and wrong? Why is killing a three-year child wrong but not a 3-month old fetus? Since none of us can determine that, isn’t your post really useless?
Ohhhhhhh,
Tapeworm.
That’s a good one.
mk
MK, adoption solves the problem of unwanted children, not unwanted pregnancies.
I dont determine what is right or wrong for anyone, every thing is subjective.
I dont believe I have all the answers, nor will I ever, it is all up to the individual, and then their reps in gov to make those decisions and put them into law.
My post was more out of anger at HM than anything else to be honest, so part of me is already doubting its coherency and whatnot.
Less,
Abstinence solves the problem of unwanted pregnancies.
mk
MK, natural processes hardly agree with abstinence. Can some people do it? sure. everyone? Nope
MK, there are unwanted pregnancies in marriages as well; should wives be abstinant with their husbands?
Abstinence is ultimately voluntary extinction.
what about women who use BC & it fails? they tried not get pregnant? then what?
Cameron said:
OK.. that’s the responsibility argument. A woman cannot cause the fetus to exist without it being dependent on her, so she is not “responsible” for the fetus needing her in order to survive in any meaningful way.
You just succeeded in saying absolutely nothing. In that nonsensical rant, you skipped over the fact that a woman cannot cause a fetus to exist without a willful action on her part, to begin with. The fetus wouldn’t be forced to depend on the woman if she didn’t commit a willful act that brought it into existence in the first place.
Less said:
Jeremy, I have the right to do what I want with my body, and the organs inside it: no one can take one of my organs without my explicit permission. By that token, I have the right to remove anything using my organs without my permission, whether it be a tapeworm or a fetus.
What if your willful actions placed that person in your organs? What if you knew that such a willful action could result in that person being placed in your organs?
We have no common ground from which to argue. Anyone who can compare a human life to a tapeworm is deceived to the point that logic and reason will be of no effect.
Less,
I have been gone for awhile so I’m comin’ in swingin’ in the middle. Probably not very fair.
Sorry.
I said this to Diana somewhere.
If you like to sky dive, you have to sign a waiver before you jump from the plane acknowledging that you understand that no matter how many “precaution you take, you still run the risk that something might go wrong. Your parachute might malfunction, you might land in water, or in a tree…stuff happens.
You’re not jumping from the plane with the intention of breaking your neck, you’re jumping with the intention of having a great time.
But the possibility still remains that you might get hurt. Do you still jump?
If you want to sky dive, you do. And if you break both of your legs, do you say that you didn’t want to break your legs? Of course you do. But you knew that it might happen and you took the chance anyway.
So who’s fault is it?
This is a consequence. It is something unexpected and unwanted that occured when you made the “CHOICE” to jump from the plane.
You knew it could happen and you knew that the only way to be certain that it didn’t happen was to stay in the plane.
But you jumped. You made the “CHOICE” to jump.
That was the moment where you made the “CHOICE”.
And now you must live with the consequences…
mk
Jeremy, concent to sex is not concent to pregnancy. Should I engage in sexual activity, contraceptives would be used: this could remove any implied concent to conception.
If I go to a third world country and eat native food, there’s a change of contacting internal parasites. I willfully ate the food, realizing that parasites were a possible outcome. I obviously don’t want parasites: I’ve been taking deworming medication daily, making sure to eat only at reputable resturants, etc. But one slips through, and now I have worms. I knew that parasites were a possible outcome, remember. Can a doctor throw up his hands and say that it was my fault, I should have kept my lips closed?
MK, are you then denied treatment, as you made the choice to break your legs? Can a doctor walk away, saying that you made that choice?
Explain why a doctor would walk away b/c someone consented to sky diving. Thats just ridiculous…
Less,
Do you suffer under the delusion that contraception is 100% effective? If not, then you recognize that there is a chance, albeit a small one, that pregnancy could occur. That is tacit consent.
Look at MK’s parachuting analogy. I, myself, am a licensed skydiver. I carry two canopies with me when I jump, but I would be a fool to believe that a main canopy and a reserve GUARANTEES my survival.
Again, you are comparing a fetus to a tapeworm. We have no common ground from which to argue.
Jeremy, I realize that contraception is not 100% effective. But the very usage of contraception indicates that conception is NOT a desired outcome. This removes the concent. In the case that contraception does fail, one can say that she did all that she could to prevent conception, that she did not concent to said conception, and that she has the right to use her organs as she feels.
I will ask you the same question I asked MK, then: can a doctor refuse to treat you based upon the fact that you “knew the risks?”
Perhaps you should answer my question, recognizing the fact that just as I use a comparison of a parasite to a fetus, you used a skydiving injury to do the same.
“In that nonsensical rant, you skipped over the fact that a woman cannot cause a fetus to exist without a willful action on her part, to begin with. The fetus wouldn’t be forced to depend on the woman if she didn’t commit a willful act that brought it into existence in the first place.”
You are confusing responsibility for existence with responsibility for neediness.
“I realize that contraception is not 100% effective. But the very usage of contraception indicates that conception is NOT a desired outcome. This removes the concent. In the case that contraception does fail, one can say that she did all that she could to prevent conception, that she did not concent to said conception, and that she has the right to use her organs as she feels.”
Nicely said Less
Now Jeremy, if a woman is on BC pills, and a condom is used and a pregnancy still follows, it’s her fault? BC pills are 99.99% effective and condoms, when used correctly are atleadt 90% effective. All together, that’s atleast 199% effort placed on not getting pregnant. Why should the woman in question be forced to carry a child for nine months if she took all the steps not to become pregnant?
I have already answered your question. Treatment of an injury/sickness cannot be compared to the “treatment” of pregnancy. In your mind, a fetus is NO DIFFERENT than a virus or a parasite, therefore, the treatment for one is the same as the treatment of the other.
However, if a fetus is a human life then the comparison between it and tapeworm or virus is not only absurd lopsided but cruel and heartless, as well.
I would like to ask a question, though. Since you consider “unwanted” fetuses to be no different from tapeworms or viruses, is it safe for me to assume that “wanted” fetuses are, in fact, different from tapeworms and viruses and carry a greater value?
Less,
MK, are you then denied treatment, as you made the choice to break your legs? Can a doctor walk away, saying that you made that choice?
Treatment? Yes, of course. He can set your legs, put them in casts, give you something for the pain…
But what he cannot do is to make them UNBROKEN.
And you wouldn’t even think of amputating them just to avoid 9 months in traction. You’d deal.
And we’re just talking about legs here. Not a person.
The point is, you made a choice, you deal with the consequences. Hey, you might not have broken your legs. The jump might have gone perfectly.
But you signed a waiver saying that you knew that by jumping you might get hurt.
see?
mk
Midnite said:
Now Jeremy, if a woman is on BC pills, and a condom is used and a pregnancy still follows, it’s her fault? BC pills are 99.99% effective and condoms, when used correctly are atleadt 90% effective. All together, that’s atleast 199% effort placed on not getting pregnant. Why should the woman in question be forced to carry a child for nine months if she took all the steps not to become pregnant?
First of all, as an engineer, let me say that you have an interesting way of combining percentages. Did she take ALL the steps necessary not to become pregnant? Not if you count abstinence. Combining two imperfect methods of BC does not equal one perfect method.
I never compared an unwanted pregnancy to a tapeworm or a virus (atleast not today).
I am simply asking why a woman should be forced to carry a child to term, that she took precautions against in the first place?
Also, why do you (or anyone else for that matter) have the right to tell someone what they can and can not do with their body? You can seek medical advice and not take it. No one should be able to tell anyone what they should/should not do. It’s not their right (or mine) to judge someone on their actions. Now with that said, who gave you that right? Or was I absent that day in school?
Less,
But the very usage of contraception indicates that conception is NOT a desired outcome.
But the very usage of a parachute indicates that broken legs are NOT a desired outcome.
But they are a POSSIBLE one. You are taking a chance. You have made a CHOICE to take a CHANCE.
And then you want to claim that you didn’t want to break a leg.
And what would any sane person’s response be?
THEN DON’T JUMP OUT OF PLANES…
mk
Perhaps you missed this post of mine, Jeremy:
A fetus is far different from a virus in that is has the potential to become somthing setient, is living, has DNA, is multicellular…there are a slew of ways how a fetus differs from a virus.
I’ll say the same of parasites. While all three (virus, fetus, parasite) share the same characteristic of leeching another’s nutrients, only two of these do so without permission in every circumstance. Fetii are different, as permission is variable: sometimes females give permission for the leeching of nutrients (a pregnancy carried to term) and sometimes females do not give permission for the leeching of nutrients (an aborted pregnancy).
I would consider it more cruel and heartless to force a female to undergo pregnancy, but each to his own, eh?
Wanted fetuses are, barring an unfortunate accident, carried to term. Even unwanted fetii are sometimes carried to term, and then put up for adoption. A fetus that is not wanted and is not carried to term is akin to a parasite, yes. They ARE, I repeat, they ARE, different from parasites and viruses, they simply share the charateristic previously mentioned.
and to follow through with the extremes (sex=pregnancy)
abstinence=extinction
Midnite,
I am simply asking why a woman should be forced to carry a child to term, that she took precautions against in the first place?
And I have to ask as I have before, what kind of a person would kill their own child, regardless of whether or not she took precautions.
Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should.
There are all kinds of things that you CAN do…but what kind of a person would.
Jeffrey Dahmer ate gay teenagers for lunch. Because he could. But what kind of a person would?
I can’t believe we would even HAVE to make a law that tells people “You really shouldn’t kill your own children, rather distasteful, don’t you think?”
It’s insane. Of course we shouldn’t tell you that can’t kill your own baby…because the subject should never even come up !!!!
Also, MK, you never answered my previous question: should a woman remain abstinant with her husband if she doesn’t want kids?
Actually, Less, you did answer my question earlier:
Whether or not a fetus is akin to a virus would depend on the cirsumstance. If you want the fetus, I’d imagine it’s amazing and happy and not at all like the pesky cold your neighbor gives you. In my current circumstances, yes, a cold would be more welcome than a pregnancy.
So, you did equate a fetus to a virus with certain conditions. If a fetus is wanted, then it is not like a virus.
That’s an awesome power that you have given you and your fellow human beings. We are able to ascribe value to other people based on whether we, subjectively, deem them as “wanted” or not.
Less,
If a man and woman are married then I am assuming that they have given themselves to each other totally. If this is true, then a child would not be looked upon as a leech, but as a perfect expression of their love.
Contracepting is a way of holding back part of oneself. It is a way of gratifying oneself, selfishly.
So if a couple is holding back from each other, then yes, I would say, abstain until you are ready to give yourselves totally. Otherwise you could just take care of yourself. You don’t even need a partner.
