Animated pro-life conversation with abortion proponent Elsa
Yesterday I posted an animated cartoon that blog friend Lauren made of a conversation she had here with pro-abort Kat.
Lauren didn’t stop with Kat. She has also animated a conversation she had with pro-abort Elsa on the “Stanek weekend question: Have you ever been pro-choice?” post. People not involved in the pro-life movement will likely find these animations ridiculous and unbelievable. Pro-lifers like me find them tragically comedic, because we’ve all had the very same nonsensical conversations with pro-aborts several times over….
Actual excerpted comments:
Elsa: I believe that abortion ends the liminal state of pregnancy. I believe it puts an end to the potential of life. That is indeed tragic for me to think about. There is so much potential in every human life…. I do not believe that early abortions (which make up the vast percentage of abortions that are performed in the United States) kill a baby. If I believed that, I would be pro-life….
Elsa: As I said before, I believe in liminality. I believe we can be in more than one place at once. I believe we can be both alive and not alive, good and not good, alone and not alone. A good example of this paradox is the Trinity, which allows us to believe that Christ is both God and man at once. Do I believe that abortion kills a living human being? Yes. Do I believe that is the same thing as murdering someone? No. You can call it irrational; I call it making sense of the human experience.
Lauren: No, Elsa, I call it using flowery language to justify supporting killing another human being. You have made sense of nothing. You have simply introduced a calming lie into your life in order to quiet the uncomfortable reality that many wome, your friends included, have killed their own children…. I’ll give you one thing, Elsa, you have made an original claim. I’ve heard the “potential life” line before, but never with such flourish.
Elsa: What can I say? I’m a writer. I revel in the greyness of life.
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.
Beyond childish… So you cherry pick certain phrases out of a conversation and do a 20 second anime… How is this in any way helping your anti-choice movement? It just kinda makes you look like jerks…
Distilling a conversation to its essence is not “cherry picking”. This is a reflection of what we’ve come to. Sorry if you don’t like it.
“Distilling a conversation”? Yea that’s not a euphuism for “cherry picking facts” at all… Yep there’s a clear distinction between those to phrases… Yea most conversations need to ferment for a bit before they really get combustible. lol
Wonder what the Biggz animation will look like?
Also note I posted the actual comments from whence the animation was inspired. The complaint of “cherry picking,” aka “heavily edited,” which abortion proponents like you and Planned Parenthood bandy about, don’t fly.
Biggz, if your reading of the comments comes up with a different interpretation, please let me know.
Jill, It’s GOT to be good, with the whole chicken/horse/human thing and all. lol
Thats funny, in a weird twisted way. But is is so true to the way these conversations go. I had a medical student say this to me about abortion :
“To me bodily autonomy IS justice. I firmly believe that taking away a persons bodily autonomy is more unjust than killing an embryo/fetus.” Then she went on to say that her mother could have aborted her and how that doesn’t bother her one bit.
The ridiculousness of the whole thing would be laughable if it weren’t so sad. She wants to teach me about justice and has fooled herself into thinking that she would have been “fine with it” if her mother had killed her. I guarantee she wouldn’t have been fine with it as they were pulling her arms and legs off. It’s a little scary to think that she is going to be a doctor too.
Deanna I can guarantee she would have been fine with being aborted as fetuses have no opinions about anything… They are not self aware. Maybe you should listen to the MED STUDENT!!! How much medical training have you had?
Yes Jill there is a problem when you boil someone’s argument down to a few sentences that don’t make any sense at all just to have a laugh at them. It’s cynical and childish.
Do some reading Bethany… your ignorance is showing…
Deanna, if I only had a nickel for every time an abortion proponent told me that same thing! It’s strange how if you ask them if it would be okay if their mother killed them today (you know, should they became a burden in some way), they for some reason oppose it in that situation. Strange.
Biggz, you’re more than welcome to substantiate any of your claims! I’m not stopping you.
Deanna I can guarantee she would have been fine with being aborted as fetuses have no opinions about anything… They are not self aware.
Neither are newborn babies.
“Yes Jill there is a problem when you boil someone’s argument down to a few sentences that don’t make any sense at all just to have a laugh at them. It’s cynical and childish.
”
So you’re admitting your side’s arguments don’t make sense at all?
“I firmly believe that taking away a persons bodily autonomy is more unjust than killing an embryo/fetus.” – and that’s the argument that will never be beaten.
“…that doesn’t bother her one bit…..she would have been “fine with it” – she wouldn’t have been anything with it. It just wouldn’t be an existent factor.
Your inability to distinguish between a developing fetus and a person who has been born and lived in the full dimensions of the world is why you will never change what happens.
Reality, do you see a difference in killing a newborn baby and a fully grown adult? If so, why?
If not, why not?
Your inability to distinguish between a developing fetus and a person who has been born and lived in the full dimensions of the world is why you will never change what happens.
Reality, I’ve never been to Africa or Asia or the moon. Am I not yet a person?
While nothing is ever absolute Bethany, I see no huge difference between killing a newborn baby and a fully grown adult because they are both in the same world.
