Abercrombie & Fitch knows when life begins
Here’s another from Abercrombie & Fitch:
I wonder what sort of cad or ho would wear that shirt. Seems to me it’s simply a walking advertisement for free love.
But that’s an aside.
“Make love not babies.” Isn’t that an acknowledgement by A&F that human life begins at conception? Otherwise the shirt would have read, “Make love not fertilized eggs,” or “Make love not embryos,” or “Make love not blobs of tissue,” or “Make love not unwanted appendages,” or “Make love not pregnancy.” Hey, this is fun.
Dec.14, 2007 11:03 am |
Uncategorized |
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.
“Make love, not products of conception”.
disgusting.
I have no problem prejudging people that wear clothes from A&F. No problem whatsoever.
Make Love, Not Pro-choicers.
Make Love, Not Pregnancy Tissue
Make Something, Just Don’t Let It Gestate!
Let’s try something more concise…
Copulate!
interesting that it doesn’t say “make love, not fetuses”, or fetii, or whatever. According to PCers it’s not a “baby” unless it is wanted by it’s parents and takes a breath of air.
Make Love, Make PP’s Day
Make Love, Not Sense
Fornicate!
Make Love, Pay Me Later
Make Love, Make An Apointment
Make Love, Not Birthdays
Make Love, Not Parasites
Make Love, Not Humans
Make Love, Not Valuations
You’re right, Jill, this IS fun!
Make Love, Not Intruders
Make Love, Wait, Did I Say I Love You?
“Make love not babies.” Isn’t that an acknowledgement by A&F that human life begins at conception? Otherwise the shirt would have read, “Make love not fertilized eggs,” or “Make love not embryos,” or “Make love not blobs of tissue,” or “Make love not unwanted appendages,” or “Make love not pregnancy.” Hey, this is fun.
good point Jill, the pro-deathers know they’re creating babies (life), they just want to hold onto their power to kill them…
Jasper and Jill,
“Make love not babies.” Isn’t that an acknowledgement by A&F that human life begins at conception?”
“good point Jill, the pro-deathers know they’re creating babies (life), they just want to hold onto their power to kill them…”
It is not an acknowledgment of an any. There is a difference between colloquialisms and correct scientific terminology. Simply because you prefer the colloquialism to the correct terminology does not mean that the correct terminology is invalid or that any one who ever uses the vernacular supports your view of the world.
how about, “make love, and make PP lots of money”
Enigma,
Hello! I just wanted to tell you (since the previous article we were chatting on went into archives)that I really enjoyed the civilized converstation that we had the other day. It was nice to state opinions and thoughts without anyone being offended. Thank you!
You know, I guess my whole teenage life my mom was trying to encourage me to have premaritial sex, and sell my soul to Satan! I always hated those preppy stores like A&F, but my mom wanted to try and make me ‘fit in’. But anyhow…I find this shirt cute. It’s a joke. Look at current successful stad-up comedians. Look at movies. Sex can be portrayed in lots of ways, and comically is definitely one of them. I, for example, have a shirt that says “I put the ‘cute’ in Execute”, and it has a rainbow and an executioner on it. I bought it because I think it’s hysterical, not because I kill people. I also have one that says “talk nerdy to me”, but I have yet to actually encourage some random person to explain computer junk to me. It’s just a shirt. It doesn’t MEAN anything.
hey Enigma,
look at the QoTD, should Patel be charged with homicide?
I’ve had planty of sex, and I’ve never had a baby.
For a lot of Americans, the two heve little to do with each other.
(By the way, there no such thing as “free love,” and nobody’s used that expression since yuppies bought and gentrified Haight-Ashbury.)
AB Laura,
“I just wanted to tell you (since the previous article we were chatting on went into archives)that I really enjoyed the civilized converstation that we had the other day.”
Right back at you.
“It was nice to state opinions and thoughts without anyone being offended.”
Agreed. Sorry about that. Generally, I try not to attack people maliciously (I have failed on that account a few times) but even I admit that I am too easily offended.
Jasper,
“look at the QoTD, should Patel be charged with homicide?”
Yes.
I feel like I should clarify that somewhat.
I say yes for the same reason that I believe abortion is tragic. However you want to spin it, I do not believe that anyone can deny that a z/e/f is potential human life. Even potential life deserves to be respected.
I support abortion rights because of the woman’s unique relationship to a z/e/f that she is carrying inside of her. This entity is living within her; in essence, it is using her body to survive. If the woman does not wish to allow this type of access, she should be able to deny the z/e/f access to her body. Only a woman or her agent should be able to destroy this potential life, however. No one else should be able to do so because they do not possess a similar relationship to the z/e/f.
Enigma,
Thanks for your response! No need to apologize! I was trying to say that throughout our conversations, I was never offended, nor did I think you were. That was pretty cool!
@Erin: HA! I love the “I put the ‘cute’ in ‘execute'” shirt! It’s funny!
Make Love, Don’t Tell Your Parents
Make Love, I Need Your Name
Make Love, Abstain
Make Love, Get Married
Make Chastity, With Love
Make cookies, not brownies.
Make baklava, not salad.
Make Bethany’s-potato/mushroom-dumplings, not glorified rice.
*has food on the brain*
That t-shirt fits my definition for hate speech.
Babies = Love
Anyone who thinks babies are the opposite of love is pretty darned sick.
Maybe for the A and F execs love=money. Sickos.
Make origami, not paper cuts.
Make music, not weaponized viruses.
Make snow, not rain.
I just want to tell everyone that “I am Legend” is the saddest movie I have seen in a while. I had nightmares, and the first thing I’m gonna do when I get home from college is hug my German Shepard for hours.
Its a T-shirt!!! It doesn’t mean anyone who buys it or wears it means they don’t like babies. Aren’t Christians suppose to believe in free will? You know people making their own decisions.
Enigma,
I support abortion rights because of the woman’s unique relationship to a z/e/f that she is carrying inside of her. This entity is living within her; in essence, it is using her body to survive. If the woman does not wish to allow this type of access, she should be able to deny the z/e/f access to her body. Only a woman or her agent should be able to destroy this potential life, hoever. No one else should be able to do so because they do not possess a similar relationship to the z/e/f.
Posted by: Enigma at December 14, 2007 1:43 PM
This is the same reasoning that permits wife beating in many cultures. The husband has a unique relationship to the wife and she depends on him for support. So she must please him and if she doesn’t, he can beat her. Some cultures even turn a blind eye to murder if the woman is low enough status. This notion is not new. It has just morphed. It is about inequality. It is about having rights only if you have the power to secure them for yourself. It is opposite the notion of “all created equal” and “inalienable rights” It is a moral regression from the progress that was made up through the civil rights movement.
“It is opposite the notion of “all created equal” and “inalienable rights” It is a moral regression from the progress that was made up through the civil rights movement.”
All created equal? What about the women being forced to carry to term when she does not want to? What about the women who was raped and became pregnant? First she is brutally raped (not really created equal here) and then you want to force her to carry to term (again not really created equal here)
hehehe:
Make good grades; Not stree
Make money; Not debt
Make Cookies; Not Cow Liver….
JM,
All created equal? What about the women being forced to carry to term when she does not want to? What about the women who was raped and became pregnant? First she is brutally raped (not really created equal here) and then you want to force her to carry to term (again not really created equal here)
Posted by: JM at December 14, 2007 2:45 PM
Is it the child’s fault that he was conceived in rape? If anyone should die for the crime, perhaps the perpetrator rather than the victim. There is a reason that rape is a crime and it was a crime long before women’s rights came along. Plenty of countries give the death penalty for rape.
Women who become pregnant through rape do not abort at a higher rate than the general population. She does however have legal recourse against the perpetrator in civil as well as criminal courts.
No force is required to maintain a pregnancy. It is natural and continues on its own. Society can’t force pregnancy.
JM,
Plenty of people walking around alive today were conceived in rape, do you want to tell them they are not created equal and don’t deserve even to live? I remember a student of mine was speaking to a girl who was trying to help him learn some English words. She was asking him about his mother or something and asked about his uncle or dad. Anyway he said, “Mi abuelo abuso a mi mama sexualmente y yo naci.” That was when I realized that we are talking about real people here, not theorhetical constru
“Society can’t force pregnancy.”
Can not force pregnancy? What do you think you are doing when women who do not want to have a child would be forced to continue the pregnancy?
Some Brief Thoughts on Abortion
ABORTION–Americans confront the issue daily; the debate informs our politics, our religious beliefs, our very morality. The word warrants bold-faced capitalization on paper and despair in hearts. But do we understand it? The Oxford English Dictionary online defines abortion as:
noun 1 the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy. 2 the natural expulsion of a fetus from the womb before it is able to survive independently. 3 (informal, derogatory) something imperfectly planned or made.
We utilize the first definition almost exclusively. The second definition is a lark; a fetus cannot “survive independently.” Nowhere–outside of an uber-libertarian acid trip–can one imagine a newborn, bindle in tow, striking out on its own to find gainful employment and become a self-made infant. The third definition, though a delightful way to insult someone’s outfit, is not pertinent to this discussion.
Sticking–for now–with the first definition, we enter into the classic moral debate: When does life begin? Evangelicals believe human life starts a half-hour before conception, while looking at gay porn. Other pro-lifers have a more moderate view that life begins when the fetus more resembles a human child than a creepy chicken-beaked thing or an indiscernible clump of dividing cells.
Whatever your personal view on abortion, we can all agree that as pregnancy enters its final stages, the moral stakes are raised considerably. Pro-choicers can even weep at the thought of a huge-bellied woman terminating her pregnancy at the local drive-thru abortion hut. We have a federal law against so-called late term “partial birth” abortions. But is birth itself an arbitrary delineation? How different is a fetus at twenty-weeks of gestation from a one-week old infant?
It’s my contention that there isn’t any.
Let us turn to the second definition provided by Oxford. Human babies are extremely vulnerable and underdeveloped. They need incessant care well into their early years. A baby horse, by contrast, is fully capable of running toward food and away from predators the moment it drops to the dirt. Not a full-grown, full-speed horse, but deft enough to make human babies look like crap.
Of course, I’m abusing the second definition. Most would take it to mean the termination of a fetus before it is able to “survive independently” of the mother’s body. It may thrive under constant medical attention in an incubator, perhaps. Not truly “independent” but close enough. We will return to these thoughts later.
Why shouldn’t a woman’s right to choose extend to the sixth or seventh trimester? Does a one-year-old have a better chance of true independent survival than a zygote? Why should the same one-year old possess a more fundamental “right to life” than a fetus in-utero?
For those who think this may be a rhetorical flourish, used to illustrate a pro-life viewpoint, you are mistaken.
Let’s face it: fetuses and babies are not real people. They are people in the making, which is why the argument against abortion holds any weight whatsoever. If fetus A is to become a sanctified life in baby B, then A = B, and therefore: A is a sanctified life. This is a sound argument, but it begs the question: What’s so great about life?
As a society we don’t use biological life as the litmus test of a thing’s “sanctity;” cows, chickens, and even potatoes are alive. Of course, we’re talking about human life. Then one must ask: what is it about humans that make us so dern special? The answer is self-evident: our minds.
It’s important to note that human infants do not have human minds. The deliciously complex brain activity that gives rise to reason, reflection, and memory in adult minds isn’t yet hardwired into an infant’s gray matter. Babies are not conscious beings. A six-month old child has no more a sense of mental acuity than a chicken or a potato. Babies should be regarded as property. Even Republicans could get behind that.
The minds of babies–or lack thereof–make them into metaphysical riddles. Did YOU exist when you were an infant? Or were YOU still being constructed? You are an agent of rational thought, capable of looking forward and backward in time with your mind. Babies are not rational agents. And YOU did not properly exist until your brain was about three or four years old, roughly the time of your first memories.
Simply put, babies are robots. As they age, their DNA instructs the brain to build the elaborate physical networks prerequisite to what we would call being human, or having a consciously human experience. Before that point, they are not cognizant beings and should be dealt with accordingly.
“Still,” you say, “If infant A will become adult human B and adult human B is a clear example of “sanctified” life, then A = B, and therefore: A is sanctified life.” This is faulty reasoning.
We simply do not value adult life, as countless atrocities can illustrate. Our society devalues the “sanctity” of life after a certain age–the age of one-second. And after eighteen-years, forget about it.
“Still,” you contest. “Even if babies aren’t truly human and can be slaughtered at will with no remorse, all this argument does is arbitrarily move up the age of acceptable killing. When do children become ?fully human’ and ?fully hardwired’ for human consciousness? Where does this slippery slope end?” Well, that is the exciting part of this theory: many human brains don’t fully develop physically until the later teen years! It gives the phrase “teenage abortion” a whole new twist.
However, teens are capable of independent survival, thus cannot by definition be aborted. A cunning five-year old may also be up to the task. This definition should not be our moral compass on abortion. As we’ve seen above, the true determinant of a life’s “sanctity” is to be found in its human consciousness.
It’s not enough to say something is alive and should be kept so. Even before fertilization, an ovum is, strictly speaking, alive. So is a potato. We have no problem when either “dies.” What we’re concerned about, as always, is human life, which I have defined here as a cognizant agent.
Therefore, a simple solution to the abortion debate is obvious: Ask the fetus, baby, toddler or teen in question whether or not it minds being aborted. Barring the obvious exception of the odd deaf-mute, this task will more than serve its purpose. If they express the desire to continue living, it is immoral to terminate their lives. If the question posed is beyond the offspring’s ken, it may be morally aborted, whether in-utero or ex-utero. Surely, if a hitherto unknown species of monkey could answer the same question, we’d be morally obligated not to eat it. The same ethical principle applies.
The very defenselessness of human infants mentioned above is what inspires the impassioned ideology that strives to give voice to those who have none, to stand up for those who cannot. This assumes too much. Who ever said a baby wants to live, or has any opinions whatsoever? They don’t.
In summation, babies and fetuses are robotic, inhuman property, the fate of which should be solely determined by its owner or owners. And although this has been but a loose sketch of a new ethics toward ex-uterine abortion, I hope this essay has been comprehensive enough to shift the debate somewhat in favor of killing toddlers.
I effing hate toddlers.
Heh heh heh… As the name suggests, I’m here to cause some mischief.
Well that was interesting.
And I gotta say, Matt Damon makes a *hot* Loki.
Post Scriptum: I love how the Catholic League is nothing more than one Neo-Catholic guy sitting at his computer.
Seriously? That’s the best that the almighty Catholic church can do? Gimme a break.
I’m giving you an “F” on your essay, which is probably the grade you DID receive & one that you deserved.
Hello Rae!
Enigma,
Simply because you prefer the colloquialism to the correct terminology does not mean that the correct terminology is invalid or that any one who ever uses the vernacular supports your view of the world.
Simply because you prefer the correct terminology to the colloquialism does not mean that the colloquialism is invalid or that any one who ever uses the scientific term doesn’t realize that the scientific term equals the colloquialism…
Hey Midnite, Rae! *hugs* :D
AB Laura, Loki thinks she/he is being funny. One of the meanings of Loki is “Sly-one”. Loki is a troll that is here to cause trouble.
JM,
Can not force pregnancy? What do you think you are doing when women who do not want to have a child would be forced to continue the pregnancy?
What do we think we are doing? We think we are
making it difficult to get an abortion and end a pregnancy that occurred by choice and free will. Making people think twice, because they would have to accept the consequences of their actions. Making it a criminal act to take the life of an unborn child. Changing the law so that abortion can now be called murder by both sides. But no one is forcing pregnancy on anyone. We’re not even forcing women to continue a pregnancy. They can always break the law.
Carrie…really?
(jk)
Interesting reading, though…
I take it Loki has been slithering through this site before?
“Aren’t Christians suppose to believe in free will? You know people making their own decisions. ”
JM,
Free will, yes. Abuse of free will, no.
And then there’s the whole morality behind ‘making their own decisions’, but that’s been beaten to a pulp.
Enigma:
Even potential life deserves to be respected.
Define “respected”, please.
Ohhhh
HUGE ::tacklehug::
for Lyssie!
I’ve missed you! Where have you been my sister?
As far as I know, he hasn’t. If you look up the name Loki on Wiki, it says one of the meanings of the name is sly-one. His website seems to be some sort of “humor” magazine. He admits he is here to cause trouble at the end of his essay. He obviously has a very sick sense of humor.
Free will, yes. Abuse of free will, no.
Carder: Who decides what “Abuse of free will” is? The Government, you, the Governor, or God (if said person believes in God) when they die?
How do you or anyone else in the world have the power to decide what abuse iof free will is?
Hey there, midnite. :D
I have been…around, I suppose?
hehehe, same here. Took my last final last night. I am uber excited that statistics is officially out of my life :-)
“I support abortion rights because of the woman’s unique relationship to a z/e/f that she is carrying inside of her. This entity is living within her; in essence, it is using her body to survive. If the woman does not wish to allow this type of access, she should be able to deny the z/e/f access to her body. Only a woman or her agent should be able to destroy this potential life, hoever. No one else should be able to do so because they do not possess a similar relationship to the z/e/f. ”
it was my impression that we were well past the parasite argument in a vain effort to justify abortion.
Make Love, Make PP’s Day
Make Love, Not Sense
Fornicate!
I love the creative side of Carder!
Carder, midnite, Rae – funny! clever! witty!
Make cookies, not brownies.
Make baklava, not salad.
Make Bethany’s-potato/mushroom-dumplings, not glorified rice.
*has food on the brain*
Yum! My mom makes great baklava…it is so delicious!
Roger.
Not at this site. It is populated with some lazy minds which you will meet. Such as Laura,the lazy mind who sums up life with a philosophy of what goes around comes around. Sally, a person suffering from PTSD, which colors her logic with a worship of sex= death. Strangly, before the dead tissue dies(see parasite) in Sally, it sucked the life and brains outta her.
Then there is Doug, who has this fetish for choice, that includes the decision to murder a fetus for no other reason then you can decide to.
Take midnight, going along all reasonable until he/she writes, “How do you or anyone else have the power to decide what abuse of free will is?”
Terrible, weak minded and foolish sentence.
A contradiction of logic, since it takes a will to decide abuse and not abuse of free will. That sentence was written by a person trying to shut down the mind of others and him/she/self. Poor midnight, one could start with the thousand of laws within this nation which decide daily abuse/nonabuse of free will. Start with murder, and work your way down to littering, midnight.
God gave you free will, yes, and that includes the free will to reject Him and choose evil. Yet what did Jesus say about people who abuse their free will in order to turn children against God? He said that they would have been better off if they had drowned themselves in the sea.
The government can’t and shouldn’t be able to tell A & F what kind of shirts they can make, but if parents had any sense at all, they wouldn’t let their children wear clothing from that reprehensible place.
Hey, yllas, Viceperson Erin here has PTSD too. It doesn’t cloud my judgment. You seem pretty nastily prejudiced against that particular disorder. How come you keep bringing it up?
Some suggestions for future A & F shirt slogans to go along with the theme:
Object
Tramp
The Town Bicycle
Feel free to treat me like garbage
For a good time, just ask
Hillary/Obama ’08
Hey Erin, you old hypocrite, it is my right and free will to write the words PTSD. Am I abusing my free will or yours? BTW, have you cured that case of hypocrisy with your power to stop abusing your will to be a hypocrite.
I wonder what sort of cad or ho would wear that shirt.
Who the hell do you think you are? Your judgments are UNFOUNDED and WRONG. What kind of disgusting person would place such a label on theoretical people that they don’t know?
That sort of behavior sickens me. You’re a grown woman, Jill–grow up!
Object
Tramp
The Town Bicycle
Feel free to treat me like garbage
For a good time, just ask
Hillary/Obama ’08
Posted by: John Lewandowski at December 14, 2007 4:33 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Having sex without babies makes you a whore?
Gee, I wonder if Condaleeza Rice, Laura Ingraham and Ann Coulter are whores?
At least two of them have publicly discussed their sexuality, and none of them have babies.
Carrie:
Whether or not you view me as a troll, it is only negated by the fact that you are quite misinformed, and seriously lacking in a sense of humor.
Whether or not I’ve been here before, you’ll never know. All I can say is to watch for me. I’m going to keep popping up every so often, if only to cause some trouble.
PS Cad and Ho, Jill? Wow, someone should’ve made you sleep on your stomach during infancy.
Ok, Loki…I am trembling! I dread the day of your return! Please, please, spare me your wrath!
Please….it’s not like I haven’t read thoughts like yours over and over again in the past 3 months!
Yawn…
Loki,
Adolf would’ve been so proud of you. You monster.
I wouldn’t buy my kid that shirt..and I wouldn’t wear that shirt. I don’t know why people think it’s funny..I personally just think it’s stupid. Not even in a moral way. It just sounds stupid.
Here’s one,
Have sex, don’t deal with the consequences.
I think I know what I am getting the sperm donor for Christmas..hehehehehe.
AB Laura, you had better watch out. Loki, the Norse god of stupid pet tricks, doesn’t like being mocked. He might even try to give you a digital wet willy.
I highly recommend NOT clicking on Loki’s website…probably loaded with a trojan/virus. Your “choice”, though!
LOL, John…not worried…God’s got my back!