But this gets into what I believe about marriage, and obviously you don’t see it this way.
So I know you’re going to dismiss my answer out of hand. And that’s fine. But it is my opinion, that for a marriage to work, a couple must be willing to accept the most perfect and beautiful proof of their love, a child.
mk
Jeremy,
That’s an awesome power that you have given you and your fellow human beings. We are able to ascribe value to other people based on whether we, subjectively, deem them as “wanted” or not.
Touche!
mk
well MK, legally abortions are not murder. Neither is self-defense. I never said I would have one, now did I? No, I did not. I am simply saying that not you (or anyone in this world) has the right to tell a woman what she can and can not do with her body. If she dicides to get an abortion, thats none of your business.
Also, comparing Dahmer to anything is really ignorant. Compaaring a woman to a pychopath serial killer, classy really…
Midnite asked:
Also, why do you (or anyone else for that matter) have the right to tell someone what they can and can not do with their body?
And there’s the ubiquitous straw-man who always emerges in this discussion. No one on here has even presumed to tell you what YOU can do with YOUR body. Cover it up with tattoos, pierce every flap of skin, or kill it with liquor and cigarettes. Be my guest.
Just be sure that you don’t kill another human being in the process, and we’re all good.
So you can’t tell me what to do with my body UNTIL I get pregnant. And if I CHOSE to end the pregnancy, all of a sudden you have the right?
Tell me why this is so?
Yes, well, Midnite,
That’s me, class all over.
And if you can have an abortion (classy really)
and I can’t tell you that you can’t then I really wonder where you get off calling me ignorant for comparing murdering your baby, to Jeffrey Dahmer.
You can’t tell me what to say and not say…can you?
Or are the rules different for you than they are for me.
I most certainly will compare a woman that kills her own child to the Jeffrey Dahmers of the world because the fact remains that both commit murder, whether the law agrees or not. If tomorrow the law was such that Jeffrey Dahmers behavior was legal, it would still be murder and I would still be sickened by it.
The law is not the last word on what is right and wrong. It is simply the last word on what is punishable or not.
Abortion is murder. Legal murder, yes. But murder just the same.
And mark my words, some day it will be illegal and then we WILL be able to tell women what they CANNOT do with their bodies.
That day can’t come soon enough for me!
mk
You obviously missed the last post. While you’re pregnant, I can’t tell you what to do with YOUR body. However, I CAN tell you what to do with the separate human being that grows inside of you.
I know your next question is, “what gives you that right?” I would answer: the same right that I exercise when I tell you not to kill your 3-year old toddler.
Jeremy, I do believe you’re twisting my words. Saying a pregnancy would be more welcome than a cold isn’t saying that a fetus is a cold. There’s a difference of verbage there, see? Even saying a fetus is like a cold isn’t saying a fetus is a cold: last time I checked, like meant similar to, not exactly as.
So, MK, you can’t really romantically love someone unless you’re willing to have unprotected sex and/or a child with them? Yes, I do believe I’m going to dismiss that worldview out of hand, though thank you for answering.
Well, unfortunately for you, abortions are legal today and more than likely they will be legal tomorrow. So dont throw your hands up yet. Have you ever taken a Psychology class? I doubt you have if you are comparing a woman who has an abortion to Dahmer. He had Anti-Social personality disorder. He was a socio-path, plain and simple. He ate gay teen age boys, and you think one woman who had an abortion deserves to be put in the same category as him? I think not, and so does the rest of the public (I would venture to say). You know they’ve actually found a part of the brain that relates to mental disorders (like Dahmer had) & I didnt read anywhere in The Psychology Magazine I get weekley that the link had been found in women who had abortions.
So since abortions are killings (in your eyes), is it ok for the Pro-Lifers to blow up abortion clinics? Is that justified then? Please explain this to me, since we are just throwing out accusations here with out ever bothering to research them or think them through. A Police officer working security at the abortion clinic in my hometown was bombed by Rudolph in the 90’s b/c “women who get abortions are whores and deserve to die anyways” (thats how you all think isnt it?). This police officer was a GOOD friend of my family (both of my parents are cops), and b/c he worked security there he was enabling them and deserved to die too then, right? Is that how you think?
Less, I don’t believe I did. Let me quote you, verbatim:
Whether or not a fetus is akin to a virus would depend on the cirsumstance.
akin: similar or related in quality or character.
And, I never said you called a fetus a virus or a tapeworm. I said you placed it on the same level as a virus or tapeworm. But, in fairness to you, you only compared an “unwanted” fetus to a virus — not all fetuses.
No Jeremy it is different. A three year old child walks and breathes, feels, hears, etc. When an abortion is done (most of the time. MOST) it is a cluster of cells, and not yet a human.
Midnite,
When does that cluster of cells become a human being?
When the CNS is formed and the fetus in question has a brain and a spinal cord. And more importantly if and when the child is born and breathes air for the first time
Less,
So, MK, you can’t really romantically love someone unless you’re willing to have unprotected sex and/or a child with them? Yes, I do believe I’m going to dismiss that worldview out of hand, though thank you for answering.
I think the problem here is that you want this love to be “romantic” love and I don’t believe that “romantic” love is enough to keep a marriage going.
I think the “love” that I am speaking about goes waaaaayyyyyy beyond “romantic”.
It is a complete sacrifice of oneself. It is no longer be an I but an US…
And if you are doing the US correctly, that adding one more to the mix is exactly what is supposed to happen. It is the purest expression of US.
As long as you stop at “romantic” love, then what you end up with is YOU and ME, not US.
Only when the two of you can become so close that you actually form a new and separate entity can you call it “real” love.
mk
So, which is it? When it develops a brain and spinal cord (4-5 weeks) or when it breathes air for the first time (37-39 weeks)?
MK you still havent answered me yet. I am waiting
MK you still havent answered me yet. I am waiting
Less,
There’s a difference of verbage there, see? Even saying a fetus is like a cold isn’t saying a fetus is a cold: last time I checked, like meant similar to, not exactly as.
So if I said that you like a big fat stupid cow and as ugly like a pig, you would in no way believe that I was saying you were a big fat stupid cow and ugly as a pig?
I doubt it. I doubt you’d make any distinction at all.
mk
sorry for the double post, computer is acting screwy tonight….
Since we got a little mixed up, let me ask again, in case it was overlooked:
Midnite:
So, which is it? When it develops a brain and spinal cord (4-5 weeks) or when it breathes air for the first time (37-39 weeks)?
Midnite,
So since abortions are killings (in your eyes), is it ok for the Pro-Lifers to blow up abortion clinics?
Is that how you think?
And you got this idea where?
Cuz, somewhere I said that killing women who have had abortions or killing police officers who protect them is okay?
I think not. But nice try!
mk
No matter what I answer, you are not going to agree with me Jeremy. Either answer is wrong. Sorry to be so short.
I am still waiting on MK to repost to the last one I wrote for her on Dahmer…
Please tell me that you’re not copping out, midnite. It’s an incredibly simple question.
MK, that’s not how I see true love at all. True love is like a binary star system: there are two distinct stars, but they orbit together. I have no desire to completely loose myself in another person. I like being able to go out and do my own thing, be my own person, and I have no desire to have biological children. I loose my personality completely by mushing with another person, and becoming some other, mystical, entitiy. I love my fiance as he is, and wouldn’t ever wish for him to become one with me, just as he doesn’t wish that for me. The mutual respect we have for our individualism is what makes us work, not some idea that we’ll become one after a certain number of years.
I think, however, that we’ll have to agree to disagree on this.
Jeremy, ever heard of a simile? A metaphor? When you say that love is like a box of chocolates, are you putting love on the same level as a box of chocolates?
Gotta go read to the kids…I’ll try to get back, but I make no promises…
mk
Again,I have an answer to the married couples NOT wanting kids. You can get your tubes tied.My friend had it done. She said that she and her husband did NOT want children.No way.No how.They signed the consent papers, and she had the operation. This operation is pretty much 100%. That’s the best advice I have.
MK, I’m an English major. I read into everything. You’d better believe I’d make a distinction.
No, MK I didnt say that you said that. But like I said since you are going to throw around ridiculous accusations that have not been researched or even thought out, I will do the same to you…
Women who have abortions are not crazy socio-paths like Dahmer. They do not deserve to go to jail or be sentenced to death. I bet you are against the death penalty too, arnt you?
Less,
I’m not disagreeing with you. I’m not saying that you called a fetus a virus. You simply compared it to a virus that should be removed when it is deemed “unwanted”.
I didn’t miss it.
And no Jeremy I am not coping out on you. It is simple, in your eye either answer is wrong. Nothing I say is going to change your mind and nothing you say is going to change my mind. At the moment I am just appaled that someone would compare a woman who had an abortion Dahmer. She apparently needs to read some psychology books and learn the difference between serial killers and women who want to end their pregnancy. I am off to write a paper now. I’ll try to come back later and see how everyone’s morality is doing.. Especially since I dont have any…
Toodles!
Midnite
I’ve gotta jump in here. How do we KNOW that these women aren’t psychotic? I’ve met a few women that were really questionable. Believe me when I tell you that I am the really tolerant type.
Midnite,
When does that cluster of cells become a human being?
It’s a life or death question. Our discussion is a tempest in a teacup without it.
Once again, a pro-choicer has ducked my question. My 15 year record continues to stand.
Also,how do you know that abortion isn’t a contributing factor in psychosis, or how can we prove that PAS doesn’t exist? Some say that the women were probably “not too tightly wrapped” before the abortion. However,you cannot prove that.
Jeremy, fetii are human beings: they have human DNA. They’re even alive. They are not, however, persons: personhood is granted when a fetus is born.
Jeremy –
I do find Midnights avoidance of the question quite remarkable. She is the one who said that a baby is a true baby when the spinal chord and brain is intact, or was in the CNS? Which starts to develop at before 7 weeks gestation and isn’t completely develop until AFTER birth. So in the analogy that one must wait for the brain, spinal chord and CNS to intact, then I could murder my 3 months old and have no regrets.
I will have more on the CNS later….
Thank you, Less!!
So, perhaps you can tell me the difference between a fetus, 5 minutes before it emerges from the birth canal and 5 minutes after it emerges from the birth canal.
Can you explain how traversing from one physical location to another, six inches away, bestows personhood upon someone? Is there some form of magic occurring in the birth canal?
I’ve always been drawn to that part of a woman’s body, but I thought the magic was all in my head.
I hear ya Jeremy. I must say, I can’t understand how people could describe a pregnancy as anything other than another human being in a woman’s uterus.
How is it that feti have heartbeats if they are not alive?