I find your question pointless Janet.
While nothing is ever absolute Bethany, I see no huge difference between killing a newborn baby and a fully grown adult because they are both in the same world.
So is an unborn child, Reality. A newborn baby has not lived in the full dimensions of the world- they are not self aware…they don’t have the same level of understanding as an adult…why are they not less worthy of protection than an adult?
Actually, Janet’s question was very relevant to your comment, Reality.
Biggz, it’s not “cherry picking” it’s acurately transcribing the debate in a condensed form. What I put in the movie really was what Elsa was arguing.
Further, she really did run away at the end when she ran out of justifications.
If you don’t like the way other pro-choicers argue, maybe you should run a “How to debate” bootcamp. Of course, you probably shouldn’t be the teacher.
“Yes Jill there is a problem when you boil someone’s argument down to a few sentences that don’t make any sense at all just to have a laugh at them.”
That isn’t what I did, Biggz. What you see is the “short version” of the entire argument. I didn’t leave out any of their “key points” that would suddenly change their ridiculous “logic” into something that made any kind of sense.
Further, my point wasn’t “just to have a laugh at them” but rather to point out the completely illogical “reasoning” that goes on in the pro-choice camp. In all the years I’ve been debating abortion, I have debated exactly two pro-choicers who actually used logic to defend their beliefs. One was on this site. I can’t think of her name any more, but she used to come on here every once in a while and she has her own site. She was great at actually continuing a conversation…I want to say her name started with an E? ( Help me out here guys!)
The rest have all “debated” in the manner of Kat or Elsa.
I’m glad you’ll are doing the animations because even though we might not agree with their opinion we’re giving a voice to it. My audio isn’t working on my computer so hopefully all of it’s being done in a manner that isn’t insulting and is thought provoking. That would probably require a lot of thought though because it kind of hurts when your trying to do the right thing and people not only attack your message but verbally attack you as well.
Bigzz and Reality @ excuse me for saying so but you guys are so full of it! What if your mother had aborted you at 20 weeks? A fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks and that is even a late estimate (yes, I have documentation) .You wouldn’t have enjoyed having your limbs ripped off in the moment it was happening. But, obviously a fetus can’t say so and you can’t hear them screaming for their lives so it’s easy for you guys to pretend as if they don’t matter. And it’s easy for you to pretend that you wouldn’t have minded getting your limbs torn off because it’s not you that it’s happening to. If you wouldn’t have minded then, maybe you don’t mind now. Go try it and see how it feels and then comeback and say it’s ok.
When you’re in a certain stage of sleep, you’re not self-aware. May I kill you?
When you’re under anesthesia to get your tonsils out, you’re not self-aware. May I kill you?
When you pass out drunk after a big kegger on campus, you’re not self-aware. May I kill you?
Crazy abortion fans!! “If my mommy killed me, I wouldn’t be mad.” Well, fine for a walking talking adult or teen to say, but when the abortion instruments come toward developing pre-born children, they try to swim away, even though they are not “self aware.” When mothers try to drown their children in the bathtub, they fight like hell. Are the struggles of older or younger children any different? Nope.
Even a fetus is smarter than an abortion fan: he knows he wants to be alive, though he may not be able to explain it to you until he’s older.
As a grown up who was born a premie, THANK YOU DEANNA!
This next sentence is only for Christians and Jews (you atheists, go look at the banner ads for a moment): The devil’s favorite color is gray.
“Your inability to distinguish between a developing fetus and a person who has been born and lived in the full dimensions of the world is why you will never change what happens.”
You are right about be not being able to distinguish the difference because there is no difference! A developing child is worth as much as any other human. Just like a old elderly man is worth as much as a twenty year old. You do not have the right to sacrifice one for the other. When you start talking that nonsense you are on a slippery slope, next comes geriatric genocide, then the euthanasia of disabled people (if there is any left after abortionists snuff them out in the womb),. This sort of thinking produces the Pol Potts and the Hitler’s of the world. Eugenics is an ugly beast!!
FYI: Summary of a presentation given by Dr. Paul Ranalli on “Pain, Fetal Development, and Partial-birth abortion” on June 27, 1997.
The fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks. This is probably a conservatively late estimate, but it is scientifically solid. Elements of the pain-conveying system (spino-thalamic system) begin to be assembled at 7 weeks; enough development has occurred by 12-14 weeks that some pain perception is likely, and continues to build through the second trimester. By 20 weeks, the spino- thalamic system is fully established and connected.
There are three different indicators providing evidence that the fetus feels pain.
Anatomical
– pain receptors spread over the body in stages: 8-16 weeks
– pain impulse connections in the spinal cord link up and reach the thalamus (the brain’s reception center): 7-20 weeks (summarized by Anand, K.J.S., Atlanta)
Physiological/Hormonal
– fetuses withdraw from painful stimulation
– two types of stress hormones, normally released by adults subjected to pain, are released by adults subjected to pain, are releases in massive amounts by the fetus subjected to a needle puncture to draw a blood sample:
(a) from 19 weeks onward (N. Fisk; London, England)
(b) from 16 weeks onward (J. Partch; Kiel, Germany)
Behavioral
– withdraw from pain
– change in vital signs
A 20-30 week old fetus actually will feel more pain than an adult. The period between 20-30 weeks is a uniquely vulnerable time, since the pain system is fully established, yet the higher level pain-modifying system has barely begun to develop.