Laura, no, sleeping around makes you a slut by definition, which is kind of like a whore, except that they charge less.
I went to Loki’s site. No viruses… I’m a bit confused as to why you would say that.
Actually, the Loki in Norse mythology was fascinating. He was pretty brilliant. Trickster gods have a long intriguing history.
Also, anyone getting peeved about Loki’s article, come on. Jonathan Swift didn’t actually advocate eating babies. It’s satire.
Take midnight, going along all reasonable until he/she writes, “How do you or anyone else have the power to decide what abuse of free will is?”
Posted by: yllas at December 14, 2007 4:24 PM
—————————————
Yllas:
First I am a female. Seconf, at least I can read (or copy and paste) how a person’s name is spelled on the computer screen.
As for my question concerning what constitutes abuse of free will, one should have assumed the following:
(1)Abortion is not murder.
(2)It is a legalized killing which is currently legal in the United States of America.
Condidering this HUGE fact; who decides that it is indeed an abuse of free will?
Midnite, you’re right. Nobody can decide what’s good or bad, what’s right or wrong. We must immediately unmake every law in the country, because all of them assume that societies have the right to make certain things legal or illegal.
Laura, no, sleeping around makes you a slut by definition, which is kind of like a whore, except that they charge less.
Posted by: John Lewandowski at December 14, 2007 5:07 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What does that have to do with this conversation or this T-shirt?
I know plenty of married, monogamous people who make love – not babies. I’ve been with the same guy for 10 years – no babies.
Leah,
Sometimes you don’t know & your virus protection won’t detect until after it’s there. (if virus definitions arn’t up-to-date) On other occasions, it will be a virus that mimicks your virus protection, so when you think you’re deleting it, or allowing a low risk, you’re actually installing it. I say this, because I’ve spent mucho dinero on removing a few myself, and AT LEAST five hours with a tech from India. Trust me, not fun to get one. However, I have learned SO much about what sneaky little devils hackers are! God bless techs in India!
Laura, you mean they have sex/sodomy. Not “make love”.
Laura, you mean they have sex/sodomy. Not “make love”.
Posted by: John Lewandowski at December 14, 2007 5:20 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You can’ make love unless you’re trying to make a baby?
So you’ve only had sex when you were trying to make a baby?
Explains why you’re so cranky…
Leah said: “I went to Loki’s site. No viruses… I’m a bit confused as to why you would say that.”
I suspect it was because some folks think that people who advocate in favor of the murder of toddlers, even in jest, perhaps shouldn’t be trusted right away.
Midnite, you’re right. Nobody can decide what’s good or bad, what’s right or wrong. We must immediately unmake every law in the country, because all of them assume that societies have the right to make certain things legal or illegal.
Posted by: John Lewandowski at December 14, 2007 5:15 PM
————————-
OK, I have not been condesending or down right rude or mocked any of y’all tonight, and you John and Yllas are about on my last nerve. If I was doing this, everyone would be on me about it b/c I am a “pro-abort”, but dear god no one freaking word to the PL’s b/c they’re attacking a PC And FYI, I was not talking to you, I specifically addressed Yllas.
I am merely pointing out John, that there is no law against abortion. Since there is no law, who decides that it is an abuse of free will? I never once said to revoke any and all laws you idiot. Read the words I type, and dont try to read things that are not there.
Oh my, so vitriolic this evening.
Here are some more clever t-shirt slogans:
“Don’t drink and derive.”
“Make Christmas gifts, not gift cards.”
“We know what you’re made of [insert picture of DNA]”
“If you’re not a part of the solution, you’re part of the precipitate.”
Hey, John, your nasty side is showing. Weren’t you supposed to be working on that?
And it isn’t ‘jest’. It’s satire. It’s a fantastically effective means of promoting change. Voltaire? Swift? Moliere? All satirists who said some bizzare, almost creepy things that ended up helping revolutionize society.
Only you and your friends make me cranky, Laura. Otherwise I’m quite a happy person.
I also just happen to be unmarried, in my twenties, and a proud virgin who intends to wait for marriage. Now let’s see you try to accuse me of hypocrisy.
I suspect it was because some folks think that people who advocate in favor of the murder of toddlers, even in jest, perhaps shouldn’t be trusted right away.
Posted by: John Lewandowski at December 14, 2007 5:24 PM
You truly are an idiot. No one has said a word about murdering a toddler. That is called infanticide’ it is illegal and punishable by a court of law and a jury of your peers.
Erin, I am not being nasty. I am demonstrating absurdity by being absurd. Midnite is asking extremely absurd questions. That’s just a fact.
John:
I love how you are ignoring me and my posts. Very mature thing to do buddy!
Midnite, did you read Loki’s post? He advocated killing toddlers. Was it in jest? Probably. Is it funny? No.
No, John. You called Laura a slut and implied that unless you’re making babies you can’t truly have a romantic, intimate, beautiful experience through sex. You’re dehumanizing anyone who doesn’t live their life the way YOU think they should.
Midnite is asking extremely absurd questions. That’s just a fact.
No, they’re not absurd questions. You are apparently an idiot and can not answer them. That would be your problem, not mine.
AHHHHHHHHHH.
John, have you EVER read Jonathan Swift?
Once again John:
I am merely pointing out, that there is no law against abortion. Since there is no law, who decides that it is an abuse of free will?
I never once said to revoke any and all laws you idiot. Read the words I type, and dont try to read things that are not there.
Erin, I don’t care who wrote the joke about killing toddlers. It still isn’t funny.
Midnite, you asked, who can decide what is an abuse of free will. You seem to think that legality is pertinent to that question. Well, then, if government decides to ban A & F T-shirts, does that mean that A & F abused its free will? Conversely, does it mean that before the shirts were banned, A & F was NOT abusing its free will? It’s preposterous.
Loki *yawn*. You are not as shocking as you seem to think that you are. SoMg is that you?
No, Erin, I didn’t call Laura a slut. I said that a person who sleeps around is, by definition, a slut. If Laura sleeps around, then she just is a slut. If she doesn’t, she isn’t. Simple.
Midnite, you asked, who can decide what is an abuse of free will. You seem to think that legality is pertinent to that question. Well, then, if government decides to ban A & F T-shirts, does that mean that A & F abused its free will? Conversely, does it mean that before the shirts were banned, A & F was NOT abusing its free will? It’s preposterous.
Posted by: John Lewandowski at December 14, 2007 5:43 PM
—————————-
John, you are trying to make things more complicated than they are. You are trying to confuse me and in the process your saying things that dont make sense and make you look like a total moron.
I am not saying that legality decides free will. I am pointing out that is something is NOT ILLEGAL, it comes down to free will and a person’s morals.
Since we, as a society, can not force our own decision on free will or force our morality on another person; who exactly decides that said person is abusing their free will?
Who exactly died and made you the free will and morality police?
Midnite, if we aren’t talking about legality, then why are you so worried about something being declared an abuse of free will? The pronouncements of clergymen and moralists have no effect on what you can or can’t do in society.
It’s also interesting that you seem to think that once something is declared illegal, the debate is over.
John:
You are a waist of my time, and as I stated before a TOTAL MORON.
I am not worried about abuse of free will, nor am I worried about Roe v. Wade being overturned any time soon. It would appear that my side is winning, not yours.
I am normaly a quite pleasant person; you just rub me the wrong way. You refuse to answer my questions, and you reply with muddy, confusing response that make you look like an idiot.
——————
I am through talking to you tonight. I am leaving work, going home to make dinner, and I am going to sleep.
“…nor am I worried about Roe v. Wade being overturned any time soon. It would appear that my side is winning…”
http://priestsforlife.org/articles/ten-reasons.htm
OMG I found the craziest, coolest video! Guaranteed to sorta offend.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=1JSBhI_0at0
Make Love, Buy a Test
Make Love, Buy Diapers
Make Love, Give It a Name
Those slogans….are actually rather horrifying to me. It’s kind of insulting to tell a couple that they’re not really “making love” unless they’re doing it with the intent to achieve pregnancy. Sometimes, love is JUST between two people, focusing on and cherishing one another, and it doesn’t need to intend to produce another person from it. Making love, on the whole, involves two people, not three. It can, however, mean that a third person eventually becomes involved, but the third person is not necessary for “love to be made”.
Having said that, I don’t necessarily agree with the shirt Jill posted. Kind of lewd.
Carder:
That is a biased website. Could you please fine one that is not from a pro-life group that shows the PL side is winning?
I prefer neutral sources.
Midnite,
I suppose I could, but if there’s anything you find inaccurate in their Top Ten, I’d like to know.
Carder:
If I gave you statistics from the PP website, would you trust them?
No.
Why?
B/c their from the “opposing side”, and as any person knows, statistics can be swayed to favor the side of the researcher. PP’s researchers would be paid by them, and thus their findings could probably favor whatever PP wants it to.
You’re not going to trust stats from a PC site and I am not going to trust stats from a PL site.
That is a biased website. Could you please fine one that is not from a pro-life group that shows the PL side is winning?
I prefer neutral sources.
Posted by: midnite678 at December 14, 2007 7:15 PM
How about the New York Sun?
http://www.nysun.com/article/26820?page_no=2
Re: above link from Kristen,
“She begins with a touching account of her fourth pregnancy, which occurred just before her husband left her for another woman.
This being prior to Roe v. Wade, Ms. Michelman had to convince a medical review board of her unfitness as a mother in order to receive an abortion.”
………………
By “touching account”, was she talking about the curette? or did I miss something here?
How hard would it be to convince someone that you’d be unfit while you tell them you want your baby ripped from your womb? Sounds pretty unfit to me!
Man, these people are messed up!
Lyssie, that is interesting how you turned that slogan around to mean the opposite of what I actually think it means. I think it means go ahead and do whatever you want but MAKE SURE you don’t have to deal with the consequences. Whether people like to acknowledge it or not, “making love” also makes babies. Sure it doesn’t have to all the time..but WHEN it does..people should stand up and do the right thing. But whatever..I hate A&F anyway..they make clothes only anorexic people fit into on top of them blatantly selling sex to young kids. Their image is nothing I want myself or my child to represent and I didn’t need to see those slogans on a t-shirt to prove it to me.
Here’s what I don’t get. from wikipedia:
Most Americans adhere to Christianity. According to the 2001 American Religious Identification Survey (discussed below), 80% of the U.S. is Christian and 15% do not adhere to a religion. Other religions comprise 5% of the U.S. population. According to the CIA World Factbook, the U.S. is 78% Christian and 10% no religion, while other religions comprise 12% of the U.S. population.
……………..
Wouldn’t it make more sense financially to a corporation to use slogans that were praised by the majority insead of the minority? I’m sure with their creativeness, they could think of something!
Midnite, we have something in common. I am extremely pleasant most of the time. I am pleasant to the extreme. I say “please” and “thank you” constantly, and I also apologize in advance to people I feel I may have offended. So what we have in common is that you abortion rights folks rub me the wrong way.
As for your question, I will once again attempt to answer it.
You want to know, without talking about legality, who decides if a person is abusing their free will? Well, the answer is, anybody can. You can. I can. A clergyman can. A teacher can. A firefighter can. A convict can. Anybody!
Since we are not talking about something that would be enshrined in law, anyone is free to make his or her own moral judgements about what does or does not constitute an abuse of free will.
Again, we’re not talking about law, so nobody is obliged to do anything based on these moral judgements, which may be based on the Bible, or Christian morality, or ethics, or any number of ideological systems.
So, as a Christian, I can declare that encouraging children to have sex outside of marriage (these T-shirts are being marketed to teenagers, who are usually not married) is an abuse of free will which should be condemned by other Christians. This condemnation could simply be verbal, it could be intended as educational, or it could even take the form of a boycott. But it would have no legal authority, because we’re not talking about the law here.
This is why I am so perplexed that you seem to be offended by the idea of Christians or others making moral judgements about what constitutes an abuse of free will, when you specifically excluded the law from the discussion. If laws aren’t involved, why are you so upset about it? A moral judgement on its own has absolutely no control over anybody.
If laws aren’t involved, why are you so upset about it? A moral judgement on its own has absolutely no control over anybody.
That’s my point exactly; If there is no law it is up to that person’s (own) moral judgement.
————————————————–
You have chosen to not have sex until you are married? Do I believe that is right? No necessarily. But if that makes you happy, more power to you.
I dont think that a “certificate of marriage” or God makes you fully love someone or give you a license to have sex.
I would never personally have an abortion. But that is my own opinion. Yes, I’ve had sex, and no I am not married. Does that make me a bad person or morally wrong? In my opinion, no. Would it in God’s eyes? Probably, but I am not religious, nor do I believe in him/her. I am more spiritual, and believe in the religion of karma (do unto others as you’d have done unto you).
Kristin:
I do appreciate the effort for a neutral, un-biased source. But that was not a statistical research.
Wouldn’t it make more sense financially to a corporation to use slogans that were praised by the majority insead of the minority? I’m sure with their creativeness, they could think of something!
Posted by: AB Laura at December 14, 2007 9:14 PM
No because not everyone is the type of Christian you think of. (not trying to sound like a **tch just being honest) There are a lot of people who are born and raised Christan but I wouldn’t consider them to be Christian but yet they still call themselves that. Like my brother. He considers himself catholic but doesn’t read the bible or go to church has prematial sex and his gf uses BC. So while a lot of people identify themselves as christan they don’t “show it”
And I have seen christian t-shirts and stuff. Just not at the “name brand stores”
All fine and good, Midnite. As a follower of the Golden Rule (or “karma” if you prefer), you can make your own moral judgements. Based on that rule, I would still be anti-abortion, because I personally wouldn’t want someone to kill me because I am inconvenient or unwanted.
However I am not anti-abortion because the Bible tells me to be anti-abortion. It doesn’t; not directly, anyway. I am anti-abortion because according to modern science, a human life begins at the point of conception, and I believe that it is wrong to kill innocent human beings.
I do have a question about karma, however, if you will indulge me. Is karma purely a secular belief system, meaning, you do good for the sake of doing good, and if you happen to be rewarded for doing so, great? Or, is it spiritual/metaphysical, in that you believe that the good will eventually be repaid by the universe in some fashion?
If it is the latter, and you believe that the universe repays good deeds, how exactly does the universe keep track of those good (or bad) deeds, and how does the universe know what’s good and what’s bad?
“I do have a question about karma, however, if you will indulge me. Is karma purely a secular belief system, meaning, you do good for the sake of doing good, and if you happen to be rewarded for doing so, great? Or, is it spiritual/metaphysical, in that you believe that the good will eventually be repaid by the universe in some fashion?”
You remind me of a dear friend of mine. We once talked about fate. I told him I wasn’t sure I believed in fate because fate would tell me that if I had gone to another school I would have still met him and he would have still become my best friend. Then he said “but fate could have brought you to this school” Now i’m not so sure because my boyfriend (a different person) and I have realized that we knew some of the same people and perhaps we would have met through them under different circumstances. Its really a crazy thing to think about…. fate.
because I personally wouldn’t want someone to kill me because I am inconvenient or unwanted.
Once again, your not reading everthing I wrote John. I am privately pro-life. I would not ever have an abortion unless I was either (1)raped or (2)My life was in danger (i.e., I’d die if I didnt terminate the pregnancy).
according to modern science, a human life begins at the point of conception, and I believe that it is wrong to kill innocent human beings.
Maybe you’re privy to some new research I have not read. But the last time I checked, science could not pin point when life actually began. Last I read they dont know if it is at conception, implantation, first heart beat or first brain wave. As I stated above, I would not have an abortion, except for two reasons. Does that mean that my choice is the correct one for every one on the plant? No. Nor do I believe that I have the right to tell another grown, adult what he/she can or can not do with their own body? Do I think that my friend addicted to crystal meth is making the right choice? No. But I can not force her to do what I think is right for her. Is it probably the best solution? Yes, but once again, it’s not my place to force my opinions/morals on her.
I do have a question about karma, however, if you will indulge me. Is karma purely a secular belief system, meaning, you do good for the sake of doing good, and if you happen to be rewarded for doing so, great? Or, is it spiritual/metaphysical, in that you believe that the good will eventually be repaid by the universe in some fashion?
I believe in karma for a simple reason. I treat people the way that I would like to be treated. I guess you could say that I see it as a secular belief system, but I dont think that goodness/kindness is repaid. I do feel that if you wrong someone, it will come back to haunt you one day or another.
———————————————
Any other questions?
Well, that is the exciting part of this theory: many human brains don’t fully develop physically until the later teen years! It gives the phrase “teenage abortion” a whole new twist.
………………….. ……………………………
The human brain continually changes throughout life. It can change due to stress and disease. It grows till about 16 years of age and then begins to decline at around 18 years of age. By age 70 it has shrunk to the size of a three year old’s brain. I have said this before. No measurable improvement in cognitive ability has been observed past the age of 15. That doesn’t mean you can’t learn just that your ability to learn doesn’t increase. It just stays the same till age 18 and then declines.
JM,
I must agree that fate is an interesting thing. But I dont really like the idea of it. I would like to believe that I have control over my life and no one else does.
Midnite,
I totally know what you mean. I’d like to think the same. I also feel that there is more than one “soul mate” out there for us.
Midnite,
Whats weird though is that Dan (my bf) and I met through a girl (we were both friends with) on the same floor in the dorm my jr year. After we starting dating I realized that Meagen (the girl we met through) had an older sister who lived on the same floor as me (my freshman year) the following year. I had planned to stay on the same floor same room my sophmore year but decided to go to a different room. Long story short there is a chance meagen and I would have still become friends if I had stayed and lived on the same floor as my freshman year. (we would have met my sophmore year) which also means Dan and I probably still would have met each other. Its a crazy thing to think about. (I hope I made sense)
Alright, Midnite, so you live by the Golden Rule but you don’t expect anyone else to do so. Fair enough.
Science has indeed proven that life begins at fertilization. This was proven about 150 years ago, which is about when the Catholic Church declared that all abortion is homicide. That was not a coincidence.
So we know when life begins. The real question, which is essentially a philosophical question, not a scientific one, is, when does that life have worth? I very simply say that the life always has worth. Others say that the life doesn’t have worth until there is a heartbeat, or brain activity, or not even until the baby is outside the mother. I don’t find those positions to be very logical, so I can’t adhere to any of them. To me, the only logical and scientific position is that a life has worth as soon as that life begins.
I am glad to see that you answered my “karma” question in the most logical way possible.
JM:
Actually, that made perfect sense. The guy I was dating (we’re on a break at the moment). I knew in High school. His bestfriend is my bestfriends older brother. So I’ve know him since I was like 12, but we didnt really talk in high school. Long story short, we ran into each other at a bar one night, and the rest is history….
Midnite,
I guess you could say that I see it as a secular belief system, but I dont think that goodness/kindness is repaid. I do feel that if you wrong someone, it will come back to haunt you one day or another.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
I don’t mean this to be rude or anything. Why do you think that only the bad will come back to you but not the good?
I mean in my life, I see that more people have been good to me than I have been good to others. I feel like I am in debt to the universe overall. I also see that I have done things that have hurt other people but I haven’t seen it come back to me. My husband thinks that good luck is actually a genetic trait yet to be discovered. He won us a cruise on the radio and a playstation2 by clicking on some ESPN advertisement, etc. Anyway, I am just curious about why you think that bad comes back but good doesn’t.
Science has indeed proven that life begins at fertilization. This was proven about 150 years ago, which is about when the Catholic Church declared that all abortion is homicide. That was not a coincidence.
Hmmmmmm, I must have missed that in my biology book. I do not go by Catholic Doctrine. I go by science, i.e., hard facts. It is also beyond me how science that is not available now, was available to the Catholic Church 150 years ago. But I am guessing that this explains why y’all are against BC.
when does that life have worth? I very simply say that the life always has worth.
But when does one life have more worth than another life? Thats basically what your giving z/e/f. No other human can be force3d to keep another human alive for nine months. Why are you giving a fetus more rights/worth than any other person already alive has?
To me, the only logical and scientific position is that a life has worth as soon as that life begins.
That can be a logical conclusion, but not a scientific one (IMO). I never said that every life doesnt have worth; it boils down to why do some have nore worth than others?
I am glad to see that you answered my “karma” question in the most logical way possible.
I am not sure if your being genuine here, or if your being a smart a$s. Care to elaborate a little?
Hippie:
Trust me, I have more reasons. They are personal, and I shall not discuss them on the internet. But believe me, I have my reasons.
I’m glad that you go by hard science, Midnite, because that is exactly why the Catholic Church declared that all abortion is homicide 150 years ago. You need only look into the discovery of ova and spermatozoa. When it was discovered that a new life is formed through the combination of those two cells, it was learned that life begins at fertilization. This was about 150 years ago. Before that, scientists thought that the male provided genetic material and that the woman did not, which made it much more difficult to figure out when life began. That’s why St. Thomas Aquinas had it wrong. Finding the ova made it very clear.
The Catholic Church’s prohibition on birth control, however, has very little (if anything) to do with science, and everything to do with Catholic philosophy. Specifically, it has to do with the Catholic belief that marriage is the complete giving of a husband and a wife to each other, and that birth control is an intentional disruption of that union. Now, there are some social reasons why folks might be against birth control, but the main reason for Catholics is what I just explained. We will accept only Natural Family Planning, which does not seek to defeat the natural mechanisms, but rather goes along with them in order to either encourage or delay a pregnancy.