The difference, Jeremy, is the fact that the fetus is no longer dependent upon his or her mother for all of his or her nutrients. The fetus, before birth, depends wholly upon his or her mother: after birth, the same fetus is simply dependent upon another person, and should that person wish to terminate care, this is possible with the death of the baby.
“Jeremy, fetii are human beings: they have human DNA. They’re even alive. They are not, however, persons: personhood is granted when a fetus is born.”
Thank-you for clearing that up God.
Feti are alive. Nobody is denying that. Only fools say “oooh, fetuses aren’t alive,” which is like saying, “ooooh bacteria aren’t alive” when they oh so clearly are.
Bugger, that ought to read without the death of the baby.
Less –
and everyone else who uses this form of logic:
Please, for my sanity, please stop saying that if a person smokes he should not get treatment because it is his fault he got cancer. Please stop! It is just pure stupidity. Sorry, but it is.
When I, and other pro-lifers, say that you must take responsiblity for your actions where does that say you cannot get medical treatment? Where? Please explain?!!!!!!!!!!!
We WANT a pregnant woman to get medical treatment. Pre-natal care is vitally important. She put herself in the position to get pregnant, now she must be responsible and GO TO the OB/GYN and take care of herself and the baby. Where oh where did I, or any others, say that she cannot have medical treatment and must die a horrible, painful death like cancer because she got herself pregnant.
Geesh! Please stop!
Just because we don’t believe abortion is the answer doesn’t mean we want every smoker, overeater, blah blah .. to die a horrible death!
Give me a *&^(*ing break!
Anytime, Jasper: don’t forget the fatted calf offering on Thursday, mkay?
Jeremy, even if we stipulate that the blastocyst/embryo/fetus is human from the moment of implantation, that does not give you the right to force the woman to grow him/her and endure labor and delivery on his/her behalf.
The woman owns her body and her life-support functions. That entitles her to decide who gets to live in her body and on her life-support functions, and for how long.
Less –
“Bugger, that ought to read without the death of the baby. ”
Don’t scare me like that again! I stopped breathing when I read the original. I thought you had lost your mind.
I am glad your mind is still there. whew!
Isn’t it bad enough I’m having a nervous breakdown?
The standard libertarian argument does not require fetal inferiority.
Less,
How in the world does that bestow personhood? Forgive me for saying that it sounds INCREDIBLY artificial.
So, are you saying that as long as the mother is the sole provider of nutrients, she has the authority to kill that fetus whenever she chooses? In what universe does that make any sense?
If something is true, it is true in all circumstances. So, imagine that there are only two persons left in the world — a mother and her 1 month old baby. Is the baby not a person in this case, since the mother is the sole provider of nutrients?
I’m terribly confused.
Nor does it require fetal non-personhood.
Guh, Valerie. That’s all I have to say. I’m writing a paper about supermax prisons (hardcore unpleasant topic), a paper about Gothic literature and feminism, reading Lady Chatterley’s Lover, reseraching date rape, and reading about Egyptian monotheism’s influence upon Western Society. Phew. I’ll be joining you there in nervous breakdown land here in five…four…three…
: P
Rae –
Now that I’m calming down a bit. I think.
When you talk to your doctor about going off the meds, are you going to try to switch to another? If so, then follow what he says with no exceptions. Switching can be very stressful on the body so you will need alot of help.
If you want to just go off the meds, find out if your Dr can refer you to someone who knows about natural remedies. I use a naturopathic Dr. But they can be hard to find. Usually someone who is a specialist in herology (is that the right word?) can be very good at that. There are also alot of tea’s that can make this easier on your system.
Let me know how it all works out, okay? You do have a support system right?
Now I feel like a Mother hen. First insanity, now a hen. Whats next?
Right Valerie.One more thing on smoking.I know of 2 women dying from emphysema.Both were heavy smokers. They both told me that they knew the risks that came with smoking. Hey,it’s on the pack of smokes.I can’t control the fact that they were smokers.I have no control over their unfortunate outcome. End of story.
It’s just a question of whether you think forcing a woman to grow a pregnancy and undergo full-term labor and delivery is an acceptable way to preserve the life of her fetus.
(The answer is, no!)
“The woman owns her body and her life-support functions. That entitles her to decide who gets to live in her body and on her life-support functions, and for how long.”
Yes, she can “decide who gets to live in her body” But once she decides (after conception), there’s a moral obligation to support that other life.
SoMG,
Setting aside the fact that you have presented the most selfish and cruel argument that can be presented in this debate, it defies all logic.
Do life support functions cease when the umbilical cord is cut? I don’t know if you’re a parent or not, but my four-year old still lacks the skills to provide for himself. Do I have the right to kill him if I decide that I don’t want to loan out MY life support functions any longer?
Jeremy:
“So, are you saying that as long as the mother is the sole provider of nutrients, she has the authority to kill that fetus whenever she chooses?”
Honesty, I’ve never been able to figure that one out. If you understand someday, will you let me know.
This may be a tad crude,but women also have a say so on who gets IN to her body!
SoMG, than give the standard libertarian argument, as I don’t seem to be getting anywhere.
Jeremy, perhaps it would be better to say that at such point as the fetus is no longer dependent soley upon the mother, abortion is no longer acceptable, as the fetus is granted the rights of personhood. This point would be birth.
“grow a pregnancy”
what the hell is “grow a pregnancy” (another clever term). A baby is growing.
Less,
Simply rephrasing it doesn’t answer the question, though. If your statement is to be true, it must be true under all circumstances. If a woman and her one month old baby are shipwrecked on a deserted island, is the baby a person or not?
According to your criteria, he would not be, since he is dependent solely upon his mother.
So if a woman is in an abusive relationship and she ends the pregnancy for the “sake of her child” is this still considered murder in y’alls eyes?
ProChoice,
Are you suggesting that aborting her child is the only way she can keep the child from the abusive relationship??
Yesm Jeremy I am. In some situatuions the woman CAN NOT escape from her abuser. In this case, it is in the CHILD’S BEST INTEREST in the long run.
Jeremy, the most selfish and cruel argument in this debate would likely be something along the lines of commenting about how delicious babies taste with or something along those lines. In my pro-life days, I heard someone say that and was HIGHLY disturbed until I figured out they were kidding.
Le sigh, what an sheltered little child was I.
“So if a woman is in an abusive relationship and she ends the pregnancy for the “sake of her child” is this still considered murder in y’alls eyes?”
yes
We here this one all the time:
“The purpose of sex isn’t procreation.”
however, the purpose of procreation is sex.
I just noticed something while typing that out.
PROcreation. Which means you agree with creation. So, Pro-Life = Pro-Creation.
What would Pro-Choice = ?
Only-if-you-want-it-creation.
When-it-isn’t-a-leech-creation.
When-it-is-convenient-creation.
hmm…. Something to think about perhaps.
Jeremy, you can’t revoke personhood. It’s like consciousness: I can’t revoke your ability to think, can I?
ProChoice,
There is ALWAYS an escape. Maybe not on the Lifetime channel, but in real life, there is ALWAYS an alternative.
Jasper how is this murder exactly? The woman is taking the best measure to assure the child will not have to endure the pain she has. Not to mention, she could miscarry from the stress and beatings. Now wouldnt that be murder? Not to mention he could just end up killing the woman…
OK, Less. Allow me to recraft the scenario. The woman is eight months pregnant when she becomes shipwrecked. She delivers the child on the island. Is personhood bestowed, in this case?
I am not talking about the Lifetime channel smart ass. I am talking real life. Apparently something you have never experienced.
Not to mention, you’re not a woman so you wouldnt understand.
ProChoice,
Wow! I’ve known you for two posts and you’ve already resorted to name-calling. That’s a new record for me.
I could tell you the story of how my stepfather beat the holy hell out of me and my mom until I was fourteen years old, when I finally convinced my mom to abscond with me and my sister in the middle of the night. However, that might be too dramatic and shatter the image of me that you have in your mind.
Trust me, ma’am. No one understands abusive relationships more than me.
Jeremy, are there other people in the world? Yes? Than yes, personhood is bestowed.
“Jasper how is this murder exactly?”
because you’re ending a life. Give the baby up for adoption, it’s not the baby’s fault he a jerk.
“The woman is taking the best measure to assure the child will not have to endure the pain she has. Not to mention, she could miscarry from the stress and beatings. Now wouldnt that be murder? Not to mention he could just end up killing the woman…”
do your best to run away and have the baby safely, then give the baby up for adoption if you can’t do it on your on. You’ll be happy you did.
“Yesm Jeremy I am. In some situatuions the woman CAN NOT escape from her abuser. In this case, it is in the CHILD’S BEST INTEREST in the long run. ”
This excuse never makes sense to me. Why can she NOT escape in today’s world? With so many shelters. Many women actually use the strength of their unborn child to get the courage to escape such a situation. It gives them the excuse to run as fast as they can.
I just don’t see how ending the pregnancy and then sending her back to the abuse is the right answer. Ending the pregnancy just confirms his control over her. It shows that he has her under his fingers and he will manipultate that to every extreme possible.
As a society, it is up to us to get her the *bleep* out of there. Not take her to an abortionist, smack her on her ass, and tell her to go home.
That is the worse thing that can be done for this woman.
Just to put my two cents in on the recent thread of the convo between Jeremy and Less – while I can’t speak for everyone, in my opinion it’s not just about dependency, nor do many of us think that personhood has anything to do with depedency, it has to do with dependency *on the use of another person’s body*. Note that body is the key word there. Not time, not money, not physical effort, but their actual body.
Oh, and after having read through this thread, I have to say Cameron, you rock my world!
Now that my two cents are in, I wanted to apologize for dissapearing. I had trouble posting (couldn’t get authenticated for some reason). I did really want to reply various posts directed at me (particularly yours, MK). Alas, though, it’s now the end of the semester, and things are getting super crazy. I’ll be back, whether y’all like it or not. ::evil cackle::
Have fun without me.
Less,
That wasn’t one of your conditions. Your condition was that the fetus is not a person if it is receiving nutrients solely from its mother. In this case, the baby is clearly depending solely upon its mother.
Shouldn’t you now redefine personhood based on this new scenario??
Diana,
So if a tiny person is wholly dependent upon your body, you have the God-given right to kill that person, at will?
Less –
Did you ever answer the question about a woman being abandonded with her child? That there is no formula and no food, would it still be murder if she refused to breastfeed?
At least, I think that was you that was in that conversation.
I even pulled up newspaper articles to show that this scenerio can happen.
Jasper,
You are a man my friend. A Rudyard Kipling man.
ACK – Look at the time…
Gotta go, but will be back in the morning.
Good Night all!
Jeremy,
I don’t know anything about god given, since I don’t believe in god. But if any person whatsoever, tiny or not, is completely dependent on your body (note that this is different from your physical exertion, your time, your effort, etc), then I believe you have every right to disconnect them, thereby causing their death, however unfortunate that death might be. Actively kill I’m still hazy about, but I lean toward yes.
Less,
Just so I can keep things straight in my head:
A human fetus is a person, if and only if:
1) It has human DNA
2) It is living
3) It has emerged from the birth canal
4) It has breathed air
5) It no longer depends solely upon its mother for nutrients
5a) It must not be attached to the mother’s body
5b) There must be other people in the world
Did I get them all?
Valerie, I did answer. I said that the woman couldn’t be faulted if the children died, but should be commended for her bravery and cleverness, or something along those lines.
Jeremy, I see no need to revise my definition: I agree with Dianna. If a person is wholly dependent upon your body, they are not a person. The moment they are no longer dependent upon your body, they are a person. Thank you, Dianna, for articulating what I couldn’t. And if I mangled your definition, I appologize loads.
Diana said:
I don’t know anything about god given, since I don’t believe in god. But if any person whatsoever, tiny or not, is completely dependent on your body (note that this is different from your physical exertion, your time, your effort, etc)
Please explain how one type of dependency is different from another?
Ya, thanks HisMan, I don’t think I’m that smart, but I know evil when I see it.
That being said, I have books to read and papers to write, and will return at a later date. Posts directed towards me will not be answered until tomorrow: g’night all.
Less,
I haven’t really pressed the issue concerning the logic underlying your definition of personhood. Since this is a question of life or death, perhaps I should.
Where do you derive the reasoning behind your very cumbersome definition?
Less,
You need a break from all that literary pornography.
Here’s an admonishment from Scripture:
Philippians 4:8
“Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable
Hey,Pro-choice,I am a woman and I was in an abusive relationship. I was also pregnant from the abusive man. I took my pregnant self and I left.
“I believe you have every right to disconnect them, thereby causing their death, however unfortunate that death might be”
sounds like Adolf Hilter
The dependency might be the same, I don’t really know. What’s different is the sort of right that is in play with each different sort of dependency. Your rights to your property, your money, your time, your physical exertion, etc, are weaker than your right to bodily autonomy. The government can take these away for any number of reasons. They tax you frequently. They insist on jury duty. And if you do something damaging to society, they may take away your freedom of movement, your freedom to make various decisions, etc.
But your right to bodily autonomy is much stronger. The government can’t take your kidney. They can’t take a piece of your liver. Even if you are convicted of a crime, they still can’t force you to donate your organs. And this is after you have forfeited certain rights by violating the laws that govern our society. So why should they be able to force you to donate your uterus?
Undoubtedly you’ll likely respond in a way similar to your response to Cameron earlier – you consented to use of your uterus when you spread your legs. I firmly disagree with that. I also believe, contrary to MK’s suggestion, that you cannot consent to a possibility. You can acknowledge a possibility, but you cannot consent to it. You can only consent to actions or states.
At any rate, I also believe that even if that was the case, consent to use of your body may be withdrawn at any time. If you consent to sex and then explicitly withdraw that consent during the act, but your partner continues, I believe that is rape, a violation of bodily autonomy. And I believe you have the right to withdraw that consent at any time during the act. Other people here will, however, disagree with me.
Anyway, I’d love to continue this discussion, but I’ve got a ton of stuff to get done. If you’re still posting here in a few weeks, then maybe we can have a longer debate.
Let’s think about Less and Diana’s definition of personhood for a second.
Imagine a baby emerges from the birth canal. It has yet to breath air nor is the umbilical cord severed. During these few seconds, the baby is still solely dependent upon its mother for its nutrients. The only difference between now and five seconds ago is the baby’s physical location in space. It has moved twelve inches in the x-direction, two inches in the y-direction, and eighteen inches in the z-direction. NOTHING ELSE HAS CHANGED.
According to Less and Diana’s definition, the doctor would then be morally justified in slamming the baby’s head against the operating table, thereby killing it.
If your consciences aren’t screaming out, right now, then it has long since been seared.
I don’t want to be unfair, so if this is not Less and Diana’s definition, then please, please, please correct me.
Oh, and Jasper, I’m nothing like Hitler, nor does anything I’ve said justify anything like the holocaust. Last I checked, the Jews weren’t violating anyone’s bodily autonomy. But thanks for the ad hominem attack. Keep them up; it makes your side look like they’ve no real argument for their position.
Anyway, I’ve really got to go. See ya’ll later.
Jeremy,
thanks for winning that debate, they have no answer.
Jeremy,
I’m glad I caught that before I left. Note that my argument had *nothing* to do with personhood. I’m pretty sure that an embryo is not a person, and I’m sort of convinced by the idea that personhood begins with the onset of real (not reflex) brain activity. However, I think that you have a right to disconnect yourself from a real, live, thinking, talking, feeling person who was depedent on your organs for survival, and thereby cause their death. Not because they have no rights as a person, but because your right to bodily autonomy supercedes their right to live in this case.
So as far as abortion rights are concerned, personhood has nothing to do with it for me. Oh, and with regard to the case you brought up, if you can end the dependence on the mother’s body without the resulting death of the fetus, then that’s even better! Preserve both the mother’s right to bodily autonomy and the fetus’ right to life. I call that a win-win situation.
But I really do have to go.
that is a perfect idea diane. i concur with her idea..
Here’s a different slant (I think) …. why do you believe all the physiological manipulation in favour of BC should be female? Are not vasectomies a very good method too? Why aren’t reversible vasectomies used by pro-choice men? And Less, since you insist on men getting checked out to prevent you contracting STD’s, why not include a spayed test as well … for sex partners, to assure yourself of non-pregnancy?
I just wonder if there is a psychological bonding that HAS TO occur between mother-child. If so, such a dependency is necessary as a fundamental aspect of human life …. a baby does not even realize it’s own separateness until 2.5 yrs (don’t know, think Rae gave that number). A pro-early-fetus-abortion might signal a preference to be a machine-like-morality rather than a human-one.
Jeremy,
I’m sorry, I should add that with respect to your case, I think that if the mother’s right to bodily autonomy can be preserved without the resulting death of the fetus than one has an obligation to do it that way. Thus, deliver the fetus and give it medical care, not bash it’s head against the table. I’ve never denied that the fetus, if a person, has rights. And I’ve worked with you under the assumption that the fetus is a person. So in a situation in which both the mother’s rights and the fetus’ can be preserved, we have an obligation to do it that way.
Oh, and I guess you spoke too soon, Jasper.
Right John. Great post! I have mentioned sterilization a few times before. Nobody seems to like that idea.
Thanks, Saturn.
Diana,
I’m not attacking you, just illustrating the absurdity of the point your making.
DOI:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”:
emphasis of “created equal”
when does created equal trump another persons right to nutrients, & bodily autonomy? I dont think the founders of our country would agree. And they thought only white men were equal. Screw woman and people of color. Just white me. I wouldnt quote them if I were you/
Diana,
This is an unborn baby we’re taking about, not a “fetus”.
well it is called a fetus in biology books around the world
“bodily autonomy” -> you had that autonomy and you decided to create life. You or Diana have no moral or consistutional right to end somebody elses life.
well yo have no moral or constitutional right to tell me what i can and can not do with my body. i think thats what roe v. wade was all about.
“well it is called a fetus in biology books around the world”
but it’s not called a “fetus” by the mother who is carrying it.
Roe doesn’t exist anymore. She’s pro life now.
Jasper,
I’ll give you that your statement may not have been intended as an ad hominem attack. But you picked a quotation out of context and then made a comparison that could not have been drawn had you taken the context of the quotation into account. At the very least, then, it’s a straw man fallacy rather than an ad hominem argument. Still a fallacy, though.
As for the “created equal” business, well, I’ve assumed for the purpose of argument that any fetus is a person endowed with the same rights as any other person. But no other person has the right to use my body without consent. Hence, if the fetus’ rights are equal to those of all other persons, it does not have the right to use my body without my consent. The fact that we all have equal rights does not entail that all rights are have equal standing. Some rights take precedence over others. My right to bodily autonomy takes precedence over any other person’s right to life. That’s why I can kill a man who is raping me to get him to stop. That’s why no one can force me to donate an organ to a dying person even if I’m the only person who’s a match. That’s why I have a right to have an abortion.
Perhaps battling this “bodily autonomy” argument is a no-win situation for me. I’m all for bodily autonomy, women controlling their own bodies. . . to prevent conception in the first place. Once a woman gets pregnant, there are two lives involved and not just hers.
I’m accustomed to arguing with people who see the inherent value in human life. Their major hang-up is with whether or not a fetus is a human life.
Here, on this blog, that’s not the hang-up. The hang-up here is, “even if a fetus IS a human life, it has no right to parasitize my body”. It absolutely baffles me — the lengths to which people will go in order to justify the killing of an admittedly innocent human life.
It astonishes me that common sense absolutely escapes this argument, and its proponents can so cavalierly cast off personal responsibility and moral obligation through nuanced language and nonsensical rationalizing.
“I am choosing to have sex. I fully realize that I may become pregnant with a human being as a result of this activity. If I become pregnant as a direct result of this activity, I will kill the human being that is growing inside of me because I do not want a child at this time.”
Either you see the absolute immaturity and absurdity of this position, or you don’t.
You make a conscious choice.
The choice produces an unwanted consequence.
The unwanted consequence is another human being.
You destroy the other human being.
The world has truly gone crazy. I guess it’s true what I’ve always heard — some people can be so open-minded that their brains fall out.
True Jasper, a mother might not call it a fetus. But science does. A mother could call it a child, the devil’s advocate, a little shit, pain in the ass, or a mistake. There are lost of things SHE COULD call it.
“well yo have no moral or constitutional right to tell me what i can and can not do with my body. i think thats what roe v. wade was all about.”
roe v wade was created from the right to birth control (in 1965), it was a big leap from legalizing birth control to legalizing death ( by a bunch of intellectual snobs and the ACLU) ask Roe today if she believes in abortion or if she ever had an abortion. No she didn’t
I think that the entire kidney donation arguement has run it’s course.I mean c’mon. It’s nowhere near the same thing.When a person is in poor health,we hope and pray that the person will receive that organ.Perhaps you or I would not choose to donate. However,somebody else may be found. The person could make a full recovery. Abortion is premeditated murder.Not the same thing at all!