As for the value of the unborn life, you are speaking as though I am putting the unborn life up against the mother’s life. I am not. Rather I am placing the unborn’s life up against the mother’s nine months of inconvenience. And when I picture a scale in my mind, and I put nine months of inconvenience on one side of the scale with a human life on the other, the human life’s value always outweighs the nine months of inconvenience. Frankly, I don’t understand how anyone could see it any other way. If a born child was sick, and had to be in the hospital for nine months, resulting in nine months of inconvenience for his mother, should she then have the option to just have him killed and avoid the inconvenience? I don’t think she should.
Also, I was completely serious in my response to your “karma” answer.
Midnight with numbers.
Your post at 3;49p.m. is about as ignorant as one can get concerning free will. Period.
Yllas, why do you fail at life so miserably?
Hahaha…that just smacked to me of 4chan speak, Rae.
NOES, you PHAIL, NOOB! LOL, GTFO!
BTW, midnight, I am only applying your rules about life, and treating you as you deserve to be treated, when one post ignorance about free will.
On the other hand, any behaviorist knows that suckers like you Midnight, can be fooled into thinking they have free will.
All it takes is reward and pleasure to bend your mind to thinking what you chose, is from your own decisions, which they aren’t. At best Midnight, your a typical animal avoiding suffering and maximizing pleasure at all cost.
You know, midnight, just like you have lived so far. You were born, you break away from your birthing unit, and seek out other animals with common interest, which is eating, sex, and avoiding danger by running away.
Haven’t you ever hunted for a buck deer,
Midnight?
All your free will Midnight, is summed up in watching young male deer’s reaching maturity.
At least from your post here Midnight, you haven’t risen to anything above a animal yet.
Everyone should watch the video!
“At least from your post here Midnight, you haven’t risen to anything above a animal yet.”
And from your posts, Yllas, you haven’t risen to anything above a crazy person yet.
Bravo.
Now, now, Rae, what makes you any better then a animal seeking the good life of Midnight, which is summed up as food,sex, and being able to run away from danger.
Abortion?
At least from your post here Midnight, you haven’t risen to anything above a animal yet.
And yet you still can not spell my name correctly (or copy and paste it). At least I am a smart animal, unlike you. You are an idiot.
And you comparison of me to animal: You were born, you break away from your birthing unit, and seek out other animals with common interest, which is eating, sex, and avoiding danger by running away
I believe that applies to all animals and humans. We seek those who are like us. Sorry to burst your bubble. And, no I do not run away from danger. I was taught better than that, and I am guessing you were not. Hence, the way you attack people you’ve never met, and know NOTHING about.
Haven’t you ever hunted for a buck deer,
Midnight?
To answer your question; No, I have never hunted for a buck deer. I can not shoot shot guns or rifles. The “kick” knocks my shoulder out of socket. I have a torn rotator cuff from softball and gymnastics. Although, I would love to go hunting, I simply can not b/c one can not shoot a buck with a hand gun.
Your post at 3;49p.m. is about as ignorant as one can get concerning free will. Period.
And it appears you are the truly ignorant one. I did not make a post at 3:49.pm; But at least I can spell your name correctly Yllas. Sadly, the same can not be said for you.
Yllas, what makes you think you’re better than midnite?
Quite frankly, I think midnite is a far better person than you could ever dream to be. For one, she doesn’t attack people without provocation, nor does she make things up about people in order to insult them to “further” some warped agenda.
Yllas, you are a detriment to the pro-life position. I am often ashamed to be on your side because I have to deal with fools much like yourself who feel that it’s “okay” to mock and harass people who disagree with you because they’re “not worth anything” because they’re “immoral”. It seems as though you enjoy hurting people by being vicious and I’m here to tell you that is by NO means okay.
It’s fine for you not to like somebody, but it is NOT fine to relentlessly attack people who have never spoken to you previously. And, before you call me a “hypocrite” for “attacking” you when you have never spoken to you previously, I’m doing this to stand up for my friends on here that you harass because by mocking them, you are mocking me and that makes me very, very angry.
So knock it off, your comments are generally uncalled for and they are not appreciated.
Now, now, Rae, what makes you any better then a animal seeking the good life of Midnight, which is summed up as food,sex, and being able to run away from danger.
Abortion?
Posted by: yllas at December 15, 2007 12:05 AM
————————————————-
You really are stupid! First your then should be than, an the a infron of animal should read an animal
And you still can not spell my name correctly. Did you pass 8th grade English and/or Vocabulary Yllas?
And I do not run from “abortions”. If you could read (which I am assuming you can not from ignorance shown), I’ve never had an abortion nor would I unless I was raped or my life was in danger (i.e., I would die if I did not terminate the pregnancy). I have stated that I am privately pro-life, but politically I am pro-choice.
PLEASE LEARN to READ, so you dont look like an ignorant fool!
Touchy, Touchy, Midnight.
Now, since you have self injured yourself from trying to be nothing more then a young male buck
exhibiting its bravado in front of other young deer, use your other shoulder and go hunting.
One who has a minimum of intelligence would never have given that “excuse” for not hunting the young male deer.
Thank you Rae.
XOXOXOXOXOXO
::tacklehug::
BTW, I am not confusing Rae and Midnight since they have mind melded and have become one entity in thinking exaclty the same.
Yllas, what makes you think I’m thinking the same as midnite?
And it’s so nice to see you have absolutely nothing of value to say. Go figure.
Now Rae, your defending Midnight from what? The fact that Midnight is a clone of Doug?
Same thinking as Doug, and if I didn’t know better, I would think Midnight is a mind puppet of Doug.
Touchy, Touchy, Midnight.
PLEASE learn to READ AND SPELL! It is MIDNITE not Midnight.
Now, since you have self injured yourself from trying to be nothing more then a young male buck
I am not quite sure what your trying to say here Yllas. First, I am a female and a human; so therefore, (by logic and science) I could not be a young male buck…
Yllas,
If you can not learn to spell my name correctly, I am not going to respond to you again.
I am not the same as Doug, and no, I do not think the same as him either.
And I am a mind puppet of no one. Nor am I a clone. Human cloning is illegal; or are you too stupid to know that?
No, Yllas, I’m defending midnite because she’s a friend of mine. A friend. I’m not defending her because I agree with her ideology, because there are some components I don’t agree with (and there are parts of my ideology that she doesn’t agree with, but because she’s a good person and I enjoy talking to her.
I also don’t appreciate you ripping on Doug so much. Sure, I don’t agree with Doug on everything he says, but he’s ALWAYS civil and polite and does not deserve the hateful venom you spew at him due to your seriously deranged fixation on him (and Erin).
Though I have to ask, with your obsession with vulcans and “mind-melding”, are you a massive Star Trek fan or what? (Go DS9!)
You know something else Yllas?
I consider MK, Bethany, Heather, Valerie, Bobby, Jacque & (sometimes even) Jasperto be my friends.
Some Facts:
(1)They are PL
(2)I am PC
(3)We dont agree on everything (refer to #1 & #2).
You dont have to always agree with someone to be friends with them as Rae pointed out to you.
Rae, & I are very good friends. No, we dont always agree with the personal opinion of the other. But you know what the beautiful thing is? Rae has taught me some valuable things, and opened me up into another line of thinking. It is always great to CIVILLY, and POLITELY talk/debate with people whose opinions are different than yours. It makes you think, question your own beliefs and possibly open you up to a new idea.
I’d be suprised if you had any friends on the internet or in real life. You are pathetic, arrogant, and a moron.
Gee, think outside your so called gender, Midnight.
Are you born and bred in a concrete jungle?
Your writing here does not exhibit anymore intelligence then found in a male deer as instinct, Midnite.
Eat, sex, avoid danger.
Gee, think outside your so called gender, Midnight.
Are you born and bred in a concrete jungle?
Your writing here does not exhibit anymore intelligence then found in a male deer as instinct, Midnite.
Eat, sex, avoid danger.
Well, that is an improvement. You spelled my name correctly, once. No, I was not born and bred in a concrete jungle? (You seriously are a moron) I was born and bred in the Jungle of Alabama.
I also bet that my pinky finger has more intelligence than your whole brain.
Referring to my instinct; it is to go to work, go to school, sleep, eat and enjoy my life (you only live once Yllas). I, unlike you, do not get enjoyment out of attacking people I’ve never met for no reason. You remind me of all the stuck up bit*e$ I went to high school with. You put people down, and try to make them fell bad about themselves, to make you feel better about yourself.
Eat, sex, avoid danger.
I work 35+ hours a week, I got to school 17 hours a week. If I am not at one of those two places, I am probably eating or sleeping. As for avoiding danger. I have, probably will face more danger than you ever will in your entire life (combined with TV and dreams). Both of my parents are cops, and I am going into Law Enforcement myself. Please enlighten me as to how I am avoiding danger.
Oh wait, I know this idiotic argument! It goes back to abortions, correct? Even though, I’d never have one myself, but I feel I can not force my morals or opinions on another, I am a sinning whore who is going to hell right? PLEASE come up with an ORIGNIAL argument!
OOPS!! Sorry about the tripple post. Computer was acting up again.
::shakes finger at lap top::
Enigma,
I support abortion rights because of the woman’s unique relationship to a z/e/f that she is carrying inside of her. This entity is living within her; in essence, it is using her body to survive. If the woman does not wish to allow this type of access, she should be able to deny the z/e/f access to her body. Only a woman or her agent should be able to destroy this potential life, hoever. No one else should be able to do so because they do not possess a similar relationship to the z/e/f.
Posted by: Enigma at December 14, 2007 1:43 PM
This is the same reasoning that permits wife beating in many cultures. The husband has a unique relationship to the wife and she depends on him for support. So she must please him and if she doesn’t, he can beat her. Some cultures even turn a blind eye to murder if the woman is low enough status. This notion is not new. It has just morphed. It is about inequality. It is about having rights only if you have the power to secure them for yourself. It is opposite the notion of “all created equal” and “inalienable rights” It is a moral regression from the progress that was made up through the civil rights movement.
Posted by: hippie at December 14, 2007 2:41 PM
………………………………………………………….
Bullcrap. You don’t give a rat’s ass about women being beaten and murdered in this country. You care about fetii that you couldn’t identify under a microscope to save your eternal soul. Speaks volumes to your perception of your life.
Please, Midnite, you are not going to change your decisions made from choices based upon nothing more then animal behavior which you exhibit by your post here.
Avoid danger, maximize pleasure and deny your behavior by rationalizing animal drives as golden rules of life.
Here is a big secret of the human mind, Midnight, not one perception does not go through the emotional area of the brain before reaching the rational frontal lobe. You know that Midnite. Now, think about all your write Midnite, and do you still think it is based on reason and logic. It’s NOT.
That is why idiots, such as you Midnite, make a fool out yourself, thinking your using logic and reason, when your emotions are using your reason and logic to secure your aniamal behavior drives and wants for maximizing pleasure.
Or to paraphrase T.S. Elliot, you illustrate that exagerated faith in human reason to which people of undisciplined emotions are prone.
How do I know that? You keep thinking that spelling your name as you want it spelled is nor giving you a lesson on free will and your golden rule of life, which I summed up as being a lazy minded person.
Here is a big secret of the human mind, Midnight, not one perception does not go through the emotional area of the brain before reaching the rational frontal lobe. You know that Midnite. Now, think about all your write Midnite, and do you still think it is based on reason and logic. It’s NOT.
Fine. You want to play by your logic: Your emotional too then. Absolutely not person can think rationally or logically, b/c all thoughts pass through the emotional part of our brain. I therefore should not pay any attention to what you say or write b/c it is emotionally driven. Nor should I listen to what “experts” or “research” says b/c it too, passes through the emotional part of their brain.
Avoid danger, maximize pleasure and deny your behavior by rationalizing animal drives as golden rules of life.
Once again, you ignorant, pathetic excuse for a human: I DO NOT avoid danger. I dont see you going into the Law Enforcement field to “protect & serve” and risk your PATHETIC life to help/save others. No you think you are making a different by sitting at your desk in the safety and privacy of your home, attacking people you do not know, and will never have the pleasure of knowing. I actually feel sorry for you, actually, no I do not.
That is why idiots, such as you Midnite, make a fool out yourself
I am not ignorant, nor do I make a fool of myself. How educated are you Yllas? I graduated High school from one of the top schools in Alabama (& the country). I am attending College at a GREAT University, that is accredited, and does research for the U.S. GOVERNMENT.
You keep thinking that spelling your name as you want it spelled is nor giving you a lesson on free will and your golden rule of life, which I summed up as being a lazy minded person
Yllas, I have asked you to spell my name correctly (as it is seen on your screen) b/c I am extending you the same courtesy. Do you deserve it? No. But it’s a thing called respect. I will spell your name the way it is printed. Just like I refer to my teachers with PhD’s as “Doctor” and if someone has passed the State Bar, I will refer to them as a lawyer and put an ESQ. at the end of their name. Apparently your parents were morons and ignorant as well; they didnt bother to teach you respect of others.
And if I was lazy, trust me I would not bust my a$$ at work (35+ hours a week) and school (17 hours a week). I would sit at home, live off of my parents and do absolutely nothing with my life as you apparently are doing.
You chump Midnite. If your going to be a officer of the court, you better learn to control that emotional side of you.
I am extending you the submission and courteous yielding to your wishes, opinions, or judgement, you are due. Btw, Midnite, that is the definition of respect. Are you going to submit and yield courteously to my opinions and judgements, Midnite?
I am extending you all the respect you showed John, Midnite.
Is it not my free will to not spell your name correct? Am I abusing my free will Midnite?
Yllas,
I am not going to take career advice from an arogant, pathetic pieve of ______ like you.
Secondly, I am holding in my emotions, believe it or not, I am. I am trying to be civil and polite with you, but you just wont allow it.
What was said between John and I was (for the most part civil). He spelled my name correctly (which you are just now doing), and we dabated on several topics (and actually NONE of them included you).
I did not try to berate John, or “bring him down”, like you do with people. I did not compare him or his intelligence to that of an animal (a male buck).
I am though talking to you.
Goodnight.
Now, Midnite, I have great honor for male bucks.
You must be a city girl,(in Alabama no less) who never asked your authority figures in your family, just why does a man hunt for the male deer and not the female with such great vigor.
Just why does a man hunt down the buck with the biggest horns?
Why, one lesson is that that big old buck did not lose his head over those females and make a mistake in life which got him killed.
Or lose his life, to the offering of the pleasure one receives from eating.
Which brings up you Midnite, for all that education you have gotten, you still are less smart then a big old buck.
Your the hubris of youth, that thinks education is going to make you have anymore honor then a old buck, that never made a mistake about life. You ain’t got a ounce of honor/respect due you Midnite. Respect comes at the end of life, you emotional chump.
Oh Jasper, ye of too much faith, wanna cookie?
Say you, I’m a monster. Say me, I’m an American.
Midnite,
You’re not going to trust stats from a PC site and I am not going to trust stats from a PL site.
We use Guttmacher statistics all the time…
Yes Loki has posted here before…under the names “Nobody”, “Peter Fonda” and “F the CC”…Nice character, hmmm? Ah well, everyone is welcome…
Most of you “Kids” are too young to know this, but Abercrombie and Fitch used to be an “Old man’s store”…they sold flannel shirts and durable jeans…Now I’m confused as to what they sell. The windows on the stores have shutters, the place is pitch black and there is a huge picture of a nearly naked youn man in the doorway…are they selling navels? Nipples? Their clothes are cheaply made and cost a fortune. And they have guys in underwear greeting you at the door. Their catalog is like soft porn…
I miss the days when you could get a pair of jeans lined with flannel there. I still wear (often) two flannel shirts I got there over 15 years ago. And they look as good today as the day I bought them, even tho they’ve been washed hundreds of times.
Even my kids won’t wear their clothes…mostly because they’re junk.
What does that have to do with this conversation or this T-shirt?
I know plenty of married, monogamous people who make love – not babies. I’ve been with the same guy for 10 years – no babies.
Posted by: Laura at December 14, 2007 5:16 PM ————– That’s because you figured out at an early age that you were too stupid to own and operate a uterus. Glad you took precautions.
OOPS!! Sorry about the tripple post. Computer was acting up again.
::shakes finger at lap top::
Posted by: midnite678 at December 15, 2007 1:10 AM———————– Which finger? LOL!!
“Make love not babies.” Isn’t that an acknowledgement by A&F that human life begins at conception?
Sounds more like an acknowledgment that one can have an abortion to avoid making a baby.
Sounds more like an acknowledgment that one can have an abortion to avoid making a baby.
Posted by: tp at December 15, 2007 9:16 AM
Abortion doesn’t avoid making a baby.
Abortion kills the baby you have made.
Hey Midnite,
Based on all the posts, it seems you’ve had an exasperating night.
I’ll be nice. I promise.
Regarding the link I provided, it wasn’t so much to give statistical proof as much as to provide food for thought. One point that was brought up was the Flow of Conversions i.e. former abortion providers going AWOL on the abortion industry. There’s even an international support group called the Society of Centurions. One question gave me pause:
“Since when, however, have you heard of an organization of former pregnancy resource center directors who have repented of saving babies and are now pro-abortion?”
Anybody?
I wouldn’t describe myself as a nice character. As I previously proclaimed, I’m only dropping by to cause some trouble.
En garde!
Troll away, Loki….no one cares!
Says the trickster
I’m the one
Here to have
A bit of fun
For now I come
To say farewell
As I leave
For a spell
But fear thee not
For I’ll be back
I’m looking forward
To your next attack
Until next time, adieu!
yeah, Loki…your “attack” was really rough…I’m still trying to recover.
LMAO
LOL AB laura!
This is the same reasoning that permits wife beating in many cultures. The husband has a unique relationship to the wife and she depends on him for support. So she must please him and if she doesn’t, he can beat her. Some cultures even turn a blind eye to murder if the woman is low enough status. This notion is not new. It has just morphed. It is about inequality. It is about having rights only if you have the power to secure them for yourself. It is opposite the notion of “all created equal” and “inalienable rights” It is a moral regression from the progress that was made up through the civil rights movement.
Is it the child’s fault that he was conceived in rape? If anyone should die for the crime, perhaps the perpetrator rather than the victim. There is a reason that rape is a crime and it was a crime long before women’s rights came along. Plenty of countries give the death penalty for rape.
Women who become pregnant through rape do not abort at a higher rate than the general population. She does however have legal recourse against the perpetrator in civil as well as criminal courts.
No force is required to maintain a pregnancy. It is natural and continues on its own. Society can’t force pregnancy.
Hippie, I just went back through the posts and found these two. Excellent!! Thank you so much!
I would like to say, that I really think this t-shirt is harmless. Is it dumb? Well, let’s figure this out mathematically:
If this t-shirt is from A&F, and A&f is dumb, then…
t-shirt=A&f ; A&F=dumb
t-shirt=dumb
by simple mathematical equation. Is it going to harm anyone? Is it going to actually inspire kids to have sex?
Nope.
Leah,
Now, if some of the “popular kids” in the schools were wearing these shirts, couldn’t this be part of the “peer-pressure” factor that can influence those undecided individuals thus making these shirts “harmful” to those seeking approval?
These shirts would not likely be allowed in a public school.
And no. If you’re really at a level where you think having sex will make you like the cool kids, you have missed every lesson the grade school counselor ever taught you.
And no. If you’re really at a level where you think having sex will make you like the cool kids, you have missed every lesson the grade school counselor ever taught you.
Posted by: Erin at December 15, 2007 2:25 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My one totally hot boss wore a Spongebob sweatshirt to work. I’ve decided to move into a pineapple so he’ll think I’m cool.
Erin said, “And no. If you’re really at a level where you think having sex will make you like the cool kids, you have missed every lesson the grade school counselor ever taught you.”
You are kidding, right? Are you saying that kids don’t succumb to peer pressure in schools?
And since when do teenagers ever listen to adults? Isn’t that one of the great, PC arguments…that kids arn’t going to listen when their parents tell them not to have sex…they are going to do what they want anyway?
http://parentingteens.about.com/od/teensexuality/a/teen_sex7.htm
http://www.answers.com/topic/peer-pressure?cat=health
No Laura- I’m saying peer pressure alone will not push some kid into a hopeless downward spiral.
When kids or teens do something ‘edgy’ or such, it is because of a natural curiosity. These shirts simply expound on that previously sparked curiosity. If a teenager decides to try alcohol, or drugs, sure, a friend may encourage him but what he ultimately does is because of his curiosity.
Here’s a good example- when I was tiny, about 5, I got a popcorn kernel stuck in my ear. You know how little kids like to shove things places. The doctor was talking to my mom before they put me under to remove it, and was telling about how one time he’d had to take a hot dog out of a little girl’s lady parts, because she’d gotten a bit too curious. Look at little boys. They love to play with themselves. Obsession with genitalia and sex starts as soon as hormones do. This isn’t changing anything.
Thanks for your response, Erin.
I still think that peer pressure is a HUGE factor in teen sex. I’m also sure curiousity has a HUGE role in it also. All I’m saying is that the shirt, worn by “the cool kids” could sway another’s decision in this direction. No? Not possible?