Look, Jasper, I’ll let you call it a “baby”, even though medically it’s not. I’ll let you call me a “pro-abort”, even though it’s not an adequate descriptor of my stance. I’ll let you call an ID&X a partial birth abortion. I’ll even pamper you and call you “pro-life” when that is likely not an adequate descriptor of your stance. I’m even talking about fetii, when a good number of abortions are done on embryos – thus helping your stance. So how about you let me use the proper medical term, okay?
As for this statement: “”bodily autonomy” -> you had that autonomy and you decided to create life. You or Diana have no moral or consistutional right to end somebody elses life.”
Well, I may have exercised my right to bodily autonomy by allowing a man to use my body to engange in the beautiful act that is sex, but this is not the same as “deciding to create life”. Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. And anyway, even if it wask, I can withdraw consent to use my body at any time, just as I can withdraw my consent mid-coitus.
And, whether or not I have a constitutional right to abort a fetus is exactly what we are arguing about. But I do have a right to protect my life and kill someone in self-defense. I do have a right to kill a man who is raping me or trying to. I do have a right to pull the plug on a loved one in a vegetative state (I know, you probably don’t like that either). So, um, yeah, I do have the right to kill others in certain circumstances. The debate is over whether or not a woman has the right in the case of pregnancy. And, as I’ve argued, she does.
As much as I’d love to continue this, I really must go. Have a good night.
Diana,
you said:
“Hence, if the fetus’ rights are equal to those of all other persons, it does not have the right to use my body without my consent. The fact that we all have equal rights does not entail that all rights are have equal standing. Some rights take precedence over others.”
yes, but you’ve already consented to the unborn baby using your body (once you’re pregnant). Now, you have an obligation to support that baby and not kill it.
To hitchhike on jasper’s post,Roe hates the fact that she ever had anything to do with abortion. She says that women used to stop her on the street to thank her for helping to make abortion legal, and she claimed that she found this to be totally disgusting!!!
“but this is not the same as “deciding to create life”.
yes, this is very much part of sex.
“Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy.”
yes, it is – sorry
jasper is right.
As we can see, the pro-aborts want to make sex irresponsible so there are no attachments. Thus, the decay of society.
Heather,
You should be very proud of yourself for leaving a difficult sitution and having your baby. How old is he/she ?
J
This consent argument is killing me! It’s one of the most absurd things I’ve ever heard. You cannot separate consent to sex and consent to the possible consequences of that sex!
You can’t consent to the anything without tacitly consenting to endure the consequences of the the thing. Just because we are medically able to separate the sex act and the pregnancy doesn’t mean we can morally separate the two.
Yes, Diana, you can stop someone from having sex with you in mid-coitus, but it doesn’t require you to kill him! The analogy is as far off as it could possibly be. The only way you can “disconnect” a fetus is by killing it. If it is a human being, then that is murder.
You either see that or you don’t.
If your willful actions cause another human being to come into the world, you have a moral obligation to see that that person is taken care of — whether you do it yourself or pass it off to someone else.
What’s really shocking me about this whole thing, is that pro-choicers are willing to kill another human being in order to spare themselves from 37 weeks of inconvenience. How incredibly immature can someone be??
decay of society? so you’re telling me you only have sex when you want to have a child?
Eek, I can’t go.
Jeremy, I’m sorry that you’re taken aback by the coldheartedness of the argument, or whatever. But the question of rights has nothing to do with warm and fuzzy feelings. Furthermore, you have yet to demonstrate to me or anyone else (so far as I’ve read) that consent to sex is consent to pregnancy or that such consent to use one’s body cannot be withdrawn at any time.
And I agree that the line of reasoning you suggested above is immature and stupid. But I believe it is stupid for a different reason, it doesn’t involve any step of using protection against pregnancy.
The fact that I believe that my argument is sound, however cold and unfeeling it may seem to you, does not mean that I do not value human life. But my valuing of human life includes valuing my right over my body (which, for me, is all that I am, since I don’t believe in god or souls or the rest of that).
Heather,
I don’t think the “kidney” argument has run it’s course. You spoil the well by claiming that abortion is premeditated murder, number one. And number two, first trimester abortions are much like detaching an embryo/fetus from the uterus, thereby cutting the fetus off from it’s source of nutrients, etc. So what if we change the example to something a bit more analogous. Say I was plugged into you for dialysis (sp) treatments, using your kidneys, etc, to filter my blood. And say that you are the only person who can filter my blood (all other people are not compatible). Are you telling me that you don’t think you have a right to unplug me?
Note – this is not a question of whether or not you would allow me to stay plugged in to you, but whether or not you have a right to unplug me, or conversely, whether I have a right to stay plugged into you. You might be a nice person, and willing to save my life by continuing to filter my blood. But what if you don’t want to stay plugged to me? What if it ruins you life plans? What if it threatens your health? You think the government can say “Nope, heather, you have to stay plugged into her. We know it’s your body and all, but what about her right to life?” I think you would have a right to unplug yourself. Maybe it would be nice of you to stay plugged into me. Maybe it would be a bit selfish to unplug yourself. But should the government be able to force you?
Now, the case may be outlandish, but it’s outlandishness isn’t relevant. In almost every other way, it’s analogous to a pregnancy. To make it more so, say that it’s your fault that I need dialysis to stay alive. Say that you hit me driving your car while driving recklessly. You knew driving recklessly could, and likely would, lead to an accident and someone might get hurt. So, how is detaching me from you different from detaching a fetus from the uterus? Or would you say that the government has a right to force you? Be careful there. It’s a few short steps from there to forced organ transplants.
Anyway, now that I’ve written an incredibly long post. I really have to go. Maybe I’ll see you all in a few weeks.
Peace,
Diana
“decay of society?”-yes
“so you’re telling me you only have sex when you want to have a child?”
I know that when I have sex, there’s a responsibily that comes with it (the possibily of creating a child)
not a valid argument, sorry. sex does not equal consent to pregnancy. try again
Our discussion is probably pointless, Diana. Since you are an atheist, we have absolutely no common ground from which to argue.
As a matter of fact, you have no ground, whatsoever. Without God, all things are permissible. No moral code carries any authority, whatsoever. If there is no God, then there is no objective truth. If there is no objective truth, then there is no such thing as morality.
The only purpose we have is what we dream up in our heads. The only morality we follow is that which we or others make for us. But, if I make up my own morality, then how can I be bound to follow it? After all, if I lock myself in a room but keep the key in my pocket, am I bound to stay confined in that room? Of course not. I can leave whenever I wish.
If someone else imposes a moral code upon me, who are they to exert their beliefs over and above mine. If I wish to kill my wife, who are you to tell me I can’t. What are you going to say to me? That it’s wrong?? Says who? Who are you to tell me that murder is wrong?
Without God — the standard of truth, no morality has any foundation at all. To claim differently is folly.
“not a valid argument, sorry. sex does not equal consent to pregnancy. try again”
yes it does, there’s a possibility that a life will be created!
by separating the two ( this encourages irresponsible sex, broken families, pornography, the decay of society)
For FSM’s sake! I really need to get out of here, but I have a compulsion to defend my stance in the face of direct comments against what I’ve said. Grr!
So, really, Jeremy? I can’t consent to driving without consenting to getting into the accident that I get in? I can’t consent to smoking without also consenting to cancer? I can’t consent to eating cheeseburgers without consenting to getting fat?
Well, if that’s the case, then I guess that once that consent has been given, that voids rights, right? I mean, the morbidly obese person consented to be morbidly obese, so he’s forfeited his right to life. And the smoker consented to cancer, so he’s forfeited his as well. And the miner who knowingly inhales rock dust all day long, and the crayon factory worker who knowingly inhales crayon dust all day long, they forfeit their rights to life too? It would seem like this is what you have to be saying, to argue that a woman who has sex automatically forfeits her right to bodily autonomy for the next nine months.
And the analogy with regard to sex was meant to show that withdrawl of consent to use of one’s body means that continued use of one’s body is a violation of one’s rights. So it wasn’t meant to be analogous in that sense. Don’t try to stretch my analogies where they weren’t meant to go.
And actually, even though it wasn’t meant to go there, I can kill a rapist who is raping me. Say I consent, and then I change my mind (maybe it’s too painful). If I’m screaming “Stop! Get off me! Stop!”, and trying to push him off, but he continues the act, I think I have every right to do whatever I can to get him off me. And that includes grabbing a big rock (or paperweight, or whatever’s nearby) and smashing him over the head with it. And if he dies, well, too bad.
Oh, and I never said that abortion was nice. I never said it was all puppies and roses, or even that it was the moral, good thing to do. So you may think that it’s immature or selfish, or whatever. But that’s irrelevant to whether or not a woman has a right to do it.
Okay. That’s it. I’m gone.
How come none of you pro-lifers can ever leave god or religon out of it. god gave us free will, which leads to choices. thats what abortion really is about, your personal choice
Jeremy, you hit the nail on the head.
“I’ve gotta jump in here. How do we KNOW that these women aren’t psychotic? I’ve met a few women that were really questionable. Believe me when I tell you that I am the really tolerant type.”
I think you might have confused psychopathy with psychosis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychosis
(I know Wiki isn’t always the most reliable/credible source, but it’s good for a basic idea of something.)
Why does everyone seem to think that no god = no objective truth? I’ve never seen an argument to that effect. It makes no sense to me. And if you think that the only reason there are objective morals is that god commands them, well, I suggest you look up “divine command theory”. As far as ethical theories go, it’s one of the worst.
Okay, I’ve said it a million times already, but goodnight all.
So now pornography is leading to the decay of society. So is irresponsible sex and broken families. Wow, that is a whole bunch of stuff riding on abortion.
Marie,
It is true that consenting to sex does not mean consenting to pregnancy, but only an idiot or graduate student would fail to see that consenting to sex means accepting whatever consequences may follow from it — especially if those consequences involve the creation of another human life.
If you wanted to go skydiving with me, I would explain to you that there are certain risks involved. If you said, “I want to jump but I’m not prepared to accept the fact that I might die from it”, I would respectfully tell you to keep your butt on the ground. Imagine how ridiculous you would look if you then pitched a fit, demanding that I separate the activity from the possible consequences.
That’s what the pro-choice movement is all about. Give me what I want, when I want it, and eliminate all consequences of my actions.
Despicable.
“Without God, all things are permissible.”
Jeremy, great post. I totally agree.
Seriously, why cant any of you leave God, religion or morality out of it.
Good-night all and God-bless you.
Jasper I dont need god to bless me, thank you.
Diana,
Let’s use a simple example then. Would you say that rape is wrong? Let’s assume you’re a reasonable person and you say “yes”.
My response to you would be, “says who?”
You might come back with some argument about violating a woman’s bodily autonomy, but my next question would be, “so what? Why is that wrong?”
If you weren’t attempting to leave, we could run this discussion way out, and if you’re intellectually honest, you’ll see that all morality is baseless without God.
well there are other risks from having sex besides pregnancy. If I got Herpes or syphillis, would my medical care be nullm and void because I had sex and knew the risks?
No, you could get treatment to rid yourself of the disease, but you couldn’t reverse the fact that you got it, to begin with.
The only way you can draw a link between your position and mine is by comparing an unborn child to a disease. Are you willing to do that?
Thats funny Jeremy I thought that State and Church were seperate.
And what if I am?
Valerie: I have a good support system, my parents had to handle me for the 14 years before my meds, I think they can handle me for a summer. :)
I will be talking to my doctor in May to actually decide whether this is a good idea (and I’ll be getting a referral to a dermatologist to see what they know about the connection between anti-depressants and psoriasis and if there are more effective treatments).
I am gonna talk to a new psychiatrist to see if there are any other medications and what not…I may be switching, but I want a shrink’s opinion as well as a doctor-doctor’s opinion before I make any decisions about my meds. :)
Thank you for your concern, it’s so sweet of you. ^_^
I’m not discussing church/state issues. My position on abortion has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with basic human rights.
Now, as for your other question: if you are comparing an unborn child to a disease, then there is no reasoning with that kind of evil. Someone who could look at my precious son before he emerged from my wife’s womb and compare him to a disease is a hopeless cause.
I didnt say your son was a disease. Dont put words in my mouth, I havent put any in yours.
So answer the question. Are you willing to compare an unborn child to a disease?
“you’ll see that all morality is baseless without God.”
now how is that not basing your position on religion?
In the same way that it wasn’t religion when Thomas Jefferson said that all humans are endowed by the Creator with certain inalienable rights.
Recognizing the source of human rights doesn’t equal religion. If that’s a problem for you, maybe you can dig up Jefferson and gripe at him about it.
Now, are you ready to compare an unborn child to a disease, yet?
Please help me understand … body autonomy supersedes rights and even life itself … so why is this autonomy reliant on a part of the body that is not indispensable to life … as are the brain, heart, and liver among others. If no kids, why not voluntary and PERMANENT HYSTERECTOMIES … no kids, guaranteed! [Besides, what kid would ever want you as their Mom.]
Okay, I am beginning to agree with the “responsibility argument”
But I disagree that without God there is no moral code. I’m not an atheist but I know quite a few. In fact they live a great life and are good people–better than many Christians I know. They feel they should live this life as good as they possibly can, because they will have no other chance.
I could be wrong, John, but I’m pretty sure most doctors won’t tie the ol’ tubes unless you’re a certain age.
For some reason, they think it’s a spur of the moment thing and often will not perform the surgery because the woman might decide she wants children after all.
It’s ridiculous, but as soon as I can get the money together and find someone to perform the surgery (even if I have to scour the country to do so), that’s what I’m doing.
Pink,
You can have morals without believing in God, however those morals have no foundation — no authority which binds us to them. Care to carry out a thought experiment with this idea?
There’s the natural moral code–one that is inherently human (such as–no incest). And there is a general golden rule–do unto others only what they would have done unto you. Present in all societies.
This pretty much covers the basis of our moral law. But sure, why not.
Actually, where does the “natural code” derive? Also, as far as the golden rule goes, who says that doing unto others as you would have them do unto you is worth following?
But on to the thought experiment. Let’s take simple question. Would you consider rape to be morally wrong?
“Actually, where does the “natural code” derive?”
Common sense and a general knowledge of Anthropology. for example, in almost every society, incest is a moral wrong. Even if someone gives consent, it is just so against our being, generally none of us think that incest is a moral good, or even neutral.
“Also, as far as the golden rule goes, who says that doing unto others as you would have them do unto you is worth following?”
In general it just sucks if it is not, to be blunt. If you make a law that isn’t founded on this rule then the law is generally unfair to us (not saying there aren’t exceptions). We are a very ego-centric species, so when a group is unhappy society is unstable. If the law says that people with GPA of 4.0 can hit people without consequence, it is not obeying the golden rule and is seen as unfair. Basically common sense. Though such laws exist in other countries, right now we are in the context of a country that operates on the basis of the public.
“Would you consider rape to be morally wrong?”
Yes. Not only is it violating the “golden rule” in general but also violates the values we place in our society as a whole. We are doing the thought experiment without God, right? Or would you rather me say what I genuinely think about the subject?
No, no, we’re doing this experiment without God.
You say that violating the golden rule is unfair, but unfair according to what (or whom)? Also, simply saying that all societies observe the Golden Rule on some level doesn’t speak to the authority of the Golden Rule.
Just because every society believes it, how does that bind me to follow it at all times? What power do other societies (or even mine) exert over me? Aren’t societies merely other people? What authority do they have to tell me that rape is wrong?
We understand on an epistemological level (a “knowing” level) that rape is wrong, but can we explain it on an ontological level (at its very essence)? Why is rape wrong?
You say because it violates the Golden Rule, but again, why am I bound to follow the Golden Rule? Who came up with it and why am I bound by their authority?
I did not know that.
Thanks for the link SoMG.
“You say that violating the golden rule is unfair, but unfair according to what (or whom)”
Says most American citizens and many other citizens of the world, including most athiests. This is how we measure moral rights and wrongs in general in our society. Although many have a religious basis of their opinions, our secularism demands a secular reason–and that is a violation or fulfillment of the golden rule.
Also, simply saying that all societies observe the Golden Rule on some level doesn’t speak to the authority of the Golden Rule.”
Although some societies don’t enforce it, their ignoring of such principles reflects corruption. The societies in general and most of the world population recognize it.
“Just because every society believes it, how does that bind me to follow it at all times?”
Self-defense is a valid “exception.” Nobody wants to be shot at, but self-defense is protection against such violation in the first place, and generally accepted by the general population. Also, you are employing moral relativism. While many secularists employ this method, not all of them do. You pointing out exceptions lead to me pointing out exceptions from the secular side.
“What power do other societies (or even mine) exert over me?”
I’d call unjustified attack on other countries because of their disagreement justifies the employment of self defense. Also there are many universal principles that the general population accepts. This includes the universal moral goods and wrongs pointed out by the UN and Amnesty International. Imprisonment for no reason or for simply saying something is violating the golden rule, for example.
“Aren’t societies merely other people?”
Um…yes. But most of the general popluation (not several corrupt leaders) have universal principles of equality BASED on the golden rule.
“What authority do they have to tell me that rape is wrong?”
Because rape is a violation of general principles of humanity, that idea has its basis in the golden rule.
“You say because it violates the Golden Rule, but again, why am I bound to follow the Golden Rule?”
Because it is a universal principle in general, that most athiests accept and abide by. Interestingly enough several Christian groups also violate this rule which makes the religion as a whole look bad. A sad situation, indeed. Even the infamous Marquis de Sade, the one known for the invention of sadism derived from his writings (I’ve read a few), reduces the principles of society that employs religious ideas and infers them as a general secular principle that applies regardless of religion. This principle is the golden rule (read dialouge between a priest and a dying man). Very interesting, in my opinion.
“Who came up with it and why am I bound by their authority?”
Well I am not sure who put it in writing, but many societies are based on such a general rule. Even the American Indian, seen as savages in the past, base their socities on the sharing of assets which is derived from the golden rule. As I’ve said several times, it is a general agreement by most of the population, whether they state it outright or not. Some laws do not have this basis but the American manifestation at least derive their principles also from this principle. I call it the Golden Rule because that is what most people in the English speaking world refer to it as. It doesn’t mean some people don’t abide by it, in a general sense, and derive their moral guide by that rule.
I’m very tired and going to bed. I would love to contine this discussion tomorrow if that is possible. I do warn you though that my schoolwork is just piling up so my posts might be spread out. Good Night!
Jeremy,
Simply excellent!
SMOG:
You shouldn’t be practicing medicine on a web site.
No reputable doctor would do so, so you are either not one or are a quack.
What state do you practice in, I’d like to refer your posts for board review.
Jill, what do you think about this guy telling woman what this drug does and which one doesn’t? I think for liability reasons he either has to stop or be cut off.
The world has truly gone crazy. I guess it’s true what I’ve always heard — some people can be so open-minded that their brains fall out.
Brilliant!!!!!!
True Jasper, a mother might not call it a fetus. But science does. A mother could call it a child, the devil’s advocate, a little shit, pain in the ass, or a mistake. There are lost of things SHE COULD call it.
Posted by: marie at April 23, 2007 10:31 PM
And somebody accused me of having no class?
HisMan, 3:05a, said: “SMOG: You shouldn’t be practicing medicine on a web site…. Jill, what do you think about this guy telling woman what this drug does and which one doesn’t? I think for liability reasons he either has to stop or be cut off.”
SOMG et al, I’ve told you before I’ll not allow this site to become a self-abortion how-to forum. I guess I needed to specify I won’t allow it to become a self-sterilization how-to forum either. I’ve deleted your post. Please respect my requests.
Jeremy, Jasper, John, and everyone else I am not thinking of at this moment, great job last night!
Hi Heather B ….April 24, 2007 12:04 AM
why scour the country? Isn’t vasectomy of your partner an ideal BC?
John,I couldn’t agree more with you on the sterilization issue. If you really don’t want children,get a tubal ligation or a vasectomy.
Diana,I COULD unplug you,but I wouldn’t.
“why scour the country? Isn’t vasectomy of your partner an ideal BC?”
John, I’m the one who has no desire for children. Therefore, would it not stand to reason that I should be the one to get the operation?
I apologize for the triple post. I kept losing my connection and having to refresh the page.
I’d also like to point out that I don’t see the harm in what SOMG did. He simply informed me of an alternative to surgery.
Hell, at least if I’m sterile, I’m not likely to have kids and I won’t “have” to get an abortion.
I’ve read the majority of the posts from last night. And I have a question.
Someone, okay most pro-choicer’s, say that their right to bodily autonomy supercedes another person’s rights.
If so, then what right do we have to tell a rapist that his right to bodily autonomy doesn’t supercede the right of the woman.
What right do we have to tell the Dahmer’s of the world that their right to bodily autonomy is more important than their victim.
What right do we have to tell a murderer that his right to bodily autonomy isn’t as important as his victim.
When does someone’s right to bodiy autonomy end and the other’s begin?
It has been said that you can legally kill a rapist in the act. But there is still an investigation. Sometimes there is a court case. So, it isn’t that cut and dry. Even murder in self defense is investigated and analized.
“Not because they have no rights as a person, but because your right to bodily autonomy supercedes their right to live in this case.”
Why is this case different? yes, the baby lives off the mother for survival, but that is something that cannot be changed no matter how much anyone screams “bodily autonomy”.