Erin,
On a side note, I was a sucker for peer pressure in high school. It wasn’t the curiosity, at least for me, it was that I didn’t want to feel “left out” or be labeled “a dork”. I saw how those poor kids were treated…it was my absolute fear! I did whatever I needed to do to not be labeled “a dork”.
(shut up, Laura!)
Laura- in my personal experience? No. Maybe if a kid truly, honestly, was that tragically desperate for acceptance. But I was a pretty desperate little misfit myself, and the cool kids never really inspired me to do anything. I’ve always made my own decisions about myself. And to be honest…public schools are generally pretty raunchy places anyway. It’s full of adolescents, and their hormones basically make them pretty obsessed with sex anyway. Theatre kids especially, but I’ve noticed that most of us artsy types tend to have pretty out-there senses of humor. I remember, in high school, I was pretty young and naive. I didn’t learn what a vibrator was until I was a senior in high school, and man did I get laughed at for that. I also remember my freshman year, one girl at my lunch table used to get animal crackers with her meal every day, and she’d make them have sex with each other to entertain the rest of us.
That obsession with sex is not something that JUST ‘the cool kids’ have going. It’s inherent in adolescents. Their hormones are in overdrive, no matter what ‘peer group’ they belong to.
High school wasn’t fun, but middle school…ugh. UGH. I’m convinced that if you’re a bad person, when you die, you go back to middle school. Middle school HAS to be hell. I can’t even CONCEIVE of a place more evil than that.
Erin,
That’s so cool that you didn’t care what people thought & did your own thing. It’s very admirable and I only wish I could go back in time and change that about myself. It really sucked being me back then!
Umm. No. No one is stupid enough to read a shirt, even if it’s a “cool” shirt (whatever) and do what it says.
Kids will have sex. They will not do it because a t-shirt told them to. No one is that stupid. If you think that, you should give teenagers a little more credit than you are.
Erin: oh my…. middle school is where evil people go when they die, I’m sure of it. Hitler is there right now, regretting what he did. No question.
((shudder))
I’m studying to be a teacher, but I would rather eat a hundred live centipedes than teach middle school.
Erin: That obsession with sex is not something that JUST ‘the cool kids’ have going. It’s inherent in adolescents. Their hormones are in overdrive, no matter what ‘peer group’ they belong to.
Vicelord!
Smooches to you, Erin – I love your spirit. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year and OMG it’s gonna be 2008….
Leah, my wife teaches High School — and believe me, there’s times she would go for 200 live centipedes, heck, even millipedes.
Doug: I believe it. That’s where I’m headed anyhow, though. High school foreign languages in a French immersion school au Canada.
Maybe I have a death wish…
Erin: I also remember my freshman year, one girl at my lunch table used to get animal crackers with her meal every day, and she’d make them have sex with each other to entertain the rest of us.
I have one brother who actually did an animal cracker.
Okay, that’s not true, but back in the day of Burger King Whoppers coming in those nifty styrofoam containers, he ate a Whopper, container and all.
There was alcohol involved.
Leah,
I think it’s more the subliminal message factor tied in with the stereotype of “being cool”. It’s not what the shirt says, per se, it’s what the person wearing it does.
Leah, tres bonne! Worked in Canada for 9 years, much of it in Quebec. Was Charles Bronson from there?
Hi Doug!
Hey, do you have a fav slogan’d “T”
Erin said, “High school wasn’t fun, but middle school…ugh. UGH. I’m convinced that if you’re a bad person, when you die, you go back to middle school. Middle school HAS to be hell. I can’t even CONCEIVE of a place more evil than that.”
————-
LOL! I totally agree!…..and they’d all be wearing Abercrombie & Fitch t-shirts with stupid slogans!
(sorry…I couldn’t resist!)
AB Laura – it certainly can be that way, kids doing stuff for all sorts of reasons. The more desperate somebody is to be “cool,” the more they will reach for stuff, even crazy stuff.
If anything, I’d say that the “make love not babies” deal does bother me a bit, because it sounds like having babies is bad in some way.
Geez – if somebody wants to have babies, then I pretty much would say go for it. I know the T-shirt is intended as humorous, but I’d say there’s nothing wrong with doing both.
yllas: you still are less smart then a big old buck.
Your the hubris of youth, that thinks education is going to make you have anymore honor then a old buck, that never made a mistake about life. You ain’t got a ounce of honor/respect due you Midnite. Respect comes at the end of life, you emotional chump.
yllas, Midnite is a nice person, and the irony of you going on about “less smart” and then in the next sentence saying “Your the hubris” is just about right, wouldn’t you say?
Good grief, if you’re older than me, then Midnite is vastly younger than you, but far superior as far as maturity. There are 8 year olds that do your act better than you.
Doug
Lol…Oh, I have a question for you, Laura. Have you ever seen “happy bunny” T-Shirts? What’s your opinion on them?
Hai Doug! Mele Kalikimaka me ka Hau’oli Makahiki Hou! And I’m glad alcohol was involved- if he’d eaten styrofoam sober, I’d have been worried. Ha! Did it help the hangover any?
AB Laura: Not only the “cool kids” in high school are having sex. In fact, I’ll bet a lot of the “cool kids” are all talk. I, for one, know I was not considered “cool,” nor did I care, nor did I try to emulate the cool kids. But still, I lost my virginity at the age of 17.
Doug: What are you talking about? Charles Bronson is from Pennsylvania. *deletes Charles Bronson’s name from google search engine to seem smart*
So, I’m definitely going to use you now, since you worked in Canada… how’s getting a visa over there? Am I better off marrying a local? :)
Erin,
Happy Bunny? Bad, really bad, in a funny way, though. Most certainly makes me laugh my a$$ off every time! And that darned bunny is sooooo cute!
AB Laura,
Truly, no disrespect meant to anybody of any religous affiliation here.
I have one shirt that says, “Jesus saves.”
Then below, in smaller letters, it says, “After he passes each level.”
Okay, it’s a gamer thing.
Saw one I really liked – a woman about 40 had one saying, “Got MILF?”
Another – says, “Jewbacca,” and it’s a picture of Chewbacca from Star Wars with a skullcap/yarmulke on. Hilarious.
Thanks, Doug! Hey, enjoy that party!!! (I have soooo got to find another job..my boss is pretty lame around the holidays!)
Hahaha…Doug, have you seen the one that says “Jesus saves…and takes half damage”?
I’ve also seen “Jesus saves, passes to Moses, SCOOOOOORE!”
And I’m glad the Happy Bunnies get your approval, Laura! I have tons of those shirts.
Doug at December 15, 2007 4:37 PM,
I knew I’d regret asking you that!
Anyway, I don’t feel “disrespected”…I’m not wearing it, you are! And if you have no religious affiliation, then I can understand! Can’t say I think it’s funny, though…but hey, the woman in her 40’s..was she at least pretty?
Erin,
How could you not love the bunny???
What’s your fav happy bunny?
Hmm…my favorite, I think, is the one I have that says “Cute but psycho. Things even out.”
Erin,
That one’s good…I tend to like the “ugly” ones..the “look” on happy bunny’s face is just priceless!
I want this…should make work a happier place!
http://www.blackjackinc.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=728
“I’ve also seen “Jesus saves, passes to Moses, SCOOOOOORE!” ”
I’ve seen that shirt! It cracks me up!
And for the whole “popularity” and “peer pressure” thing…basically whatever the “popular” kids did, I did the exact opposite. When all the “popular” kids were wearing brand-name clothes, I made it a point never to wear that crap. When the popular kids decided rap was awesome and that it was great fun to get totally hammered every weekend and come to school dances drunk (in 8th grade…) I made it a point never to drink and to never listen to rap music.
I love being contrary. :)
Sally said: “Bullcrap. You don’t give a rat’s ass about women being beaten and murdered in this country.”
I can’t speak for the others, but one of the reasons I’m pro-life other than, you know, the biological reality that life begins at fertilization, is that I don’t like the fact that women are mistreated in our society and others. In Western civilizations, women are often seen as little more than sex objects. The same goes in the Middle East, except that they pretend that they’re helping women by covering them up. I believe that women should be treated like human beings, and I can’t stand men who use and abuse women.
Sally said: “You care about fetii that you couldn’t identify under a microscope to save your eternal soul. Speaks volumes to your perception of your life.”
I couldn’t identify most born children, men, or women, with or without a microscope. I don’t personally know most people. But that doesn’t mean I don’t care if they are killed.
Hippie,
“This is the same reasoning that permits wife beating in many cultures. The husband has a unique relationship to the wife and she depends on him for support. So she must please him and if she doesn’t, he can beat her.”
Actually, this is a distortion of the argument that I made. My argument does not lend itself to this extension.
“It is about inequality. It is about having rights only if you have the power to secure them for yourself.”
No, actually its about making sure that no one’s rights get trampled. Even if you wanted to a z/e/f every human right, it would still not possess the right to impose upon another’s body.
“It is opposite the notion of “all created equal” and “inalienable rights.””
Actually, this would be your argument.
“It is a moral regression from the progress that was made up through the civil rights movement.”
The civil rights movement had nothing to do with abortion.
Hippie,
My position in response to Jasper’s question brings to mind the debate over the recent anti-spank bill in, I believe, Massachusetts?
Anyway, the argument was that only parents should have the right to spank their children to discipline them.
Parent spanking=discipline
Other people spanking=child abuse
My argument is much the same.
Woman choosing to abort a fetus=her right to defend her bodily integrity
Other person choosing to “abort” a fetus=illegal because it is not their body that the z/e/f is using
MK,
“Simply because you prefer the correct terminology to the colloquialism does not mean that the colloquialism is invalid or that any one who ever uses the scientific term doesn’t realize that the scientific term equals the colloquialism…”
Not true. Colloquialisms often oversimplify certain concepts. They are designed for ease of use and can be technically incorrect.
Bethany,
“Define “respected”, please.”
What I mean is that potential life should be permitted to become actual life as long as the person necessary for this development to take place does not object to allowing this potential life develop within her body.
Enigma,
Not true. Colloquialisms often oversimplify certain concepts. They are designed for ease of use and can be technically incorrect.
I didn’t claim that ALL colloquialisms are true. I simply stated that just because you prefer the technical term doesn’t mean that the colloquialism CAN’T be true.
The key words in your post are “Can be” and “often”…not “must be” and “always”…
Awhile back, Doug posted something about different levels of morality (at least I think it was Doug)…
We often use the phrase “It’s not so bad” or “It’s not hurting anybody”…
But I think our standards should be higher. I think you have to ask the question “Is it good?” or “Is it helping anybody?”.
If our standard of morality is “It’s not so bad” I think it’s time to rethink our moral ladder…
Are these T-shirts “Bad”? Do they hurt anybody? Probably not. But are they “Good”? Do they help anybody? Is there anything positive about them?
I get the idea of wearing funny stuff…I just bought my kids T-shirts for Christmas that say “Baby Jesus is my Favorite Jesus” and one of a Dingo with a baby in it’s stomach that says “Bad Dingo”…But these Abercrombie and Fitch shirts cross a line…They might not cause irresponsible sexual behavior, but they do celebrate it.
Doug comes to the rescue.
Defending a youthful pirate is about right for you Doug.
Care to take Midnite on a ship and hoist that skull and cross bone flag Doug?
Aye matey, tis no room on the pirate ship for another mistake of our nubial pleasures, Midnight, says the crafty PCB soaked Doug.
Tis a choice which must be made to save the other pirates their fair share of rum, Midnite.
And the youthful Midnite, filled with envy of Doug, murders the result of pleasure from the sly devil mind of Doug.
Later, Doug led a raid upon a Polynesian Island, where Hal had gone to realize his homophobia was true, and found a women wimpering to keep her possessions gained by being a CFO of Monsanto.
Thrust your sword into the whinch, Midnite, as you were taught in the rightousness of the law, taught by our beloved Queen Elizabeth.
And so Midnite dispatched the previous CFO of Monsanto, on the suggestion of the eye patched, Old Doug, descendent of the O’ Keefer clan.
Avast ye Doug, the whench has been with child, which gives me double the doubloons from the letter of marque issued by our glorious Elizabeth.
Tis not just and try to hornswaggle the Queen, lassie Midnite, sayeth the seadog, Old Doug. Tis one and only one whench you have cutlassed in the rightousness of the law.
Blow me down, Old Doug, tis two laying there, tis plain to see, with ye one eye, Old Doug, said the fresh faced Midnite. Raise your eye patch, you bilge sucking old man Doug, and take a closer look, cryed the child minded Midnitte.
Savvy, midget mind Midnight, tis one, and only one ye shall be payed for according to the honor and respect due you, sayeth the old salt of piratry for abortion, named Old Doug.
And so it goes amongst the pirates that fly the flag of choice, but hoist the skull and cross bones of abortion when the time comes to decieve the youthful minds of Alabama. Who think respect is due a person who does not know to use the other shoulder and shot that big old buck that never made a mistake of youth.
The old buck,who never took the road of the Doug’s of the world, and never murdered what he created from knowing more then the pirate Doug, knows about life. Who advocats and indoctrinates youthful minds, pre bent to murder a baby in the womb, and sadly thinking defending a law enforcement student, is some mark of intelligence.
BTW, eye patched, Doug.
I didn’t care to take apart the bad speelin and grammar a college student from Alabama,used in repling to me. You’re such a sophist for abortion Doug. Care to instruct Midnight on spelling and grammar Doug? Or are you going to leave that youthful mind Midnite, open to the rath of grammar cops her whole life?
Midnite.
My exchange with you, was in response to your post about free will and abuse of free will.
Spelling your name wrong was done on purpose, and you took the bait offered by me, by becoming emotional over such a small matter as spelling your internet moniker correctly.
Behind it all was the matter of free will and abuse of free will. I was simply using my free will to not spell your name correctly.
I was giving you a lesson on free will, and you became deranged by me using what you advoacte for, free will.
Did I abuse my free will Midnite?
That requires a judgement by you Midnite.
Who are you to judge me Midnite?
By what authority do you have to judge me Midnite?
The law of Manners? Who decided those manners Midnite? You and Doug?
Plus Midnite, even that hypocrtie Erin, alludes to animal behavior being your source for decisions in life, by stating that myth about “raging hormones”.
Eat, sex, and avoid danger.
Which is why I mentioned hunting that old buck, you silly minded youth from Alabama.
The old buck makes a fool outta Erin and you Midnite, when your “science mind” trys to dictate behavior in even a pure, non-rational animal, named a deer.
Ah, the ignorance of youth, being programmed to think alike their whole life. And Midnitte, your emotions do rule your so called logic and reasoning, ask Erin.
What I mean is that potential life should be permitted to become actual life as long as the person necessary for this development to take place does not object to allowing this potential life develop within her body.
For what reason should it have that right? What is important about potential human life, Enigma? On what basis do you support this belief that the “potential” life “should” be permitted to become “actual” life, under any circumstances?
“”Baby Jesus is my Favorite Jesus” ”
@MK: Heh, that reminds me of that scene in “Talladega Nights” where Will Farrell was praying to his “favorite Jesus, sweet, tender and mild, 8 lb 7 oz baby Jesus”. :D
Rae, LOL! I was just talking about Will Farrell last night. Ever see the movie “Old School?”
@Heather: No, I never saw “Old School”. I’m not a fan of those “teen drinking/sex” flicks, though “Old School” wasn’t specifically a “teen” movie, that is who it appealed to with the whole “partying” college life stuff.
Bethany,
I know where you’ve going with this, and I must congratulate you; this is an excellent tactic while debating.
“For what reason should it have that right? What is important about potential human life, Enigma? On what basis do you support this belief that the “potential” life “should” be permitted to become “actual” life, under any circumstances?”
I support it because there is an inherent value to human life. Potential human life can become “actualized” human life; some of the value of human life should carry over to the value of “potential” life as well. That value, however, does not extend so far as that it permits the rights of the “potential” life to supersede those of actual life.
@ Enigma,
“Woman choosing to abort a fetus=her right to defend her bodily integrity
Other person choosing to “abort” a fetus=illegal because it is not their body that the z/e/f is using”
Was pondering this statement, because it seems the pivotal area that PL cannot refute. It seems to hinge on a belief that a person’s aspects can be separated from her being. So the aspect of womanhood, femaleness is a disparate idea from her body integrity. Is her femaleness a different reality from her personhood? It has always seemed to me that pregnancy was the whole biological rationale of being a ‘woman’.
There are many factors why some women cannot conceive. But abortion nullifies the very female-DNA imprint on every cell in her body. So a aborting-woman-person ends up replacing her biological autonomy with body autonomy. (Where’s the ‘her’? Does it not matter?) The first is actual, the second, an illusion.
Rae,
That’s where the T-shirt is from…Talladega Nights.
Irreverent? I suppose, but at least they were saying “Grace”…
Rae,
I emailed (at least I think I did) about Jan. 1st…did you get it, or did I write it and not send it (which is totally possible, considering the “Christmas” state of mind that I’ve been in…)
It has always seemed to me that pregnancy was the whole biological rationale of being a ‘woman’.
Posted by: John McDonell at December 16, 2007 12:18 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yes, and impregnanting as many women as possible is – biologically speaking – the most successful genetic strategy for a man.
However, in a civilized society, it’s sometimes best when those of us who aren’t family-oriented never get pregnant, and best for all of us when men decide not to behave like your less-responsible NBA players.
*giggles* So mk, it’s OK for you to get your kids “Dingo ate my baby” stuff, but we can’t ever say anything goofy about kiddies?
midnite,
Ignore Yllas, don’t let her (and I use “she” for simplicity’s sake) get to you. She is just a sad little person with nothing better to do than to rile people up as much as she can. Yllas is one of the many crazies we find on this blog (and of course we have crazies from both sides.)
John,
I have to stop doing this. My paper will not write itself. Bad, bad, Enigma.
So, I’m definitely going to use you now, since you worked in Canada… how’s getting a visa over there? Am I better off marrying a local? :)
Leah, I don’t know how hard it is to get into Canada now. I had to go through a fairly long procedure in 1990 to get in, trying to prove to Immigration Canada’s satisfaction that I was needed, i.e. that it wasn’t like Canadians could just be hired to do my job.
If you claim refugee status, it’s not too hard, but coming from the US would be a hindrance, there, IMO.
Also in my opinion – Canadians are in general nicer than Americans, so I certainly wouldn’t rule out your marrying a local.
Doug
the crafty PCB soaked Doug
yllas, you made me laugh like hell there.
:: sticking tongue out at yllas ::
@MK: I didn’t get an email from you today so I’m not sure you sent it.
I’m really looking forward to visiting in January! I think Lindsey and I are going to leave early on Friday (I’m taking the day off work) so we can get there at a half-way decent time. :)
Care to instruct Midnight on spelling and grammar Doug? Or are you going to leave that youthful mind Midnite, open to the rath of grammar cops her whole life?
No, yllas, I’m just saying it’s silly for you to be calling anybody else dumb, etc.
Take away your foaming-at-the-mouth blather and your childish attempts at insult, and what’s left?
MK: Are these T-shirts “Bad”? Do they hurt anybody? Probably not. But are they “Good”? Do they help anybody? Is there anything positive about them?
MK, I can see why some people object to them, but they’re just for fun, and that’s fine.
Sally,
Bullcrap. You don’t give a rat’s ass about women being beaten and murdered in this country.
Posted by: Sally at December 15, 2007 1:22 AM
Well I think it very unreasonable to think that someone who is against abortion doesn’t care about women who are beaten. We have helped three women we know escape abusive domestic situations. We let one stay with us, another we helped get a car and an apartment and another was mostly support and encouragement because her problems weren’t financial. I really had to press her to get out because he had such mental control over her and had really worn her down.
I also think abusive men press women to get abortions because they do not really care about women much less their children, they just want to use and control them.
That anon was me
Erin,
“These shirts would not likely be allowed in a public school.
And no. If you’re really at a level where you think having sex will make you like the cool kids, you have missed every lesson the grade school counselor ever taught you.”
Posted by: Erin at December 15, 2007 2:25 PM
1. Do you really believe that no teens are “really at a level” where they are influenced by others?
2. Do you really think most kids have got even one lesson from a grade school counselor?
I taught in public school for years and never saw counselors give lessons to kids. The kids who talk to counselors take the initiative to ask to speak to a counselor. The most vulnerable ask for help very infrequently.
@Enigma & Laura,
Often I take a stance that a person would call actual-reality (the universe as is) and not the notions of virtual-reality (from our mind like status, etc). An aspect is one-side of a diamond where a person ‘sees’ the whole. It is unlike a ‘trait’ like ‘hardness’ or ‘brilliance’ …. but it seems that is what E. was describing when she talked of the runner. This same thing applies to intelligence as it does to athletic performance. A being is developing traits (traits have ‘potential’, beings do not).
An ‘aspect’ is a term used to speak of some intimate characteristics of a being. These characteristics are as species specific … what characteristics are agreed upon (a process of virtual-reality) when we say a ‘cat’. How is this different than what we call a ‘horse’?