Many pediphiles say that when they have sex with a child it fullfills them. It makes them alive. The reason they are so dangerous is because they cannot control themselves, they feel that if they do not have contact with a child they will die. Isn’t that the pediphile living off of the child? Whose rights supercede the others?
See, if we could change the concept of pregnancy and make our pregnancies more like that of a seahorse (the males give birth) then your argument makes sense. But woman give birth. Women carry the child. It is natural. It is the way we were made, whether that is made by God, nature or the sun godess, it is the way we are.
Our rights to bodily autonomy NEVER supercedes someone elses right to life. If in self defense someone is murdered, we still review the case. We still investigate because the answer isn’t that simple.
Valerie, most of your examples are cases where someone’s right to bodily autonomy is violated by another. That is the difference.
Not that I don’t agree with you…
Seperating church and state. Look at our country’s history and you’ll find that religious people have long played a very active and deisive role in our country’s politics.
Among the first and most outspoken opponents of slavery in this country were the Quakers who formed the first anti-slavery society in the colonies. The quakers would remain an active force in the abolitionist movement and underground railroad. Clergy would also preach from the pulpit on the evils of slavery.
But slavery was wrong you’ll argue. Not everyone agreed. Black people were subhuman, slavery was a “favor” done for “their own good”. Besides, it was great for the economy. Oh, and if we freed the slaves what would happen to them? They’re better off in captivity. Sound familiar?
The Civil Rights movement was led by an ordained minister, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and was certainly very religiously oriented. Clergy of all faiths marched, protested, and preached from the pulpit on the evils of segregation and in support of civil rights.
But segregation was wrong! Again, not everyone agreed. Black people were second class citizens but they were inferior so what do you expect?
Hey, its legal. “Our colored folk were happy until these civil rights trouble makers came along”.
These are only a few examples of how religious people have played a very active role in shaping our country’s politics.
I don’t recall anyone reminding Dr. King about the seperation of church and state, or even hearing this ever brought up.
By the way, does anyone object to Bill or Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama campaigning from a church pulpit?
“Concern” about church state seperation is highly selective and occurs only when religious people have the audacity to speak when they’re not welcome.
li
li
license (lī’səns) pronunciation
n.
1.
1. Official or legal permission to do or own a specified thing. See synonyms at permission.
2. A document, plate, or tag that is issued as proof of official or legal permission: a driver’s license.
2. Deviation from normal rules, practices, or methods in order to achieve a certain end or effect.
3. Latitude of action, especially in behavior or speech. See synonyms at freedom.
4.
1. Lack of due restraint; excessive freedom: When liberty becomes license, dictatorship is near (Will Durant).
2. Heedlessness for the precepts of proper behavior; licentiousness.
human rights
Rights that belong to an individual as a consequence of being human. The term came into wide use after World War II, replacing the earlier phrase “natural rights,” which had been associated with the Greco-Roman concept of natural law since the end of the Middle Ages. As understood today, human rights refer to a wide variety of values and capabilities reflecting the diversity of human circumstances and history. They are conceived of as universal, applying to all human beings everywhere, and as fundamental, referring to essential or basic human needs. Human rights have been classified historically in terms of the notion of three “generations” of human rights. The first generation of civil and political rights, associated with the Enlightenment and the English, American, and French revolutions, includes the rights to life and liberty and the rights to freedom of speech and worship. The second generation of economic, social, and cultural rights, associated with revolts against the predations of unregulated capitalism from the mid-19th century, includes the right to work and the right to an education. Finally, the third generation of solidarity rights, associated with the political and economic aspirations of developing and newly decolonized countries after World War II, includes the collective rights to political self-determination and economic development. Since the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, many treaties and agreements for the protection of human rights have been concluded through the auspices of the United Nations, and several regional systems of human rights law have been established. In the late 20th century ad hoc international criminal tribunals were convened to prosecute serious human rights violations and other crimes in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. The International Criminal Court, which came into existence in 2002, is empowered to prosecute crimes against humanity, crimes of genocide, and war crimes.
For more information on human rights, visit Britannica.com.
Rights that belong to an individual as a consequence of being human.
You’ll notice it doesn’t say: “Rights that belong to an individual as a consequence of being a person.”
It says “BEING HUMAN”
I would say that abortion is a license and life is a right.
Not the other way around.
Mary, was that comment directed at me? I’m just curious there’s so many convos going on at once!!
If in fact it was I don’t deny that religion has played a role. I don’t really mind either, being religious myself. Nowadays though it seems we need secular justification for laws, and I’m saying that this secular thing is just a manifestation of the golden rule. Some people disagree on which one is right but nobody denies that it is a good principle to live by.
PIP –
“Valerie, most of your examples are cases where someone’s right to bodily autonomy is violated by another. That is the difference.”
Why is it a difference? The person who is doing the violating NEEDS to have their right to bodily autonomy protected too. What right do you or anyone else have to take that away from them? The pediphile NEEDS to be with the child to feel fulfilled. Even though s/he is like a parasite to that child, he needs him/her for his psychological survival. S/He will go insane without it. S/He can only feel human this way. What right do we have to take that away from him. His/Her right to bodily autonomy and his life not being inconvienced is just as important as yours and mine.
You can’t just say – I have the right to go into this bathroom, but because of your skin color you cannot go in. That’s prejudice. So why can you say my right to bodily autonomy supercedes a human’s life but your right is not as important as their rights. You can’t have it both ways.
I think they are saying that their right to bodily autonomy is limited so as to not infringe on the rights of others. It’s their argument though, I could never get it right. Because this argument naturally leads to the question, “doesn’t abortion infringe others’ rights?” So I could be wrong. This is just what I’ve gathered from the conversation so far, at least.
Actually Valerie, you have hit on an excellent point.
Could someone please explain how a woman can protect her right to bodily autonomy through abortion without violating the bodily autonomy of the human being she is aborting?
Doesn’t bodily autonomy inherently involve the right to not have that body killed by another person?
Jeremy,
It’s simple. The baby is weaker and can’t stand up for itself. So there is no one to stop the abortions. If the baby was 350 man we might have a chance…
mk
PIP
I really didn’t direct my comment to anyone in particular, its just that I saw references to seperation of church and state and felt the need to comment on the subject.
How interesting that you mention you are religious while I am not particularly so, and yet we see this from the same angle, that religious people can be active in policy making.
My point PIP is that we only hear “concern” about seperation of church and state when it applies to the abortion argument. Suddenly, its an outrage and a violation of this sacred seperation for people of faith to speak out. I like to remind people that Quaker opposition to and efforts to end slavery were based on religious conviction. I suppose the Quakers should have kept quiet. Somehow the very people we hear wailing over separation of church and state when religious people speak on the abortion issue are strangely silent about certain political candidates openly campaigning in churches. They also seem incredibly ignorant of history. I was pointing out that our country has a long history of religious people who could easily have been accused of crossing the line between church and state, but that did not stop them from fighting for and bringing about social justice.
You’re quite right, there are a lot of subjects to keep track of on this thread!
Mary, I definately agree.
Check out what the editors of the Dallas Morning News have to say:
“A slide toward the overturn of Roe vs. Wade is a thought every bit as chilling as images of partial-birth abortion”
Huh?! So stopping women from killing their children is just as horrible as allowing them to kill their children?
They will find a way to b—- about everything!!!
Pip –
That didn’t really answer my question though. Bodily autonomy supercedes the rights of others, right? Except when it is YOUR bodily autonomy, then your rights supercedes the others. So in other words, only YOUR bodily autonomy is important and everyone elses is not. (you in the general form, not you as in Pip.)
Let me explain even further.
I cannot tell you that you can’t have sex because you do not want to respect the fact that procreation is a result of sex. I cannot tell you that this procreation is your responsibility and has nothing to do with autonomy.
However, you can tell the pediphile not to have sex because it affects someone elses bodily autonomy even though the pediphile sees nothing wrong with it. You can tell the pediphile it is his responsibility to control his sex drive but no one can tell you to control your sex drive.
AND the father of the embryo/fetus/living-but-not-in-the-form-of-personhood-somehting-that-no-one-can-explain has no right to his child even though he agreed in the sharing of the body.
Someone here said:
“You spoil the well by claiming that abortion is premeditated murder,”
I’m really curious about this. Everyone here has said that the fetus is human. That the fetus is a person. So abortion is the destruction of a human that is a person. With all the above comments, no one can deny this.
Murder – 1 : the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought
Kill – 1 a : to deprive of life : cause the death of
To kill a person is muder. Kill means to deprive of life, cause death. Abortion does deprive a fetus of live. It causes the death of a fetus. Therefore, it is murder by definition.
Lets see…. lets put it this way…
-You cannot tell me not to have sex. I am using contraception which I know is not 100% affective and I could still get pregnant. If I get pregnant that human person is leeching off of my system and I didn’t give it the right to do that. So therefore, if I get pregnant I know I will have an abortion. –
Premeditation: : an act or instance of premeditating; specifically : consideration or planning of an act beforehand that shows intent to commit that act
What part of the definition of premeditation is confusing you?
I wasn’t going to come back given the mountain of work that is piling up, but this place is addictive. I’ll just leave this one post and then get to work (hopefully). Sorry this post is so long.
Heather,
You didn’t answer my question. Of course you could unplug me, and you say you wouldn’t. That’s fine. The question is do you have a right to unplug me. If you answer yes you have one of two choices (1) claim that the case is not analogous to pregnancy or (2) admit that women have a right to abort.
Valerie,
You raise an interesting point about the bodily autonomy of the fetus. Your cases are pedophiles and rapists don’t fit, though. The right to bodily autonomy is not equivalent to getting your life fulfilled, mollifying your sexual predilictions, or whatever. Nonetheless, I find it an interesting question whether the fetus’ right to bodily autonomy or the rapist’s right to bodily autonomy are being violated. I would say that their right to life is being violated, but, as I’ve said, the right to bodily autonomy supercedes the right to life in these cases. The two rights do seem linked, though, as certain violations of bodily autonomy (say, pulling out your heart without consent) would lead to death. But I believe that the right to bodily autonomy is, at its core, the right to set use privileges over your body. I also want to say that since the rapist and the fetus are the initial violators (intent or no, we can imagine the rapist in this case to be a mentally disabled person who doesn’t know they are doing wrong), one might still have the right to violate their bodily autonomy to effect cessation of the violation. I’ll have to think about it.
And, yes, Valerie, in cases where a woman kills her attacker to get him off her, there would be legal procedings – one’s to determine whether or not her bodily autonomy is being infringed on – whether or not her body was being used without her consent. It seems pretty clear in the case of pregnancy, however. If that stick turns blue, if that developing embryo/fetus shows up on the ultrasound, well, case closed, autonomy violated.
Jeremy,
As as virtue ethicist, I believe that morality is linked to human well-being – to flourishing, or if you will allow the greek “eudaimonia”. Such allows a solid objective foundation for moral claims. The details are a bit more complex, but I encourage you to look it up. It’s good stuff. Consequentialist views and deontological views also are successful in yielding objective moral facts (ones that mesh with our intuitions). The question then is which is right. Philosophers are currently battling it out.
As for your adherence to divine command theory, well, as I said, as ethical theories go it is one of the worst. First, if what is right is what god commands, then god could have commanded otherwise, right? So god could have made it such that torturing innocent three year olds was good and helping the homeless was an unforgivable sin. Of course, you might want to say that god wouldn’t make those things right because god is good, but that assumes that there is some outside standard other than god’s say so that makes things good or bad.
In fact, if there isn’t an outside standard, then you can’t claim that god is omnibenevolent. All you really get to claim is that his actions are consistent with his own commands, since that’s all that his being good amounts to.
Finally, divine command theory faces a major epistemological (theory of knowledge) worry. How do you know what god’s commands are? You might, as a Christian, appeal to the bible, but that was written by men, and is subject to varied interpretation. And what about what’s not in the book? There are serious challenges there.
John,
First of all, I don’t believe in essences. So to say that a heart is essential while a uterus isn’t doesn’t hold much water with me. (At and any rate, some of the people ’round here seem to think that unless you put it to use you’re not really fulfilling your role as a woman) Unless, of course, you are indicating the fact that it is essential for functioning (aka, one needs a heart to function, whereas one does not need a uterus). I’ll grant that obvious fact. But so what? Are you saying that we only have rights over those organs that are essential to our survival? Well then, be prepared to donate your blood, one of your kidneys are pieces of your liver. Perhaps even one of your lungs, and certainly some bone marrow. Sound okay to you? You don’t need all your blood, both of your kidneys or all of your liver. And there are so many people with various diseases needing blood transfusions and kidney and liver transplants to survive. And I’m sure some of them are your blood type, and a small number of those are probably a perfect match with you. Better pony up.
Now that the philosophical stuff is out of the way (for now), I’ll assume that your comment was directed at me, but even if it is not, how dare you claim that no one would want me or any of the other pro-choice girls around here as a mother! And who are you to assume that we don’t want children down the line? None of that is relevant to whether or not a woman is willing to consent at a particular time to allow another being to use her body. And, honestly, John, despite your and HisMan’s impressions of me as some liberal, hate mongering, fem-nazi bride of satan, I think I would make a wonderful mother, thank you very much. Or would you rather that all of us evil “pro-deathers” be sterilized? Our rights over our uteruses are illusory, after all, so maybe we should just institute a law proclaiming that only those who believe in your god and your morals and your ideals should be able to procreate. And for the love of FSM, don’t tell me to grow up again. I know I’ve lost my temper just now, but I keep my cool most of the time around here, and, honestly, I don’t see why Jill, et al get to use exaggeration and rhetorical flourishes, but as soon as I indulge I’m childish. Then again, who cares about consistency? Contradictions for everyone (everyone who’s pro-life, anyway)
Valerie,
Note in your original definition the word “unlawfully”. That’s what we’re arguing about, whether or not it should be lawful killing (because it is required, sadly, to protect rights). Thus, calling it murder is poisoning the well. It assumes the point you are trying to argue – that abortion is an unlawful killing. That’s question begging, and it’s fallacious.
SOMG, your information is not something I want to pass along.
Andrew, 2:12p: Bizarre quote. Just made it quote of day. Thanks.
Diana, 3:07p: Glad you find this site addictive… :)
Great Diana!
knew that’d rattle you a bit! It worked …
I did not say that you or any pro-choicer did not think they would make a great Mom (of a wanted) baby. Trouble is though, feelings of someone else [like your intended child] are NOT within your control. I asked a rhetorical question: one supposedly a child would ask … ‘Mom, do you love me?’. If the answer is a ???? or qualified by being my [convenience]. I feel very sorry for the kid.
When I was a young-un we used to gaze at the many police posters on the walls of the local post office. In large black print, they always said: WANTED :: DEAD or ALIVE. Guess their idea of what
‘wanted’ meant then and the pro-choice ‘wanted’ now are similar?
Was talking to a very wise friend about what I had been reading at this site. I keep reminding myself it seems like I am to prove the ice-cream answer.
If ever you’ve minded small kids, they’ll surely insist on a diet of pleasant ice-cream and forgo any supper …. and they’ll yell, cry and scream until a parent relents to them …. just to keep the peace. My friend thought that for such people there is no internal discipline when young and the stakes get larger and larger with age …. when a person (like me) spends much time trying to understand the direction of society then Diana comes along and says no-no folks …’the best thing to do is pull a reverse on the highway. Old fogies like HisMan and John … well, just run ’em down! We can’t take them seriously!’
Your concept of autonomy as being one of great value, even superseding a right-to-life is frightening. (that’s why I wrote that being without a womb will not kill you, but being without one of those other major organs will. If autonomy a attached to the womb, how is it of higher value than life itself?
The whole concept that dependence is a defect is troubling, except to one who believes themselves as invulnerable.
Will any a you guys leave your books behind for just a few hours and go visit/hug a kid dying of cancer. Now, there is truth! and you may learn a truth that is not buried in books.]
And by the way Diana, because of my genetic disease, my blood is refused!
Yeah, Valerie, I dig it. I pretty much agree with you!
eee it’s storming!!
just read a very interesting and disconcerting article at http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=711
Hence, if the fetus’ rights are equal to those of all other persons, it does not have the right to use my body without my consent
Ya gotta wonder if the little buggers are in their thinking “Who is this person I’m floatin’ around in? How dare she attach herself to me. I want my bodily autonomy. Maybe she should get another body!”
Diana,
Note in your original definition the word “unlawfully”. That’s what we’re arguing about, whether or not it should be lawful killing…
It’s funny, isn’t it, that we have two arguments going here. When is human life really human life.
And usually the answer changes in a matter of seconds. It’s not a person in the womb, but at it’s first breath, it becomes a person.
Then we have the it’s lawful so it’s right. Except if the law changed tomorrow then it would be wrong. Right today, murder tomorrow.
This is what Jeremy/Jasper are saying about moral relativity and No God/ No Absolute Truth…
You guys sure do give yourself a lot of leeway when defining things. Allows you to change whatever you need to fit your desire.
Just like it’s a baby if it’s wanted but a fetus if it’s not.
The objective things don’t change. Human/Person,
Killing a baby, being pregnant…all these things just are…
The only thing that changes is the attitude of you guys in order to redefine and justify your actions.
mk
Valerie,
Concerning your excellent post on child abuse. In my hometown years ago there was a newspaper account of a family of five children. One of the children, the oldest daughter, had been singled out for abuse and neglect for who knows what reason. When the parents were asked by the reporter if she had been a wanted baby her mother replied, “oh we wanted her desperately, we prayed we would have her”. The police found her tied to a bed in the basement, where she had been eating out of dog dishes.
You’re right about it being irrelavent if the baby was wanted or not. I don’t pretend to understand the psychology of the child abuser, only that its obvious that we will never solve the problem of child abuse by killing off potential victims, especially when we can’t possibly predict who will be a victim.
John,
One of my favorite passages from Frank Sheed is this:
It
Please Hisman,
I know this post is a little late but I only got to my computer this morning and I’ve only been able to visit sporadically. We’ve had this discussion before. A “living fart” who “stinks up this site”. Let’s have some dignity. We can conduct ourselves like mature adults, however much we may disagree with each other, and have an exchange of ideas and beliefs without resorting to this. I would think comments like this are most un-Christlike.
On another thread I defended your right to express your views and to be treated with respect, however much others may disagree with you. I would hope that you treat other posters with respect as well, however much you may disagree with or dislike what they say.
Mary, do you know why it is that many desperately wanted children end up abused? It baffles me.
Mary,
Please don’t patronize me.
Calling Cameron a living fart I guess to you is much worse that his posts that are absolutely heinously opposed to human life in the womb?
I posted primarily using God’s word and did you see what he did? He started out by insulting me and then randomly posting jibberish from various philosophical articles throughout the post, not mocking me but, mocking God’s word.
Where’s your sense of balance? Don’t try to obfuscate my values because, “Oh my goodness I used the word fart” in describing metaphorically what Cameron’s presence does on this site ….stink it up.
So, go and correct someone else please before I call him a brood of vipers, reprobate, dead while he liveth, of satan, and you a little old church lady, etc.
Abortion is murder, period.
If I emply ad hominem attacks, then what is an abortion? Ad fetum, the ultimate example of an ad hominem attack?
And when you say God doesn’t exist is that “Ad Deus”?
You see, I view abortionists and all that support them murderers, because, well, that’s what they are.
HisMan
I am not patronizing you. Yes, I’ve seen the comments that you receive, so you think stooping to the level of some of your detractors is the right response? The best offense Hisman is always an intelligent argument. Name calling and personal attacks are what people resort to when they are incapable of giving an intelligent argument.
I would remind you that on another thread I defended your right to express your views, to be treated with respect, and condemned the personal attacks on you and your family so you can hardly question my sense of balance. In previous posts I have frequently criticized uncivil behavior and name calling, no matter who was doing it.
I’m sure not everyone agrees with or likes what I have to say. Likewise, I don’t always agree with or like another poster. But I feel strongly that we can all agree to disagree and intelligently debate like the mature adults we are. If you want me to listen to you and consider your viewpoint, give me an intelligent argument. If you want to completely turn me off to your point of view, then by all means resort to swearing and name calling.
PIP,
How I wish I had an answer! My opinion, and that’s all it is, is that some people often have babies to fill their own emotional needs and are frustrated when these needs are not met. Perhaps too many people enter parenthood with highly romanticized ideas of what parenthood is all about, and get a very rude shock! Any of us who have had babies and small children know they demand everything from us and most certainly don’t love us in return. Infant and child care can turn out not to be what the mother or both parents fantasized it would be. The child may also not meet parental expectations either. Its been theorized that parents tend to have much higher and more unrealistic expectations of the “planned and wanted” child and are frustrated when these expectations aren’t met.
Again PIP that’s my opinion only, based on what I have observed over the years and my own experience as a mother.
Mary,that was a great post.Somethig to think about.
Heather4Life,
Thank you for your kind words. I very much appreciate them.
Wouldn’t it be something if instead of “Every child a wanted child”, the slogan was changed to, “Every child a WELCOMED child”?