The French language (another virtual-reality construct) splits the world into two ‘sexual’ realities with words like ‘le’ and ‘la’. There is almost no ‘the’ prefacing any word. To me this gender-izing all actual-reality is an attempt to show just how deep this goes. The use of the notion ‘thing’ or ‘the’ fetus allows a separation of an aspect from a being … a trick done in virtual-reality …. that is not possible (nor even desired) in actuality …. eg. impregnating every woman.
So I guess you are correct in speaking of ‘biological-purpose’ (I’d never thought of that), but have to disagree on the male aspects of this. A ‘male’ aspect is not a ‘male’ trait ie. macho =/= male/man.
It is interesting that in actual-reality, there are only male and female humans …. there is no neutral anything ever. And yet the decision to abort is a decision on a ‘thing’. How does such occur? … it’s a pretense like coming back alive in the next cartoon.
Hippie- in grade school, every month in our public schools in GA at least, the counselor came in and gave the class a little talk about some random subject. Also, no kid is going to go have sex just because it’s the ‘cool’ thing to do. They’re going to have sex because they want to, because physically and mentally, that’s largely what our hormones are PROGRAMMED to do during adolescence. And every kid has heard of peer pressure, whether lectured by a counselor or not.
John,
Enigma,
Not to be a smart alec here, but I’ve heard many PC’s use this idea before:
“The issue at hand is if a woman can determine whether or not to provide another with access to her body.”
It’s not like the there’s a little fertilized egg that wanders around aimlessly looking for a potential “victim” to leech itself onto/into….I believe the woman, and/or her body, makes the decision to allow the egg to be fertilized when she has sex – planned or by accident.
IMO, the issue at hand is whether the woman wants to sacrifice nine little months out of her entire life, to continue the life inside of her or not.
AB Laura,
Erin said: “Look at little boys. They love to play with themselves.”
It’s true that you will often see prepubescent boys grabbing at their private areas. Yet it’s nothing but the oversexed mentality of modern culture which assumes that little boys do that to find some kind of sexual gratification. It’s just the opposite, really.
Little boys grab at their crotches because they have to urinate. That’s about all there is to it. That’s how they “hold it” when they have to go to the bathroom. There’s absolutely nothing sexual about it, and if there was, little boys wouldn’t do it so openly. If you see a boy doing that, tell him to stop what he’s doing and go pee, and you’ll see what happens.
So clearly not all is what it seems to be. It’s true that teenage boys and young men are raging with hormones – I’m no exception – but the way society talks to boys and men absolutely has a tremendous effect on their behavior. Sure, one “Make Love Not Babies” shirt probably isn’t going to affect anybody, but combine it with the trash in the media, the permissive attitude of so many people in society, and fashion designers who seem to think that young ladies should dress in the most provocative ways possible, and you have a real and serious effect on individual boys and on society in general.
@Enigma,
I hope that essay is coming along …..
“The gender of a fetus is also irrelevant to the debate. The issue at hand is if a woman can determine whether or not to provide another with access to her body. All other elements are immaterial.”
shall I quote your response? “That
Enigma said: “No human individual should ever be obligated to do something that poses a serious risk to her life or health, regardless of the reason.”
Getting out of bed in the morning poses a serious risk to life and health. Walking out the door poses a serious risk to life and health. Driving a car poses a serious risk to life and health. Breathing air poses a serious risk to life and health.
It’s true that you will often see prepubescent boys grabbing at their private areas. Yet it’s nothing but the oversexed mentality of modern culture which assumes that little boys do that to find some kind of sexual gratification. It’s just the opposite, really.
Little boys grab at their crotches because they have to urinate. That’s about all there is to it. That’s how they “hold it” when they have to go to the bathroom. There’s absolutely nothing sexual about it, and if there was, little boys wouldn’t do it so openly. If you see a boy doing that, tell him to stop what he’s doing and go pee, and you’ll see what happens.
Posted by: John Lewandowski at December 16, 2007 7:03 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nope.
Tiny children masturbate. All kids do. We are all sexual creatures from the time we are born. It’s normal and healthy.
John,
“I hope that essay is coming along …..”
I wish that it was as well. I am simply not in the mood for either Nietzsche or Dostoevsky, however.
At this point, I’m going to have to temporarily ban myself from the site.
“Resolving ‘her’ body autonomy as an empty womb is akin to saying a jar is fulfilled if it is always empty.”
That wasn’t my argument. Bodily autonomy does not only encompass the ability to maintain an empty womb, it also includes the ability to full it if one wishes.
“To empty the ‘contents of the womb of a pregnant woman’ usually (except viability) assumes the planned death of her offspring… in a way reneging on an invitation.”
She never offered an invitation to begin with.
“I think it is a pipe-dream because what is WANTED is the destruction of her baby.”
What is wanted is simply not to be pregnant any longer. Normally, that does include the death of the fetus. However, that is not the objective.
“The word ‘woman’ IMO does not dismiss the life-within as an oppression … a neutered ‘thing’ to be removed.”
You’ve lost me here. Are you getting into the whole idea of how a “real” woman won’t seek to end her pregnancy through abortion?
That’s a flawed argument, by the way. Women do not become “real” or “less real” depending on how they live their lives. Nor do men, for that matter.
“Her offspring is not her enemy,”
That depends on one conception of the term “enemy.” In addition, one does not have to consider a fetus an “enemy” in order to wish to deny it access to her body.
“The regression to the civility of scientific terminology is a backward movement into thingness.”
I have never used the term thing. By definition, “thing” means inanimate. All that I have done is call the z/e/f an entity. I fail to see how that is dehumanizing. Technically, the z/e/f is an entity. There is nothing about that term that it dehumanizing.
“Her fetus is a living human (identifiable as having a ‘male’ or ‘female’ or ‘both’) as one aspect.”
It has the potential to be a living human. Regardless, gender is still immaterial. One’s humanity is not determined by gender.
“It is not a ‘thing’ or it would naturally miscarry.”
It can indeed by an entity (the term I actually used) without naturally miscarrying.
JL,
“Getting out of bed in the morning poses a serious risk to life and health. Walking out the door poses a serious risk to life and health. Driving a car poses a serious risk to life and health. Breathing air poses a serious risk to life and health.”
Life is risky. That is undeniable.
But this does not address my point.
I said: “No human individual should ever be obligated to do something that poses a serious risk to her life or health, regardless of the reason.”
Saying that life is risky does not properly refute this statement. I never said that life wasn’t risky or that all things that were risky were bad. All that I said was that we should be able to choose which risks we wish to take.
Enigma said, “Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. Simply because one has engaged in a particular action does not mean that one has consented to every possible consequence of said action.
Additionally, this argument falls apart when anti-abortion advocates start arguing that women who have been raped should be forced to continue their pregnancies. The people who make this argument don
Leah, I don’t know how hard it is to get into Canada now. I had to go through a fairly long procedure in 1990 to get in, trying to prove to Immigration Canada’s satisfaction that I was needed, i.e. that it wasn’t like Canadians could just be hired to do my job.
If you claim refugee status, it’s not too hard, but coming from the US would be a hindrance, there, IMO.
Also in my opinion – Canadians are in general nicer than Americans, so I certainly wouldn’t rule out your marrying a local.
Doug
Haha. I’ve already got one in mind. :)
I’m headed for Alberta, and my friend there has been filling my mind with pro-Alberta propaganda for… one year to the day, actually. It took. So, I’m headed off in that direction come January for a trial stay and we’ll see how it goes. I’m really looking forward to working there. I’ve heard that the people are really friendly.
@Enigma,
Nietzsche and Dostoevsky, eh …. tough, tough stuff … feel for you!
“What is wanted is simply not to be pregnant any longer. Normally, that does include the death of the fetus. However, that is not the objective.” and “She never offered an invitation to begin with.”
We have been ‘fed’ this line for a while now, because it implies a quasi-responsibility to ‘self’. However, I do think that her offspring’s death is intended. The ‘invitation’ was extended via having sex even though the invitation was not supposed to happen. It is like saying to a lot of folks: ‘Hey, come on over!’ If someone DOES actually take you up on your offer, you plan to say: ‘Only pretending … Prepare to die! Surprise, surprise!’
The word ‘entity’ while being normally used in science, very often connotes a sense of ‘alien/outer-worldly’ which is opposite of a pregnant woman and her offspring. This bond is so close in fact that pro-aborts used to complain that PL had no say ‘about a woman’s body’ implying that the two were one.
Laura said: “Nope. Tiny children masturbate. All kids do. We are all sexual creatures from the time we are born. It’s normal and healthy.”
Come back to me when you grow a penis and tell me why little boys pinch theirs. Or if you like, I can describe to you what PMS feels like.
Enigma said: “Saying that life is risky does not properly refute this statement. I never said that life wasn’t risky or that all things that were risky were bad. All that I said was that we should be able to choose which risks we wish to take.”
Considering that driving results in far more fatalities than pregnancy, I would imagine that pro-choice organizations are very concerned about women being drivers.
Come back to me when you grow a penis and tell me why little boys pinch theirs. Or if you like, I can describe to you what PMS feels like.
Posted by: John Lewandowski at December 16, 2007 9:32
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Uh, John…
Little kids masturbate all the time. Little boys do it in public as an anxiety response – or a surefire way to mortify their babysitter (ask me how I know that.)
If you want to tell me what your PMS feels like, go right ahead.
PMhttp://www.babycenter.com/0_masturbation_11558.bc
Hm… OK, let’s play crazy for a sec and pretend that Laura actually knows what she’s talking about, and that the linked website isn’t run by a bunch of crackheads. You said that sexuality starts from birth, right? So does it start at the instant of birth, just like “life” does? Or does the fetus masturbate, too? That would make for an interesting ultrasound.
*headdesk* John. Little boys like to play with their penises. If I were a boy, I’d probably find something that dangled like that pretty fascinating too. Did you, by any chance, read that story about the little girl that had to have a hot dog taken out of her lady parts? Tell me that isn’t sexual curiosity.
Erin – Curiousity, yes. Sexual, no.
C’mon, even anti-God hero Philip Pullman says that sexuality doesn’t start until puberty. That’s actually a major aspect of his ‘theology’. Are you saying that Pullman’s theories aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on?
Uh, John…
Little kids masturbate all the time. Little boys do it in public as an anxiety response – or a surefire way to mortify their babysitter (ask me how I know that.)
If you want to tell me what your PMS feels like, go right ahead.
PMhttp://www.babycenter.com/0_masturbation_11558.bc
Posted by: Laura at December 16, 2007 9:50 PM
———————————————————– Someone trusts you to watch their children? Sounds dangerous to me.
Just because they don’t know it’s sexual doesn’t mean it ISN’T sexual. A little boy is going to diddle with himself and realize if feels nice. The big point that we’re trying to make is that stigmatizing all aspects of sexuality- including masturbation and the genitals- is an exercise in futility. Sex organs are there. They’re going to be used and explored. The best thing we can do for children is to teach them the proper times and means to do it. By the way, what makes you so quickly denounce Laura’s site? It seemed pretty unbiased to me.
Also, Pullman isn’t anti-God. He doesn’t BELIEVE in God. You can’t be against something you don’t believe. If anything, he’s against religion.
Erin,
On that website that Laura posted..it even says that masturbation in toddlers ISN’T sexual…so why are you refuting what John has said? He basically said the same thing..that it’s about curiousity, NOT sexuality because toddlers don’t know what sex is.
Yes, and impregnanting as many women as possible is – biologically speaking – the most successful genetic strategy for a man.
Posted by: Laura at December 16, 2007 12:27 PM————————— Well, didn’t the woman consent to sex? So, she is also held accountable.
Erin,
On that website that Laura posted..it even says that masturbation in toddlers ISN’T sexual…so why are you refuting what John has said? He basically said the same thing..that it’s about curiosity, NOT sexuality because toddlers don’t know what sex is.
—————— I agree. To think for one moment that toddlers want sex, that is just ludicrous! SICK!!
AB Laura,
John,
JL,
You still haven
Abortionist called women whores and dogs
An Illinois clinic worker testified in a court case (Case # 92-L50928 ) that the managing director at the abortion clinic where she worked harassed her until she quit.
She stated,
“That you always knew when he was mad at you. Verbally the language and the things, the names people were called, it was a constant thing there?calling a woman a whore was not beyond this man. He always talked about short skirts and the girls? legs.”
Another worker testified that he was, “Calling other women dogs”
——————————————————————————–
See, RTLfers aren’t calling you guys whores. The abortionists are.
I end life for a good reason:
In a December 2004 article, Confessions of an Abortion Doctor, an abortionist tells Boston Magazine’s Cheryl Alkon this about doing abortions, “I have the utmost respect for life; I appreciate that life starts early in the womb, but also believe that I
Abortion patients are out of control
Abortion doctor Michael Benjamin gave this testimony before a Florida House Health Care Committee meeting September 14
Truth be told. Straight from the horse’s mouth.
There’s one example of an abortion doctor calling someone a whore. (abortionist, by the way is by definition someone who performs an abortion illegally, according to the Random House College Dictionary).
Should you PLers all be classified by the actions of the few extremists who commit acts of violence? No.
Should abortion doctors all be classified by the acts of one or a few of them? No.
Heather,
I truly believe that one has to have mental delusions to believe that bullcrap I just read from that doctor. I can not believe we allow these people with such obvious deep mental issues to be doctors.
Well, Edward Allred also calls his abortion patients “tramps” on a regular basis.
Ralph Bundy – Being an abortionist and friendship
Abortionist Ralph Bundy, medical director of The Women’s Health Center Inc. in Orlando and Daytona Beach, had his face on the cover of the May 1990, Florida Magazine, labeling him: “The Abortion Doctor.”
In an interview with the Orlando Sentinel 09/17/1991, he said he lost a friend because of the story,
“I did lose one really good friend that I’d had for 20 years. She sent me a couple of books, and the message -both from the books and from her was that I was going to burn in hell. . . . She pretty much blew me off.”
He had told reporters that he does not tell many of his friends that he does abortions. He tells them only that he works in a clinic.
“I don’t hit people over the head with it. I don’t go to a party and say, Boy, I did a tough abortion today.”
See, but Leah, ALL the abortion doctors dismember babies while in their womb…where’s the justification for that? It’s not just one or two, it’s all of them. Or do you not find anything wrong with ripping off the arms and legs of babies and then crushing their skull? Or having them sucked out and flushed down a sink? ALL the PC abortion doctors do that. They don’t have to be rapists or drugees in my mind..the fact that they murder babies is hideous enough for me. The stories that Heather posts are just icing on the cake in my mind.
Abortionist accused of sodomy and rape
According to the Daily Oklahoman (Abortion Doctor Denies Sex Charges: 9/20/1994), Oklahoma abortion doctor Nareshkumar Patel, 42, was charged in Oklahoma County District Court with one count of forcible oral sodomy and one count of sexual battery in an alleged 1993 sexual assault on a patient.
Patel denied that he had sexually abused any of his patients.
The 25-year-old victim testified that Patel attempted to force her to sodomize him after she had been sedated. Two other women previously testified Patel had raped them after he had administered an anesthetic to them.
However, Patel was not charged in those attacks because they allegedly happened in 1989 and 1990. They came forward only after Patel was charged in 1993.
A September 16,1994 article in the same paper, Ex-Patient Claims Rape By Patel Before Abortion, reports that a 26-year-old Moore woman testified that Patel raped her in 1990 shortly before performing an abortion on her. The woman testified that Dr. Patel prepared her for an abortion by sedating her, then raped her on the surgical table. After the assault, Patel began the abortion procedure, the woman testified.
Another woman testified that she had been a patient of Patel’s in 1989 and also had been raped by him under similar circumstances. The woman, then 19, also did not report the alleged attack to law enforcement because she “felt dirty.”
Patel denied all the charges and some of his staff testified that he was never alone with female patients. However, Rochelle Brown, a former employee of Patel’s at his Shawnee clinic, claimed Patel often would conduct pelvic examinations on female patients with no nurse present.
And ALL PLers want to deny a woman the fundamental right to her body and deny her access to safe procedures. Hearing about those violent extremists is my icing.
A victim of molestation speaks out
On October 13, 2005, this comment was sent into The O
And don’t bleed all over the upholstery
The LA Times story, State board charges doctor with negligence in botched abortions (7-2-1993), recounts a lawsuit detailing the injury of a women who received an abortion from abortionist Saihd S. Halil alleged that when the patient began hemorrhaging after the botched abortion that Halil sent her to a nearby hospital by car, rather than ambulance. The doctor at the ER testified that that the woman should have been taken to the hospital by ambulance paramedics.
He stated that Halil’s failure to call an ambulance indicates a “total disregard for the patient’s life and safety.”
——————————————————————————–
Abortion Coalition leader – Abortion is killing
On the ABC news program Nightline, Ron Fitzsimmons, the executive director of The National Coalition of Abortion Providers, said I lied thorough my teeth when [I] said the partial birth abortion procedure was used rarely and only on women whose lives were in danger or whose fetuses were damaged.
Fitzsimmons also said that one of the facts of abortion is that women enter abortion clinics to kill their fetuses. “It is a form of killing,” he said. “You’re ending a life.”
This according to a February 26, 1997 article in the New York Times, An Abortion Rights Advocate Says He Lied About a Procedure.
Actually Leah, that’s not true. We just want the truth out there…not some hidden niceties of “safe procedures.” You can wrap it up in a pretty little box all you want but at the end of the day..all you really have is a dead baby. If you really can’t see the tragedy in that, that’s too bad. I hope you find your way someday.
I have found my way. It isn’t identical to yours, but it is still my way and it is a Good way. My way does not contain sordid artist renderings of “what an abortion looks like” and it does not involve scare tactics. It does not have self-righteousness to the point of pushing my beliefs onto others (while I will not try to claim that I am never self-righteous). You are a good person, Elizabeth, and I am a good person too. If you can’t see the tragedy in a woman desperately seeking abortion even using unsafe measures and then becoming injured because of it, that is too bad. But that is your way. I don’t have everything in life, but I have my beliefs, I have my path, and I have my way.
Good night, all. Exhausted.
Poor Doug, take away his foaming at the mouth dogma of choice, and what do you have left?
A person who allows murder.
And a character and personality that abandons women at their most emotional times.
When all your sophistry is removed Doug, your for the murder of the baby in the womb.
And since Laci Peterson, and many other women who were pregant when they were murdered, has made the nation understand that a defenceless human being, with worth, was murdered. Your logic for abortion, is doomed to failure.
Your a little boy Doug, a fantasy boy, who propagandizes little girls into murdering what they created.
Doug, A cog in the culture of death, who find’s the best part of his conscience is between his legs.
And how do I know that? Because Doug leaves women who are being publicly humiliated, and suffering emotional pain.
Your for death Doug, I’m for life.
It’s that simple, Doug.
I am just observing your character and personality which lacks the capacity to suffer with another human being.
Your a runner Doug. You have run your whole life from anything which denies your animal instinct that eats, has pleasure from using others, and avoids danger to avoid dying for nothing.
A slave to your little boy self.
@Enigma,
Your emphasis on the importance (to me over-importance) of consent speaks that you are a control-freak. Only such a creature purposely shifts ::: ‘unintended’ to ‘unwanted’. And then to self-justified homicide …. remembering that the developing entity in her womb is both living and human … the word ‘homicide’ seems apt.
Nietzsche would be so proud of you! Something of importance to modern humans is this display of the will. Each and every part of the human that is
important has a specific region of the brain … so as to allow thorough processing. So long after Nietzsche, W. Penfield (Montreal) began to map-the-brain. Thinking that the ‘will’ would have a huge section, he instead found that what we think of as ‘will’ has no corresponding representative section in any part of the brain. It just begs to be spoken: ‘Is the ‘will’ of biological importance at all?’
John,
“Your emphasis on the importance (to me over-importance) of consent speaks that you are a control-freak.”
So you mean that consent in life isn’t important? Can you remind me why rape is a crime again?
FYI, you know absolutely nothing about me. Keep your judgments to yourself.
“Only such a creature purposely shifts ::: ‘unintended’ to ‘unwanted’.”
Yay!! Now I’m a creature!
I never said that unintended and unwanted were synonymous. Some things that are unintended are indeed unwanted while others are not.
“And then to self-justified homicide …. remembering that the developing entity in her womb is both living and human … the word ‘homicide’ seems apt.”
It may be living, but it is not human life. It has life only in the sense that a skin cell has life.
“Nietzsche would be so proud of you!”
Am I supposed to be offended here?
“Something of importance to modern humans is this display of the will.”
And you somehow think that this is a BAD thing?
“Each and every part of the human that is important has a specific region of the brain … so as to allow thorough processing. So long after Nietzsche, W. Penfield (Montreal) began to map-the-brain. Thinking that the ‘will’ would have a huge section, he instead found that what we think of as ‘will’ has no corresponding representative section in any part of the brain. It just begs to be spoken: ‘Is the ‘will’ of biological importance at all?'”
You’re leaving out interactions between different areas of the brain. Our will is a product of our consciousness, and if I’m not mistaken we have HUGE fore-brains.
Technically speaking, very little is of biological importance. Eating, sleeping, procreating, passing on genes. I think that about covers it.
Humans do not determine the value of aspects by their biological importance.
Bethany,
I know where you’ve going with this, and I must congratulate you; this is an excellent tactic while debating.
It wasn’t actually meant to be a tactic…it was an honest question. I really meant it.
I had written: For what reason should it have that right? What is important about potential human life, Enigma? On what basis do you support this belief that the “potential” life “should” be permitted to become “actual” life, under any circumstances?”
You replied:
I support it because there is an inherent value to human life. Potential human life can become “actualized” human life; some of the value of human life should carry over to the value of “potential” life as well. That value, however, does not extend so far as that it permits the rights of the “potential” life to supersede those of actual life.
Enigma, it would be nice to hear an honest answer from you… Forgive me if I’m wrong, but I have a feeling that you’re only here to manipulate words, debate semantics rather than issues, and try to see who can sound more intelligent- Not to actually try to help me understand your viewpoint or let me see what your feelings truly are on things. I think you’ve admitted here that you are not interested in changing minds. Maybe I’m wrong though….
I would like to hear an honest, candid answer about why you feel that killing an unborn child in one situation would be homicide, and yet, killing an unborn child in another would not?
Here’s the reason that your logic is confusing, Enigma. You state that for an outside individual to kill an unborn child, without the mother’s consent, would be homicide.
You don’t say that it would be “destruction of the mother’s property” (you DO feel that an embryo or fetus is the mother’s property to do with as she wishes, while inside her womb, I assume?), or that it would wrong because it was an “assault on the woman’s body”. You said that someone from the outside, killing a fetus without the mother’s express permission would be HOMICIDE, which by definition is: “the killing of a human being by another human being”.
Therefore, you are actually saying that it is wrong for someone to take the life of a fetus, because the fetus itself has value. You are also admitting that the fetus is a human being.
But you say that the mother is the only one who gets to determine the fetuses value?
That does not make sense. Either the unborn child has inherent value as a human, or it does not. There is no “well, it has value unless the mother decides it doesn’t.”
If you feel that a mother can kill her unborn child based on her whims, then that also means that you do not deem the potential life within her to be inherently valuable, not even to a lesser extent than what you call “actual human life”. It has no rights, is not valuable at all.
And someone else killing it from the outside would not be committing homicide, if we were to be consistent with your views… they would be assaulting the woman, her body, and her property, not homicide. Homicide is the killing of a human being by another human being.
Enigma decides what is human and not human.
“It may be living but it is not human…”
How hillarious.
How wanting to change reality.
Next thing Enigma will declare as fact, is that Enigma was a rat inside her mother, and not a human being.
Now put your thinking cap on Enigma, and take off your propaganda hat and read this sentence real close so you may gain a small amount of reality devoid of your wants and needs for promoting your need to murder innocent human beings.
Ready?
Read this sentence Enigma.
We know that nothing that is not a human being has the potential of becoming a human being, and nothing that has the potential of becoming a human being is not a human being.
If you cannot understand the logic of that sentence Enigma, you are a failure at reasoning and logic, and your emotions are your guide and goal hiding as reason.
Your desire for making things what you wish them to be Enigma, may lead you to having accidents in life. Such as driving a car, and deciding that you deconstructed that sign with a white letter “S” in a red background, was all you saw and understood. You denyed the “TOP” letters in that sign, and killed a innocent life.
STOP being ignorant Enigma for your emotional wants to murder a human being with potential for more development.
And remember Enigma, your developing until you die.
yllas: Poor Doug, take away his foaming at the mouth dogma of choice, and what do you have left?
Bethany,
“It wasn’t actually meant to be a tactic…it was an honest question. I really meant it.”
In a debate, they can often be the same thing.
“Enigma, it would be nice to hear an honest answer from you…”
Um….that was an honest answer. I don’t give clear-cut yes/no answers because I don’t think that way.
“Forgive me if I’m wrong, but I have a feeling that you’re only here to manipulate words, debate semantics rather than issues, and try to see who can sound more intelligent-”
Manipulating words is what I do. They mean only what you want them to mean.
For the “sounding intelligent” thing, I have a feeling that you’re referring to my vocabulary. I actually do talk like that. I’m also of the opinion that is to your own advantage if you express yourself in a sophisticated manner.
“Not to actually try to help me understand your viewpoint or let me see what your feelings truly are on things.”
I reveal them…you just miss it because it’s not what you expect. To a large extent, people see what they wish to see.
“I think you’ve admitted here that you are not interested in changing minds. Maybe I’m wrong though….”
Yep. I debate here because I’m interested in finding out what anti-abortion advocates actually say, as opposed to what I think they say.
“I would like to hear an honest, candid answer about why you feel that killing an unborn child in one situation would be homicide, and yet, killing an unborn child in another would not?”
Because homicide is the closest term that we can come to. Last time I checked, there was no special legal term for killing a fetus.
“Here’s the reason that your logic is confusing, Enigma. You state that for an outside individual to kill an unborn child, without the mother’s consent, would be homicide.”
To me, its quite simple.
To illustrate:
Let’s say I’m being attacked by a random man.
In scenario one, I kill him. This is legal because its self-defense. He is attempting to violate my bodily integrity and rights and I am thus entitled to defend myself.
In scenario two, he gives up and runs away. Later on (think later that day), I see that man again. I kill him. This is illegal because I’m not defending myself, I’m revenging myself on him for a past wrong and am no longer involved in the danger situation.
To me, abortion is much the same.
In scenario one, the woman wishes to terminate her pregnancy. This is legal because she is the one involved in the “danger” situation: the fetus is using her body and she has a right to put an end to that use.
In scenario two, some random person kills the fetus. This is illegal because he is not involved in the “danger” situation: his rights have not been violated.
“(you DO feel that an embryo or fetus is the mother’s property to do with as she wishes, while inside her womb, I assume?)”
That’s an oversimplification. I do not believe that a z/e/f is property per say, but that a woman should have the right to assert her rights over her own body.
“Therefore, you are actually saying that it is wrong for someone to take the life of a fetus, because the fetus itself has value. You are also admitting that the fetus is a human being.”
Yes to the first, no to the second. The fetus is human in the same sense a skin cell is human.
“But you say that the mother is the only one who gets to determine the fetuses value?”
I never said that. It has value regardless of how the woman feels, but that value does not entitle it to impose upon an unwilling body.
“That does not make sense. Either the unborn child has inherent value as a human, or it does not. There is no “well, it has value unless the mother decides it doesn’t.””
That was never my argument.
“It has no rights, is not valuable at all.”
Rights are not necessarily indicative of value. Children have, comparatively speaking, few rights that are allowed to express; does this mean that they are inherently less valuable than adults?
The right to life is a right. The right to impose on someone else without that individual’s consent is not.
John: Your emphasis on the importance (to me over-importance) of consent speaks that you are a control-freak. Only such a creature purposely shifts ::: ‘unintended’ to ‘unwanted’. And then to self-justified homicide …. remembering that the developing entity in her womb is both living and human … the word ‘homicide’ seems apt.
John, sometimes unwanted is truly the deal. If there is any “control-freak” here, it is those who want pregnant women’s will subverted to theirs.
yllas: Enigma decides what is human and not human.
Nonsense. If you read her posts, even you are capable of understanding what she means.
Enigma said, “It has value regardless of how the woman feels, but that value does not entitle it to impose upon an unwilling body.”
————-
You meant, unwilling mind, right?
You foam at the mouth Doug for allowing women to murder developing human beings.
Your for death Doug, a pirate of life, and I am for allowing life to live and see this beautiful world.
And if you deny that it is a human being in the mother, you might need to adjust your mind before you have another failure of reason and logic and pick another women to abuse and leave.
Doug, another eat,sex and avoid danger at all cost human being, who thinks like a young buck to this day.
Doug said “John, sometimes unwanted is truly the deal. If there is any “control-freak” here, it is those who want pregnant women’s will subverted to theirs.”
————–
No, Doug…the baby’s WILL.
AB Laura,
“You meant, unwilling mind, right?”
No, actually, in the because the mind and the body are not seperated in the sense in which you mean.
if you deny that it is a human being in the mother
yllas, under some definitions I agree that “human being” applies to the unborn, but that is not the issue.
Take away all your blather and insults that wouldn’t even do credit to an eight year old, and all you have is that you want to be able to tell women what to do with their pregnancies.
Should you be able to do that? Heck no.
AB Laura: No, Doug…the baby’s WILL.
Laura, while late enough in gestation it’s arguable, for the vast majority of abortions there is no will on the part of the unborn. It boils down to what the woman wants against what pro-lifers want.
Is there a good enough case to be made for enforcing the pro-lifers’ will over the will of the woman who is pregnant. I say no – it’s her responsibility, not yours. She is not responsible to what you want, but to what she wants in the matter.
We know that nothing that is not a human being has the potential of becoming a human being, and nothing that has the potential of becoming a human being is not a human being.
Thank you, Yllas, for this post… It seems that this most basic of logic would be easy enough for most people to understand.
Um….that was an honest answer. I don’t give clear-cut yes/no answers because I don’t think that way.
I didn’t ask for a yes or no answer…just an honest one.
Manipulating words is what I do. They mean only what you want them to mean.
Okay. Then I suppose that nothing you say actually has any true meaning.
And I suppose that I could call any person anything, and it would automatically make them such, because my words only mean what I want them to mean.
For example: A short person is only a potential human (because a short person has not been developed to the full potential that most people have developed to). A retarded person is only a potential human (bceause a retarded person does not have the brain development of a normal person, a person born without arms or legs is only a potential human, (because he has not developed the arms or legs that most other human beings are born with), etc etc etc.
I guess it must be fun making up your own definitions for everything in life.
For the “sounding intelligent” thing, I have a feeling that you’re referring to my vocabulary. I actually do talk like that. I’m also of the opinion that is to your own advantage if you express yourself in a sophisticated manner.
No, I was speaking more of the pretentious way of which you express yourself most of the time. No offense, but your vocabulary really doesn’t impress me.
I reveal them…you just miss it because it’s not what you expect. To a large extent, people see what they wish to see.
Then, if this is true, couldn’t we agree that you are seeing only what you wish to see?
Because homicide is the closest term that we can come to. Last time I checked, there was no special legal term for killing a fetus.
That’s because there’s no need for a separate category.
To me, its quite simple.
To illustrate:
Let’s say I’m being attacked by a random man.
In scenario one, I kill him. This is legal because its self-defense. He is attempting to violate my bodily integrity and rights and I am thus entitled to defend myself.
In scenario two, he gives up and runs away. Later on (think later that day), I see that man again. I kill him. This is illegal because I’m not defending myself, I’m revenging myself on him for a past wrong and am no longer involved in the danger situation.
This analogy doesn’t work, because it involves the “perpetrators” intent to be of malice.
To me, abortion is much the same.
Not at all.
In scenario one, the woman wishes to terminate her pregnancy. This is legal because she is the one involved in the “danger” situation: the fetus is using her body and she has a right to put an end to that use.
The fetus would not be in her body if the woman had not put it there. You can say “oh she didn’t consent” all you want, but that doesn’t change the fact that without the mothers’ (and father’s) actions, the baby would not exist at all. This makes the situation completely unique.
In scenario two, some random person kills the fetus. This is illegal because he is not involved in the “danger” situation: his rights have not been violated.
A woman’s rights have not been violated by a baby when she ends up pregnant due to her own actions.
That’s an oversimplification. I do not believe that a z/e/f is property per say, but that a woman should have the right to assert her rights over her own body.
That’s the same thing, Enigma. I don’t care if it’s oversimplified or not. You think that the human fetus is property of the mother to do with as she wishes.
I never said that. It has value regardless of how the woman feels, but that value does not entitle it to impose upon an unwilling body.
A baby does not choose to impose on anyone. The mother makes the choice to allow sperm to enter her body, which she knows can result in pregnancy. No rights have been violated when a woman becomes pregnant. Unless she has been raped, yet the perpetrator in that case would be the man who raped, who should be punished, not the baby.
“That does not make sense. Either the unborn child has inherent value as a human, or it does not. There is no “well, it has value unless the mother decides it doesn’t.””
That was never my argument.
Yes, it was. You said that it has value, but if the mother decides to terminate, she has the right to kill it. That is saying it only has value if the mother deems it to be the case.
Rights are not necessarily indicative of value. Children have, comparatively speaking, few rights that are allowed to express; does this mean that they are inherently less valuable than adults?
If one believed that children could be allowed to be killed for any reason, yes, they would also believe that children are less valuable than adults. All of the rights that children do not have are for THEIR PROTECTION.
Should you be able to make “issues”, for a mother to murder her developing human being, Doug? Heck no.
Should you able to think like a killing professional Doug? Heck yes, it denotes why you work with “dead things”.
It is why you are, where you are Doug. Your personality and character was formed to work with issues that are not human and incapable of being replaced like a transformer or dead copper wire.
Your a young buck Doug mentally, although your sway backed, your nose is growing, and that pot belly is increasing in size.
And being less then the nature of a buck deer, Doug, you demand death for innocent life.
I understand your neurons are committed to the decision to get others to murder innocent life Doug, and the longer you live, the more neurons you create to assure your decision to allow murder of innocent human beings.
Fact is Doug, your brain is now made you a slave to those neurons you have created to allow “death thinking” for human beings growing in the mother.
To bad science can’t create a neuro-transmitter blocking drug, for the neurons you have created for death Doug, as they have for the extra created nicotine receptors from smoking.
Imagine old Doug, creating life with more receptors for murdering innocent life, as children of smokers have more nicotine receptors in their brain.
Enigma,
It really baffles me that you said, “The fetus is human in the same sense a skin cell is human.”
Really? A skin cell will never be “a” human, it only a cell to function within a human, and will be nothing more than a part of skin. The fetus is a total human, meaning it has ALL of the human cells to work together to form a TOTAL, functioning human.
Doug said, “Laura, while late enough in gestation it’s arguable, for the vast majority of abortions there is no will on the part of the unborn.”
———
Prove it!
That’s asking for the proof of a negative, Laura, and that’s not logical. Heck, you could ask for proof that a rock has no will.
Laura,
Doug said, “Laura, while late enough in gestation it’s arguable, for the vast majority of abortions there is no will on the part of the unborn.”
———
Prove it!
Posted by: AB Laura December 17, 2007 11:14 AM
For those who support abortion, the burden of proof falls on the unborn baby. Convenient, huh?
The unborn can have rights just as soon as they have the power to demand them.
No power, no rights.
It is the same old might makes right crap that has oppressed people since time began.
It is exactly opposite of liberal ideals.
A skin cell will never be “a” human
Laura, that’s an important point. Yes, there is a difference between “human” and “a human.” Some people consider a human to have some consciousness, capability to suffer, etc., and so it’s an argument.
For those who support abortion, the burden of proof falls on the unborn baby. Convenient, huh?
The unborn can have rights just as soon as they have the power to demand them.
No power, no rights.
It is the same old might makes right crap that has oppressed people since time began.
It is exactly opposite of liberal ideals.
should I quote this, Doug?
The American declaration is about HUMAN rights … not person rights. If fetuses are HUMAN and ALIVE, do they not have the inherent worth that the word ‘rights’ affords them? A ‘right’ allows no other opinion-of-merit to dominate. Thus an African-American has intrinsic rights/value that are not subverted by a disagreeing white man. So, we are not attempting to limit a pregnant woman totally; we wish to restrict her options to non-death for her progeny. In other words, it is not my will that I wish imposed, but an alignment with your own stated constitution.
How can you say that following these values has made us ‘free’ and yet deny this law-protection to our offspring? Any woman who is also an American, falls under legal obligations/restrictions even if pregnant. The ‘will’ she exercises MUST conform to law … no consent here.
yllas, you may have the maturity level of an 8 year old, but you’re a creative 8 year old, so congratulations on that, anyway.
……..
Should you be able to make “issues”, for a mother to murder her developing human being, Doug? Heck no.
It’s all on you, yllas, not me. You’re the one falsely pretending that abortion is murder. You’re the one pretending that others would “make issues” for the pregnant woman. Nope – she has her issues, and neither you nor I have more important ones in the matter. I leave it to her, while you whine and carry on.
……
Should you able to think like a killing professional Doug? Heck yes, it denotes why you work with “dead things”.
Incorrect premise, once again. And I gotta say – you hear that 60 cycle hum – you’d best not be thinking “dead.”
……
It is why you are, where you are Doug.
Where I am is on Jill’s blog, replying to a crazy person. My choice, though.
……
Your personality and character was formed to work with issues that are not human and incapable of being replaced like a transformer or dead copper wire.
Yes, but also the living and caring and willful people on this planet. I am the one advocating for less suffering and women being able to make their best choice. You are the one wanting to enforce your half-considered, unprovable morality on other people.
……
Your a young buck Doug mentally, although your sway backed, your nose is growing, and that pot belly is increasing in size.
Perhaps “8 year old” is being too kind for you. ; )
……
And being less then the nature of a buck deer, Doug, you demand death for innocent life.
Nonsense. That’s just more silly false pretending on your part. Pro-Choicers don’t make demands – those are on the part of anti-choicers.
……
I understand your neurons are committed to the decision to get others to murder innocent life Doug, and the longer you live, the more neurons you create to assure your decision to allow murder of innocent human beings.
Hoo Boy – the foam is getting deep.
……
Fact is Doug, your brain is now made you a slave to those neurons you have created to allow “death thinking” for human beings growing in the mother.
My brain is free of the false “security” that some people are compelled to seek. I am not saying that you are that way, because what you believe isn’t necessarily what you say here – this is really just a forum for you to express your own meanness and hatred, self-hatred, really, at the bottom of it.
“Death thinking”? Well, there are many miscarriages and abortion, and we don’t need “more people” on earth for the sake of “more,” certainly not enough to deny abortions to women who want them, most especially not enough to allow people like you to dictate things.
……
To bad science can’t create a neuro-transmitter blocking drug, for the neurons you have created for death Doug, as they have for the extra created nicotine receptors from smoking. Imagine old Doug, creating life with more receptors for murdering innocent life, as children of smokers have more nicotine receptors in their brain.
Speaking of “smoking” -yllas, I don’t know what you’re on, but it must be some wacky stuff.
Anyway, women have the freedom they do in this matter, and that is a good thing.
Doug
John McDonell.
Many pro abortionist only live by “the part” of Declaration of Independence which gives them the right to pursue happiness.
Get in the way of that pursuit of happiness and something is gonna die.
For those who support abortion, the burden of proof falls on the unborn baby.
No it doesn’t, Hippie. If medical science (on the part of the certainly-born) showed the presence of will, or even a half-decent possibility of it, it’d be different, but it’s not that way for the vast majority of abortions.
That possibility is there, even before there is proof of will (and we’ve seen some good posts and articles concerning that right on these boards), but late enough in gestation that it’s a small minority of pregnancies.
Bethany,
“Thank you, Yllas, for this post… It seems that this most basic of logic would be easy enough for most people to understand.”
You’re thanking/congratulating Yllas?! The same Yllas who is incapable of making her point and meanders on and on with pointless insults? The same Yllas who cannot even express herself as well as my 3 year-old cousin?
Are we on different comment boards here?
“I didn’t ask for a yes or no answer…just an honest one.”
And I gave you one. It would not be an honest one if I simply told you what I thought you wanted to hear, would it?
“Okay. Then I suppose that nothing you say actually has any true meaning.”
You misunderstand. I play with words because I find it fun. When communicating with others, I do not contrive new meanings for them.
“No, I was speaking more of the pretentious way of which you express yourself most of the time. No offense, but your vocabulary really doesn’t impress me.”
My bad. In the past, I have been told to talk like a human being.
I therefore assume you’re referring to my tendency to use “one” and other such indicators. To repeat, I believe that communicating correctly is an asset, not a weakness.
“Then, if this is true, couldn’t we agree that you are seeing only what you wish to see?”
And by that same token wouldn’t you be as well?
“That’s because there’s no need for a separate category.”
Matter of opinion.
“This analogy doesn’t work, because it involves the “perpetrators” intent to be of malice.”
Incorrect. This example may not have included malice, but malice is not necessary for one to be engaged in self-defense.
For example, say a cruise ship sinks. Most of the people on it die. After swimming for hours, one lone survivor finds the tinniest bit of floating wreckage. There is only enough room for one person to use this wreckage to float. If another person grabbed on, it would sink and both people would die.
Now suppose that another desperate swimmer comes along and grabs at the only thing that can save them: the first person’s tiny bit of wreckage. The other person shoves this second individual away and he/she drowns. Was there are malice involved? No. Was it self-defense? Yes.
You cannot simultaneously that consent matters in some cases (ie. consensual sex) and then argue that consent does not matter in others (ie. rape). Consent either matters or it does not; you can’t systematically go through and select certain situations for which consent does or does not matter.
“A woman’s rights have not been violated by a baby when she ends up pregnant due to her own actions.”
Her rights have only been violated if others in society force her to continue to provide the fetus with access to her body if she wishes not to.
“That’s the same thing, Enigma. I don’t care if it’s oversimplified or not. You think that the human fetus is property of the mother to do with as she wishes.”
Not at all. Humans unilaterally act and effect objects/things/lives that they do not own all the time. So why I am implying ownership of a fetus?
“A baby does not choose to impose on anyone.”
There is no baby involved.
“The mother makes the choice to allow sperm to enter her body, which she knows can result in pregnancy.”
Not if she was using birth control.
“Yes, it was. You said that it has value, but if the mother decides to terminate, she has the right to kill it. That is saying it only has value if the mother deems it to be the case.”
No, it is not. I’m saying that the value is the same, but that value alone is not enough to allow a fetus to impose upon another. That is not the same at all.
“If one believed that children could be allowed to be killed for any reason, yes, they would also believe that children are less valuable than adults. All of the rights that children do not have are for THEIR PROTECTION.”
This does not effect my point.
I find it very fascinating how pro-aborts are so closed-minded to any rational thinking. They etch their beliefs in stone without substantiating any proof. They will call it fact, when in actuality it is an opinion, and will compare the magnificant and complicated nature of being a human being to an unsignificant mass of cells whose “right” to continue life is only determined by a woman, who, depending on how her life is going at the time, makes the “choice” to do so.
Doug, in response to: “That’s asking for the proof of a negative, Laura, and that’s not logical. Heck, you could ask for proof that a rock has no will.”
That’s absurd. There must be a will to survive if, in fact, the fetus is surviving. If it lost its will to survive, it will die. Where does “will” come from, Doug?
AB Laura,
“Really? A skin cell will never be “a” human, it only a cell to function within a human, and will be nothing more than a part of skin. The fetus is a total human, meaning it has ALL of the human cells to work together to form a TOTAL, functioning human.”
The skin cell, barring any illegal cloning, will never possess the ability to develop into “a human” that is true. Yet it is human in the same way as a z/e/f. It has human DNA, it can replicate itself, it can absorb nutrients, ect.
Potentiality does not a human being make.
AB Laura,
“That’s absurd. There must be a will to survive if, in fact, the fetus is surviving. If it lost its will to survive, it will die. Where does “will” come from, Doug?”
This is fallacious logic. Will is not a necessary prerequisite of life.
Murdering your progeny is a good thing, huh Doug?
It all boiled down to that matter Doug.
See, it’s simple Doug, your for allowing death being a good thang, I am not for death, and for life.
Try this experiment Doug. Think life is not a choice. Life is not a choice. Life in the womb must not be destroyed as a matter.
Think it over and over and maybe you can break free of those neurons which you have created since you thought death of a baby in the womb, is a life affirming matter.
Try it Doug. It might make you be able to relate to humanity and some day work with matters which are not dead mechanical thangs.
should I quote this, Doug?
Well heck yes, John. : )
……
The American declaration is about HUMAN rights … not person rights.
Nope, not really – it was a bunch of white guys telling England to go take a hike. Those guys didn’t grant the same rights to women or blacks, and certainly not to the unborn.
……
If fetuses are HUMAN and ALIVE, do they not have the inherent worth that the word ‘rights’ affords them?
That’s a contradiction. Rights may be attributed or not, but there’s nothing inherent about them. Worth is in the eye of the beholder. I know you don’t like the wanted/unwanted deal, but when we get to a given pregnant woman, that’s the way it’s going to be.
……
A ‘right’ allows no other opinion-of-merit to dominate. Thus an African-American has intrinsic rights/value that are not subverted by a disagreeing white man. So, we are not attempting to limit a pregnant woman totally; we wish to restrict her options to non-death for her progeny. In other words, it is not my will that I wish imposed, but an alignment with your own stated constitution.
No, the Constitution states no such thing. The grantors of the rights you mention, there, those of African-Americans, do indeed say that a disagreeing white guy cannot overrule them, nor can anybody else, for that matter. It was not always that way in this country, just as it is not that way in some other countries to this day.
I know you’re focusing on the unborn, sure, but I don’t see that as a good enough reason to take away women’s current freedom in the matter.
……
How can you say that following these values has made us ‘free’ and yet deny this law-protection to our offspring?
I haven’t said we are “free” in any absolute way. I’m saying it’s better to let women have the legal choices they do, rather than try and force your morality on them. I see your desire for the unborn to live, but I don’t think that trumps the desire of a woman who is the one pregnant.
……
Any woman who is also an American, falls under legal obligations/restrictions even if pregnant. The ‘will’ she exercises MUST conform to law … no consent here.
Sure, John, no question about it. But those are not situations where we are talking about her own body and what is inside of it – to a point in gestation anyway.
I’m not saying it’s impossible that abortion would be further restricted or made illegal, in some states, anyway. So yes – society could say that she has to conform to such-and-such law. The question is whether we need such a law or not. I say no – we don’t have a good enough demonstrable reason to tell her “no” beyond what is now the case.
Doug
Doug said, “This is fallacious logic. Will is not a necessary prerequisite of life.”
—————
It is the bare necessity of sustaining life.
Gee, Enigma did it again.
“Potentiality does not a human make “.
But we all know that nothing that is not a human being has the potential of becoming a human being, and nothing that has the potential of becoming a human being is not a human being.
Do you understand that sentence Engima, or are you logically challenged by your emotional needs and wants to murder human life?
Murdering your progeny is a good thing, huh Doug?
No, yllas, but you’re not talking about abortion.
Sorry, Enigma said the above, not Doug!
Enigma said, “The skin cell, barring any illegal cloning, will never possess the ability to develop into “a human” that is true. Yet it is human in the same way as a z/e/f. It has human DNA, it can replicate itself, it can absorb nutrients, ect.
Potentiality does not a human being make.”
————–
OK, take a step back and read your statement several times, if need be, to look at your logic behind it. You are talking about similarities in the two, yet the two are very seperate. One is a being, a complexity of all cells combined, and one is of itself. It’s not “potentiality”…it IS!
Ab Laura: I find it very fascinating how pro-aborts are so closed-minded to any rational thinking.
I’d say that is most often anti-choicers who are that way – they have the emotional need to make unprovable assumptions.
……
They etch their beliefs in stone without substantiating any proof. They will call it fact, when in actuality it is an opinion,
Perhaps some do, yet almost all pro-lifers do it too.
……
and will compare the magnificant and complicated nature of being a human being to an unsignificant mass of cells whose “right” to continue life is only determined by a woman, who, depending on how her life is going at the time, makes the “choice” to do so.
Well, there is that comparison, with all the similarities and differences therein. You may not like it, but sometimes you’re gonna have that. Is it the woman’s decision? Yes. Do we really need to try and take away that decision? No. I know you might want to, but I see no persuasive reasoning from you on that, certainly nothing that would overrule the reasoning of the pregnant woman herself.
……
Doug, in response to: “That’s asking for the proof of a negative, Laura, and that’s not logical. Heck, you could ask for proof that a rock has no will.”
That’s absurd. There must be a will to survive if, in fact, the fetus is surviving. If it lost its will to survive, it will die. Where does “will” come from, Doug?
Nope, it’s not absurd. Many biological processes are not under conscious control in the first place. You’re the one making the positive assertion here – that the unborn have will. The burden of proof is on you. It’s not up to anybody else to proof that “it’s not there,” and hence the example of the rock. Can you prove that rocks don’t have souls?
Doug
AB Laura,
“It is the bare necessity of sustaining life.”
Not really. Our society prevents people who lack the will to live from killing themselves all the time. So how can will be necessary to sustain life when life can be sustained either in the absence of will (think people who are vegetables) or when the will is for death (think suicide)?
AB Laura,
“OK, take a step back and read your statement several times, if need be, to look at your logic behind it.”
There is no inherent contradition.
“You are talking about similarities in the two, yet the two are very seperate. One is a being, a complexity of all cells combined, and one is of itself. It’s not “potentiality”…it IS!”
That is your opinion. However, based upon the conscious in the medical community that human life is a derivative of brain function, I find that I cannot consider an being without said brain function a living human being.
Enigma said, “Well, there is that comparison, with all the similarities and differences therein. You may not like it, but sometimes you’re gonna have that. Is it the woman’s decision? Yes. Do we really need to try and take away that decision? No. I know you might want to, but I see no persuasive reasoning from you on that, certainly nothing that would overrule the reasoning of the pregnant woman herself.”
————-
“reasoning of the pregnant woman herself”? Reasoning only being made on the current situation at the time she finds out she’s pregnant? The reasoning based on an emotional, not logical decision? Is she a fortune teller? Does she know that the situation will never change?
Here’s my persuasive reasoning…may not persuade you, but it’s my reasoning. That baby DESERVES the right to live as you & I did. A woman should not be given the right to decide whether one lives or dies based on an “emotional” thought, but one based on logic. The logic of that situations and people DO change. That is a fact.
yllas: we all know that nothing that is not a human being has the potential of becoming a human being,
Wrong. On the one hand, looking at a given definition, if it’s already a human being then the issue of “potential” isn’t valid in the first place – the actuality is already there. And if we’re looking at different definitions, then the egg and spern, for example, which are certainly “human” and have existence, etc., have the potential for becoming a human being under a less-inclusive, more restrictive definition.
……
and nothing that has the potential of becoming a human being is not a human being.
Wrong again. It depends on what you mean by “human being.” You impute more to the term than some people, and less to it than some other people do. Those who see more in the term than you may not see it as applying at conception, while you might.
Enigma said, “Not really. Our society prevents people who lack the will to live from killing themselves all the time. So how can will be necessary to sustain life when life can be sustained either in the absence of will (think people who are vegetables) or when the will is for death (think suicide)?”
———–
Exactly my point….the suicidal person loses their will to live, while a surviving, growing fetus does not.
Ab Laura: Here’s my persuasive reasoning…may not persuade you, but it’s my reasoning. That baby DESERVES the right to live as you & I did. A woman should not be given the right to decide whether one lives or dies based on an “emotional” thought, but one based on logic. The logic of that situations and people DO change. That is a fact.
Laura, that was me, not Enigma. “Deserves” is your opinion. I say the pregnant woman is the most deserving. There is no necessary logic that says a given pregnancy must be continued, nor is there that says it must be ended.
Yes, people and situations do change, but that’s no reason to take away the freedom that women have in the matter.
Doug
Enigma said, “That is your opinion. However, based upon the conscious in the medical community that human life is a derivative of brain function, I find that I cannot consider an being without said brain function a living human being.”
———–
Oh, so now the logic is that the fetus’ life, whether the belief of it being living or not living, is determined by its brain function?
AB Laura,
I’m really confused.
“That’s absurd. There must be a will to survive if, in fact, the fetus is surviving. If it lost its will to survive, it will die. Where does “will” come from, Doug?”
Here you appear to be arguing that will must be present because, without will, life would not continue.
“Exactly my point….the suicidal person loses their will to live, while a surviving, growing fetus does not.”
Here you either misunderstood what I said or are saying that will is not necessary to sustain life.
My argument was that will is not necessary to sustain life and then gave you examples. Society can, and has, prevented people from taking their own lives even when they have lost the will to live. How can society do this if a will to live is a necessary prerequisite of life? Society also keeps people alive who have no will because they are vegetables. So how can society keep their physical bodies alive if there is no will present?
Sorry Doug, for not giving you credit for that statement. I’m getting the pro-aborts mixed up today, for some reason!
I did say it was my reasoning, thus “deserved” being an opinion of mine to support my reasoning.
Doug said, “Yes, people and situations do change, but that’s no reason to take away the freedom that women have in the matter.”
————–
Of course women have the freedom to do whatever they want with their bodies, either legally or illegally. However, it does not change the fact that the when her situation does change, and the mother wishes she didn’t abort, the baby cannot come back.
Doug said, “This is fallacious logic. Will is not a necessary prerequisite of life.”
—————
It is the bare necessity of sustaining life.
Laura, that was Enigma, not me, but will isn’t required. A brain-dead body can be kept alive. Life is metabolism; chemical processes for which will is not necessary.
AB Laura: However, it does not change the fact that the when her situation does change, and the mother wishes she didn’t abort, the baby cannot come back.
Sure, the same as some people end up wishing they would have had an abortion versus continuing a pregnancy. There are no guarantees that a choice will forever be seen to have been the best one, either way. It’s still no reason to take away people’s right to make the choice.
Enigma,
Yes, I believe will is required to sustain life. When someone commits suicide, they lose their “will” to live. A developing fetus does not lose that will. It is being sustained by its will to live. One only loses will, when one “chooses” to lose it. The fetus doesn’t have that choice. It only knows “will to live”, thus it lives.
Sure, the same as some people end up wishing they would have had an abortion versus continuing a pregnancy. There are no guarantees that a choice will forever be seen to have been the best one, either way. It’s still no reason to take away people’s right to make the choice.
Posted by: Doug at December 17, 2007 12:42 PM
————–
It’s still no reason to take away the innocent baby’s life!
AB Laura,
You haven’t answered my question.
“Yes, I believe will is required to sustain life. When someone commits suicide, they lose their “will” to live.”
But society can sometimes keep people who have attempted to commit suicide alive. How does it do this if will is necessary for life?
How does society keep people without will (ie. vegetables) alive?
“A developing fetus does not lose that will.”
The human concept of will is a product of the mind, or the forebrain to be exact. How can a fetus have will when it does not have a brain?
“It is being sustained by its will to live.”
Is this a personal belief or do you have something to back this up?
“One only loses will, when one “chooses” to lose it. The fetus doesn’t have that choice. It only knows “will to live”, thus it lives.”
How does it know anything without a brain?
I never said will comes from the brain…I believe will is God given…God wills you to live or not. When one commits suicide, they lose their “will” to live, thus thinking like the preganant woman does, that the situation will never change.
Thus, I believe that “will” as “human life” is perceived in some as a “scientific thinking of its interpretation”, when in reality, they are both something that is God-given. This is my personal belief.
Enigma,
This is the same reasoning that permits wife beating in many cultures. The husband has a unique relationship to the wife and she depends on him for support. So she must please him and if she doesn’t, he can beat her.
“Actually, this is a distortion of the argument that I made. My argument does not lend itself to this extension.”
Of course it lends itself to this extension. You make the argument that the one who provides support may choose to kill the one she is supporting just because she wants to and simply because she has the power to do it. And of course you don’t want me to clarify what you are saying.
…………………………………………………..
It is about inequality. It is about having rights only if you have the power to secure them for yourself.
“No, actually its about making sure that no one’s rights get trampled. Even if you wanted to a z/e/f every human right, it would still not possess the right to impose upon another’s body.”
Huh? A baby is someone and his rights are trampled by abortion. You said that the baby has the right to live but not to impose on anyone. So since it will take a couple more months for him to live independently, he doesn’t get a stay of execution until that time because that is too much of an impostition. You argue for making sure that those in power retain their legal protection as they trample the rights of the powerless.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
“It is opposite the notion of “all created equal” and “inalienable rights.””
“Actually, this would be your argument.”
Yes, your argument is for inequality.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
“It is a moral regression from the progress that was made up through the civil rights movement.”
“The civil rights movement had nothing to do with abortion.”
Yes that is what I said.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
The civil rights movement was a continuation of moral progress specifically as to equal protection under the law.
Legal abortion is a trend in the opposite direction of the progress that began in 1776 and continued till 1973.
AB Laura,
You still haven’t answered my question.
I asked how you could explain society being able to prevent people from dying who have lost the will to live if will is itself necessary for life.
Why don’t people who poison themselves and then have their stomachs pumped against their will not just die anyway?
Why don’t all people who slash their wrists die anyway even if another person prevents them from bleeding out?
Laura- a lot of animals have a stronger ‘will’ to live than humans. The ‘will’ to live, in essence, is an evolutionary trait! The need for self-sustaination is an inherent trait in most living beings. It’s genetic and instinctive. Human beings have become so advanced technologically that many of those old instincts- for example, like being afraid of the dark- are less poignant, and more able to be ignored.
Thanks for your input, Erin. I won’t “go there”, (the evolution route)!
Anyway, so you are saying that the fetus has an inherent trait, genetic and instinctive…i.e., will to live?
Enigma,
does society have the right to say we can kill those who cannot demonstrate their will to live?
It is not about the will to live, it is about the right to kill.
You’re thanking/congratulating Yllas?! The same Yllas who is incapable of making her point and meanders on and on with pointless insults? The same Yllas who cannot even express herself as well as my 3 year-old cousin?
Actually, Yllas has many times made some terrific points. I understand why you and others on this blog would not like Yllas, and sometimes I agree that he can be harsh…but, it seems to me (and I could be wrong of course) that he is not trying to insult as much as help you to understand a particular point. But, that’s just how I see it.
Are we on different comment boards here?
No…I would just as easily congratulate you if you made a good point.
And I gave you one. It would not be an honest one if I simply told you what I thought you wanted to hear, would it?
Could be. Your manipulation of words, and games with semantics is the problem, Enigma.
My bad. In the past, I have been told to talk like a human being.
I therefore assume you’re referring to my tendency to use “one” and other such indicators. To repeat, I believe that communicating correctly is an asset, not a weakness.
Well, whatever makes you happy.
And by that same token wouldn’t you be as well?
That’s not really an answer now, is it?
And possibly.
I had written: “This analogy doesn’t work, because it involves the “perpetrators” intent to be of malice.”
Enigma’s reply: Incorrect. This example may not have included malice, but malice is not necessary for one to be engaged in self-defense.
For example, say a cruise ship sinks. Most of the people on it die. After swimming for hours, one lone survivor finds the tinniest bit of floating wreckage. There is only enough room for one person to use this wreckage to float. If another person grabbed on, it would sink and both people would die.
Now suppose that another desperate swimmer comes along and grabs at the only thing that can save them: the first person’s tiny bit of wreckage. The other person shoves this second individual away and he/she drowns. Was there are malice involved? No. Was it self-defense? Yes.
This still requires that the person in the analogy is indeed fighting for their life, and have absolutely no other options available. So the analogy is still flawed.
You cannot simultaneously that consent matters in some cases (ie. consensual sex) and then argue that consent does not matter in others (ie. rape).
Consent does matter, but not when it goes so far as to take the life of another human being for your convenience. Just as in any other situation.
Consent either matters or it does not; you can’t systematically go through and select certain situations for which consent does or does not matter.
Above ^^^
Her rights have only been violated if others in society force her to continue to provide the fetus with access to her body if she wishes not to.
There is no force involved in letting a pregnancy continue naturally. There is force involved in abortion.
Not at all. Humans unilaterally act and effect objects/things/lives that they do not own all the time. So why I am implying ownership of a fetus?
Because you are. If the woman is the only one who gets to choose whether she kills the baby, because it lives within her, that certainly implies ownership of the baby as property.
There is no baby involved.
That’s your opinion, and you’re wrong.
I had written:
“Yes, it was. You said that it has value, but if the mother decides to terminate, she has the right to kill it. That is saying it only has value if the mother deems it to be the case.”
Enigma said:
No, it is not. I’m saying that the value is the same, but that value alone is not enough to allow a fetus to impose upon another. That is not the same at all.
Can you kill any other human being for inconveniencing you? And please do not reply with the overused kidney donation analogy because it does not work. The unborn child does not take any of the mother’s organs from her.
“If one believed that children could be allowed to be killed for any reason, yes, they would also believe that children are less valuable than adults. All of the rights that children do not have are for THEIR PROTECTION.”
This does not effect my point.
It ABSOLUTELY does! You said that children do not have as much rights as adults, and you said that somehow proved that I would be inconsistent to say that if you have less rights, you are less human. The entire reason that children are not given certain rights is FOR THEIR BENEFIT. Not for the convenience of the mother, not for any other reason. The reason they are not given certain rights, like drinking, smoking, driving, is not because they are less human, but because they are being PROTECTED for their own good. This is NOTHING like the right that is being taken away from them- their very own LIFE!
Enigma,
I did answer you. You’re just refusing to listen. “will to live” does not come from the brain.
There is no “will” to lose with a suicidal person, because it’s all in their thoughts…irrational thoughts. You can’t lose something that (I believe) is God-given. You can think death is the better alternative, but your body, all along, is fighting to survive. If it’s not its time to go…it won’t! It’s when the body stops fighting that it does.
sorry, I just can’t stand it anymore!!!!!!
effect is a noun. example: The effect is good.
affect is a verb. example: It affects him.
Not trying to be mean, it just got on my last nerve.
“Not trying to be mean”
fragment!
How Ironic! In todays modern world where Christian fundimentalism has no place, and a world in which children are themselves having children this $20 throw away “Make Love Not Babies” HUMOR tee offers teenagers much more guidance than any fairtale written 2000 years ago. Over analyze this as much as you will, while you do the world still turns and you remain blissfully unaware of the truth of life. You also break the law by preproducing a copywritten image. Like I said, how ironic….
How Ironic! In todays modern world where Christian fundimentalism has no place, and a world in which children are themselves having children this $20 throw away “Make Love Not Babies” HUMOR tee offers teenagers much more guidance than any fairtale written 2000 years ago. Over analyze this as much as you will, while you do the world still turns and you remain blissfully unaware of the truth of life. You also break the law by preproducing a copywritten image. Like I said, how ironic….
Bethany,
“Actually, Yllas has many times made some terrific points.”
I’ll believe it when I see it. Yllas has done nothing.
“I understand why you and others on this blog would not like Yllas, and sometimes I agree that he can be harsh…but, it seems to me (and I could be wrong of course) that he is not trying to insult as much as help you to understand a particular point. But, that’s just how I see it.”
And I see it differently. Yllas reminds me of nothing so much as one of those pathetic little bullies in elementary school who try to disguise their own ineptitude and deficiencies by attacking others.
“Could be. Your manipulation of words, and games with semantics is the problem, Enigma.”
Not really. That’s what you do in a debate. I probe for weaknesses in your argument and you probe for weaknesses in mine.
“This still requires that the person in the analogy is indeed fighting for their life, and have absolutely no other options available.”
In this particular analogy, yes. But self-defense does not require for one’s life to be threatened. It can, but it does not have to.
If a said woman is being attacked and all that her attacker intends to do is rape her, she still has the right to kill him even though he wasn’t threatening her life.
“Consent does matter, but not when it goes so far as to take the life of another human being for your convenience. Just as in any other situation.”
Not according to your arguments it doesn’t. And you cannot simultaneously assert that consent is a rationale for denying some women women abortion and not others. Logic either holds across circumstance or it is not logic.
“There is no force involved in letting a pregnancy continue naturally.”
If a woman does not want to be pregnant and the society forces her to continue it, there is indeed force involved. Maybe not physical force, but there is coercion.
“There is force involved in abortion.”
Simply because as action may involve some sort of physical force does not mean that the action is inherently wrong.
There are two meanings to the word force. One entails using coercion against someone else without their consent and the other requires using physical force. We are simply arguing across purposes.
“Because you are. If the woman is the only one who gets to choose whether she kills the baby, because it lives within her, that certainly implies ownership of the baby as property.”
No it doesn’t. The woman has the right to deny the fetus access to her body because it is residing inside of her. Others do not possess this right because the fetus is not residing inside of them.
“That’s your opinion, and you’re wrong.”
Technically, the term fetus is correct.
“Can you kill any other human being for inconveniencing you? And please do not reply with the overused kidney donation analogy because it does not work. The unborn child does not take any of the mother’s organs from her.”
There is no other human being to kill.
And if another person was physically imposing upon my body without my permission, I would be well within my rights to kill him/her in any case.
“It ABSOLUTELY does!”
I never said that the fetus was as valuable as an actualized human being. I indicated that the fetus had the same value whether or not the woman chose to abort it.
You argued that by aborting one and not the other, I was affording one more value than the other. I was using children to demonstrate that beings can have the same value and yet have different rights. You argument that no one has the right to kill children has absolutely no bearing upon this point.
AB Laura,
So, if I understand your argument correctly, God gives people the will to live, and they only die once God takes this will away.
Is this a correct interpreation?
Enigma: “I was using children to demonstrate that beings can have the same value and yet have different rights.”
what.
Enigma,
Since you don’t believe in God, do you keep asking me questions regarding my belief in hopes that I “slip up” somewhere & give you an opening to attempt to debunk my belief? You use “big words” on a consistent basis, and have all of the “right” answers, no matter who is asking or what they are asking about. And you have such “clear” knowledge about so many issues on so many levels for being so young. You’re either are extremely gifted (by God), or you’re just “playing” with words to play some type of sick game.
So, since I clearly stated my beliefs, time & time again…I will be more than happy to share the answer to your above question if you were sincere in your motives for asking it.
Let me know……….
Laura, if Enigma wasn’t, I am genuinely interested. Do you believe that people only die when they lose, or God takes away, their will to live?
Erin,
No. God doesn’t take away “their will to live” When one commits suicide, they lose “their will to live” by making that decision on their own, against God’s will.
I think the word “will” is being used in one way, by me, and in another by Enigma. Enigma’s being their “choice” or “desire” to live, and my definition, by being given “divine authorization” per se.
If you go back and read several posts using the definition of “will” as I intended, I think you’ll understand what I meant.
If not, I’ll be happy to better clarify my thoughts and/or beliefs!
:)
AB Laura,
“Since you don’t believe in God, do you keep asking me questions regarding my belief in hopes that I “slip up” somewhere & give you an opening to attempt to debunk my belief?”
We talk in completely different languages. How the heck am I supposed to know what you mean?
“You use “big words” on a consistent basis, and have all of the “right” answers, no matter who is asking or what they are asking about.”
I will use whatever words I please and I know answers when I find them.
“You’re either are extremely gifted (by God), or you’re just “playing” with words to play some type of sick game.”
And you’re extremely judgmental and insulting for someone who professes to be a Christian.
Enigma,
Where exactly was I being judgmental and insulting? I know your beliefs, you make them crystal clear. And you know mine, I make them crystal clear. I don’t think my question to you was unfair in that sense. Unless, of course, you are genuinely interested in my belief regarding God and His will.
AB Laura,
“Unless, of course, you are genuinely interested in my belief regarding God and His will.”
And what to you defines “genuine” interest? A willingness to convert?
Enigma,
I was posting comments regarding God and will. You asked.
An interest in converting you? Absolutely not. That’s a decision only you can make…your choice.
Genuine interest? An open mind to disuss something rationally with someone who doesn’t share the same beliefs as you…not to try to make me look foolish.
Laura- I’m trying to understand something here. If the will to live is divinely inspired, how can man take it away so easily? Barring a suicide example, what about people who still very much want to live who have cancer, or heart disease? Is God taking away their will, or what if someone attacks you and kills you? Are they taking away something that God gave you? Or…I think I’m just a bit confused about the concept.
Erin,
I believe that everything happens according to God’s will. Excellent question, though…one I have been struggling with since I got involved with the abortion issue. At times, I thought maybe I should just sit back and do nothing because it’s all in “God’s will”. However, I believe that God allows all things to happen, some of what we tend to think of as “being bad”. But when I look at the “big picture”, I see that we were not created for this earth, but for Eternity. Our life here is where we make the decision of where we will spend it. Which, of course, brought me back to the abortion issue. I feel that it is my “duty”, of sorts, to speak about God and His love to all that want to hear. If not, so be it.
I think that when some believers think that nothing bad will ever happen to them because they are protected by God and His angels are wrong. It’s because I believe that God is more concerned about our eternal life (souls) rather than our “earthly” bodies. All things happen for good for those that love Him!
Thanks Laura, that cleared it up a lot!
Your welcome! I’m relieved & glad!!! (I had a rough day today, and was hoping I didn’t have to elaborate more…my brain is drained!)
:)
@Erin,
Yep, I too understand this as much more than the simplistic way that Enigma has understood/verbalized it. There is in all living creatures a very strong ‘will to live’. For a few migrating species (ie. salmon and monarch butterflies) a sense of purpose seems to predominate even this!
Is God calling us to end this adventure called life? The Christian faith leads us to death, but like the ceremony of matrimony, what ‘dies’ is our old lifestyle. God calls us to new life and in this process we die to the old life.
Many have wondered about what this means … first off, it will mean trusting and loving God. Affirming God’s existence doesn’t cut it!
“I think that when some believers think that nothing bad will ever happen to them because they are protected by God and His angels are wrong. It’s because I believe that God is more concerned about our eternal life (souls) rather than our “earthly” bodies. All things happen for good for those that love Him!”
amen ABLaura!
AB Laura,
I’m honestly not attacking you here; this is probably the main reason I cannot accept Christianity.
“I think that when some believers think that nothing bad will ever happen to them because they are protected by God and His angels are wrong. It’s because I believe that God is more concerned about our eternal life (souls) rather than our “earthly” bodies. All things happen for good for those that love Him!”
Sometimes I can buy that argument. Hardship either reveals the best or the worst that we have within us; what is difficult today can make you into who you are tomorrow.
But some things don’t fit into that comforting definition. What possible good is accomplished by, for instance, the case of a little child who is raped and murdered? Are you honestly going to tell me either A.) that God doesn’t care or that B.) it serves some higher good? I’m sorry, if a God thinks that that type of thing is necessary for higher good, I’m not sure I’d want to believe even if He was real. That kind of God is not worthy of worship.
Enigma,
I don’t know all the answers. If I did, I’d be God. But I look at how many lives Jessica Lunsford’s dad touched by her tragic death, and all of the good that came out of that. Her father will be reuited with her for Eternity! He knows that, and publicly acknowledges it! I also beleive, that the death of a child, although extremely tragic here on earth, that child is in Heaven. Since the day Satan was unleashed on this earth, many earthly lives have been destroyed. Some people may go through more difficult tests than others. Whenever I start feeling sorry for myself, I turn to the book of Job…I understand, my faith increases and I see my troubles in a whole, new light.
I MOST CERTAINLY did not have the “greatest” childhood. However, I chose to use those incidents to help others get through theirs.
It’s a faith, thing, Enigma. Although I certainly don’t understand the “why’s”, I do understand the “how’s”.
Fr Corapi:
Also, to add to the above, there is a battle going on here on earth. Good vs. Evil. God is Love, and wants all to spend eternity with Him. Satan wants to destroy people. Earthly lives? No…he wants to turn as many people away from God as he can. He uses others to keep us away from the eternal blessings of God. “He needs some buddies” down there with him.
The rape & murder of a child is used by Satan to turn people away from God by using the same statement you made above. He delights in the fact that people will turn away from God from these actions. The child is in Heaven, has no memory of anything bad, and will spend Eternity in peace & happiness. It is those of us “left behind” to contemplate how such a tragedy on earth occured. But again, I look at the big picture, through my faith in God, His love for us & His word.
Why is blind faith a virtue? And how can people know that what they have faith in is true?
I’ve heard the argument “good can come from evil” before; I will reply now with the same thing that I said back then.
It doesn’t matter if the child is blissfully happy in heaven. It doesn’t matter how much God or Jesus do to make up for what has been: the child still suffered. Nothing will ever change that, or the fact that God basically “used” him/her, knowing what this would do to the individual in question. That is not moral and will never be. The ends do not always justify the means.
Enigma,
But the child that lives blissfully in heaven has no memory of that suffering. If we are here only a split second compared to eternity, and then have no memory of “earthly things”, how much of what happened to us on earth really mattered, other than the God’s grace and love that gave us the opportunity to end all suffering and allowed us to live with Him blissfully in heaven?
I’m sorry..I didn’t comment on your first question: “Why is blind faith a virtue? And how can people know that what they have faith in is true?”
I don’t think that my faith is blind, but I do consider it a virtue because it gives me hope beyond this earth. How can people know? I knew when I was about 9, but didn’t REALLY know until about 6 or 7 years ago. I always go back to my mother, the DEVOUT atheist, who hit rock bottom, and said, “God, they say you are real. If you are, then show me”. He did. In me, at least, He continues to show me more and more as I go through life. I ask, and sometimes it’s really hard to “hear” Him, but somehow, He does. It’s the part “on His own time” that I don’t like so much! I’m very impatient!
I don’t think that my faith is blind, but I do consider it a virtue because it gives me hope beyond this earth.
Laura, good, honest answer there. I think that’s it, in a nutshell – it’s a matter of wanting “more” in the first place.
Doug
Sure, the same as some people end up wishing they would have had an abortion versus continuing a pregnancy. There are no guarantees that a choice will forever be seen to have been the best one, either way. It’s still no reason to take away people’s right to make the choice.
AB Laura: It’s still no reason to take away the innocent baby’s life!
Well, yeah, even though you don’t like it, that is the reason, often – the woman is making what she sees as her best choice.
If anything I’d compare what you were saying with not letting women continue pregnancies because some women regret doing so. Now who is going to be for that?
Doug,
No offense, but I think you read it wrong. (or, once again, I wasn’t descriptive enough! – probably the latter!) I was referring to why I thought my faith was a virtue: i.e., an asset, desirable quality, benefit, etc. God’s love, through Jesus does give me hope: i.e., expectation, anticipation, etc. of eternal life.
I’ve read most of the comments about God and such and I think a point that is being missed is that God gave us free will. And NO MATTER WHAT, God does not interfere with that. He may guide us and reveal opportunities to us, but it is up to US to take them or not to take them. The devil can tempt us to go in a bad direction and no matter how much God directs us another way..we sometimes choose the wrong path. That being said, a child being raped or murdered in this world has nothing to do with God. It has to do with the devil and the free will of the person committing the act. People are always so quick to blame God when terrible things happen, why not blame the devil?
I can not remember where I heard this quote..but it struck me when I heard it: “The greatest trick the devil ever played was to get people to believe he doesn’t exist.” By people believing that God has SOLE control over everything this allows people to place blame over the lack of control they feel they have over things.(i.e. their child being murdered) As long as people are busy blaming God for all the terrible things, they don’t have to acknowledge evil or the devil. I don’t believe God has anything to do with the evils in this world. He can only stand by and watch, and comfort us in the only ways that He can.
My mother and I have talked about this several times. She believes that when terrible crimes or suffering happen to people to the point of death that God takes their soul from their body to Heaven with Him so they do not have to endure the trauma/suffering. So while their physical body may still be suffering, their soul is not. So when a child is being raped/murdered in such a way, my mother believes they do not suffer in the way we believe they would. She believes their soul has already left their body and they don’t feel any pain. At least not in the way we imagine they would. I often am unsure if this is the case because I have never been in the situation. In an idealistic way, I would like to believe this is how it is, that way, these innocent children/people wouldn’t have to endure the suffering of being maliciously raped/murdered, but frankly I do not know. I was just giving an idea that my mom has talked about with me which I found interesting.
I don’t know if this is helpful to the conversation, I was just throwing my 2 cents out there.:)
Hey Doug,
How was the company Christmas party?
Elizabeth,
Good points, but read Job!
Elizabeth,
I really like your mom’s idea. I sure hope that’s the way it is!
Haha Ab Laura, I will try to pencil Job in between biology and psychology somewhere!
Elizabeth,
LOL! :)
I went through a real “crappy time” in my life recently, and didn’t know why such “bad” things were happening in my life. I was driving down the road, crying my little baby eyes out, and the word “Job” popped in my head. Now, I’ve never REALLY read it, I skimmed over it in the past. But this time I really did read it. Wow! Changed my perspective on what God allows and just how much. I was humbled. (and felt alot better, too!)
Elizabeth,
great points…
I bet you are correct about the suffering part.
AB Laura, I hope things are better in your life now, you’re a very nice person.
Thank you, Jasper!
Do it for the kids?
A reporter from Focus on the Family’s Family News in Focus called yesterday about a story she’s preparing on the Abercrombie & Fitch t-shirts I reported on here and here December 14. She said someone wondered in a production meeting…
Poor Doug.
Is the fetus human? If you do not know the fetus is human, your a lost cause.
The word which you stumble upon is the word “nothing”.
Nothing that is NOT human being has the potential of becoming a human being and NOTHING that has the potential of becoming a human being is NOT a human being.
And if you murder a pregnant women, it’s two charges of HOMICIDE, Doug. Notice the first three letters in homicide, Doug.
Gee Doug, your wishes and wanting to murder a baby in the womb as a choice, is the past Doug.
So Doug, your appeal to the NOTHING of human beings in the mother is going to get you laughed at in a court of law.
Try not to deconstruct complete thoughts expressed in a sentence. It makes you Doug, a hal as thinker. And pre-disposed to accidents.
Such as only perceiveing the letter “S” in a stop sign, the other letters were nothing.
Or in your case, voltage. Didn’t percieve the letters danger and high, from those letters being nothing in your mind Doug.
Gee Doug, if you were as sloppy at work, as here at this post board, I wouldn’t want to work with you on transfmrs.
How many accidents have you caused Doug, and tryed to excuse them from being NOTHING another person would have done?
Your neurons are lacking the ability to percieve the reality that two human beings are living in one human being. But, that occurs when one thinks in such a manner and matter that one creates extra dendrites and axons made from wishes and wants for death of human beings in the womb.
Imagine Doug, a time before your creation of such neuron cells for death thinking, and just when did you become a decision for murdering defenceless human beings.
Was it some unanswered suffering in you, Doug, which produced in you, the thinking which decides to murder human beings as being a good decision?
A personality is made from thousand of choices being made into decisions about how reality is to be percieved by a person.
If you want to deny the human being growing in a mother, as a “nothing”, from creating a area in your brain devoted to death thinking, so be it Doug.
It’s a perception into your personality and character.
Wrong. On the one hand, looking at a given definition, if it’s already a human being then the issue of “potential” isn’t valid in the first place – the actuality is already there. And if we’re looking at different definitions, then the egg and sperm, for example, which are certainly “human” and have existence, etc., have the potential for becoming a human being under a less-inclusive, more restrictive definition.
Doug, I understand what you’re saying, but think about this:
The sperm does not have the potential to become human on it’s own, but only with the becoming of one with the ovum.
The ovum does not have the potential to become human on it’s own, but only with the becoming one with the sperm.
Neither are potential human beings without the other- they must be combined.
What is added to an already conceived human zygote to turn him from what you consider “potential” to “actual”?
Nothing is added from the outside except nutrients and water. This is because a human zygote is a complete individual from the moment of conception. Neither the sperm or the egg are unique human individuals, possessing the potential (on their own) to develop into a human being.
Nutrition and water- this is what we all require to grow and develop as human beings.
Also, I know this is a little redundant, but what happens to a sperm if it does not fertilize the egg? It dies. This is the sperm’s potential on it’s own. To live, try to fertilize an egg, and die.
What happens to the ovum if it does not become fertilized? Well, I think you know the answer. Do you see what I’m saying? The potential is there, for sure, but only with the addition of something else to ovum or sperm. Without it, there is no potential at all.
Hippie,
“Of course it lends itself to this extension. You make the argument that the one who provides support may choose to kill the one she is supporting just because she wants to and simply because she has the power to do it.”
It doesn’t lend itself to that extension because that was not my argument.
“The civil rights movement was a continuation of moral progress specifically as to equal protection under the law.”
And yet you are trying to deny women equal protection under the law…how progressive.
“Legal abortion is a trend in the opposite direction of the progress that began in 1776 and continued till 1973.”
It isn’t in the opposite direction. It’s an affirmation of the same beliefs that fueled the civil rights movement.
Hippie,
“does society have the right to say we can kill those who cannot demonstrate their will to live?”
I never made anything close to this argument.
“It is not about the will to live, it is about the right to kill.”
Most of the time, there is nothing to kill when a woman gets an abortion.
Elizabeth,
“My mother and I have talked about this several times. She believes that when terrible crimes or suffering happen to people to the point of death that God takes their soul from their body to Heaven with Him so they do not have to endure the trauma/suffering. So while their physical body may still be suffering, their soul is not.”
So what happens when a person is tortured to the point of death and then someone, say the police intervene and the person’s life is saved? Does God remove their soul when the suffering begins and then restore it or does he not remove it at all?
I don’t really know the specifics, Enigma..it was just something me and my mom were talking about/speculating upon. But I imagine it happens in situations where the death is inevitable..as in..no one intervenes. Like I said, it was just something my mother and I were talking to each other about and just thought I would throw it out there.
Elizabeth,
When I read that, I realized it could be construed as attacking. That isn’t how I meant it; it is in my nature to probe until I have all the answers.
It is an intriguing concept.
Elizabeth,
Additionally, what is your conception of the soul?
Is it what I would refer to as one’s consciousness or is it something else entirely?
Enigma,
No worries, I didn’t feel attacked. The concept I was speaking about above was just something my mother and I had spoken about rather in-depthly at times and just thought I would share. We mainly talked about it when we would hear about horrible crimes against children in the news because that is what sparked it I guess. As to your other question about what my conception of the soul is, that may take me some time to explain and I have GOT to wrap some Christmas presents for the family. There is a lot and I have yet to even start. I will attempt to answer you tonight after I put the baby to bed and I am able to think about my answer more!
Bethany: Doug, I understand what you’re saying, but think about this: The sperm does not have the potential to become human on it’s own, but only with the becoming of one with the ovum. The ovum does not have the potential to become human on it’s own, but only with the becoming one with the sperm.
Now hang on here, B – we were talking about “a human” and/or the different meanings of “human being.” A sperm or egg can be just as human as you & me.
……
Neither are potential human beings without the other- they must be combined.
Again, depends on how we define it, but yes – I certainly see the difference between them that you are referring to.
……
What is added to an already conceived human zygote to turn him from what you consider “potential” to “actual”?
I don’t consider it that way. I grant you that the zygote is a “human being,” under several definitions. Under those, it’s as “actual” as you and me. It also does not have that which goes into some more-specific, less-inclusive defintions. For those, where more is imputed, it may have potential, and when it does, then it may become them, given certain development.
……
Nothing is added from the outside except nutrients and water. This is because a human zygote is a complete individual from the moment of conception. Neither the sperm or the egg are unique human individuals, possessing the potential (on their own) to develop into a human being. Nutrition and water- this is what we all require to grow and develop as human beings.
I don’t really disagree there, yet it’s all “change taking place,” whether it’s the addition of sperm and egg or the addition of nutrition – and I think I’d put water under “nutrition” too.
Between you and me, I agree that at conception it’s a “human being.” Plenty there for me to say that.
Doug
Bethany: what happens to a sperm if it does not fertilize the egg? What happens to the ovum if it does not become fertilized?
They both climb up to the top of the Golden Gate Bridge, look at each other, hold hands, and jump off.
yllas: Is the fetus human?
Of course, yllas, and I’ve never said anything to the contrary. The rest of what you posted was just more little-league foolishness.
Doug
AB Laura: Hey Doug, How was the company Christmas party?
Heh – Laura, I guess you could say it was “serious,” if you know what I mean.