Dr. Paul Ranalli is a neurologist at the University of Toronto and acting president of the de Veber Institute for Bioethics and Social Research
Lauren @ 7:13 – that would be Enigma – yes?
Biggz you say fetuses don’t care about being aborted. How do you know? Have you ever asked them? Its sad you say that because In “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” they pulled black families apart and when the mothers wailed for their children and the husbands for their wives the white slave owners said it didn’t matter since black families don’t love each other the way white families do. They dont have feelings like white people.
So this bigotry is still alive now its just directed at people of a certain age not a certain skin color.
Reality, since this kid is med school you think she is smarter than everyone? I can top that. My cousin is a pro-life family practice doctor who has delivered thousands of babies. He says abortion is wrong. That it kills a human being. He tops the med student okay?
I don’t think it was Enigma…maybe it was. I want to say that it was an actual girl’s name.
This point was debated recently Bethany and I find the claim that a developing fetus in the womb occupies the same environment as someone who is post-birth to be unrealistic. A newborn does occupy the same environment as an adult so is worthy of the same protection.
Janet’s question is pointless because she shares the same environment as you and I, be it in america or asia.
“What if your mother had aborted you at 20 weeks?” – um, nothing.
“A fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks” – newborns feel pain too, but how many boys do you know who have any memory of the pain of something like circumcision?
The segue to end all segues Deanna? What a bogus extrapolation!
@reality “What if your mother had aborted you at 20 weeks?” – um, nothing.“A fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks” – newborns feel pain too, but how many boys do you know who have any memory of the pain of something like circumcision?
So, that is your justification for advocating for pulling their limbs off and crushing their skulls, is because they have no memory of the pain (BECAUSE THEY ARE DEAD) then it’s ok to do that to them? That is so illogical! If I cut your arms and legs off and let you bleed to death you won’t remember it either so it’s ok that I do that to you? Absurd!
Do you have any other standard for personhood apart from physical detachment, Reality?
Lauren,
That would be my friend Enigma. Brilliant pro-choicer. She “gets it.” Many of he pro-choicers here could learn a thing or two from here.
Reality, what difference does the environment the fetus lives in make to the question of whether it is a human being or not? Astronauts who don’t share the same environment, the same atmosphere or same planet with us are human beings with human rights.
I guarantee you, your animation is going to be a doozy!
Alright, two votes for Enigma. That must be who I’m thinking of. :)
“That is so illogical!” – it’s perfectly logical.
“If I cut your arms and legs off and let you bleed to death you won’t remember it either so it’s ok that I do that to you?” – no, it’s too late for that. I was born and exist in the same environment as you.
What did you have in mind Lauren?
Astronauts have been born and lived in the same environment as you and I Lori.
Yeah, animations. So real.
I define personhood as being a human being. I’m asking about your definition.
Is physical detachment a necessary condition for personhood, in your view?
“I firmly believe that taking away a persons bodily autonomy is more unjust than killing an embryo/fetus.” – and that’s the argument that will never be beaten.
Let’s try. First, let’s examine how society treats both violations of bodily autonomy vs. killing in general.
Rape= Criminal prosecution, to be sure, but will not result in the death penalty, even if the victim is a child.
Murder=May result in the death penalty.
Clearly, our society believes that it is worse to kill another person than to rape another person.
Do you disagree?
Reality@ no, it’s too late for that. I was born and exist in the same environment as you.
So you were fortunate enough to not be killed by your mother but you wont give another the same good fortune. Thats almost like gloating, “Well, I’m alive so who cares about everyone else.” That is the epitome of self-centerdness.
And again, WHAT does “environment have to do with anything? I think that for every pro-choice argument that we knock down you guys go think up new ones that are more ridiculous than the last.
Let me ask you a question. Have you ever done a search on google for pictures of aborted babies? If not you seriously need to. Look at early ones, mid ones and late ones. It’s easy to talk the talk but you need to go look at them and then come back and say they don’t matter. Let me tell you ahead of time. I have given that challenge to practically every pro-choicer that I have talked to and not one has been brave enough to take me up on the challenge. Why is that?
“Thats almost like gloating” – no, no gloating involved. It’s simply that some women decide that termination is their least worse course of action. And a fetus is not the same as you or I.
“Have you ever done a search on google for pictures of aborted babies” – I don’t need to, I get shown enough here.But if it makes you happy I will.
“I have given that challenge to practically every pro-choicer that I have talked to and not one has been brave enough to take me up on the challenge.” – now why do I find that hard to believe? Any pro-choicer that visits this site or similar or drives past one of your protest gatherings with placards has seen the images you speak of.
Lauren! please do Reality next. About the environment etc…
@Reality, It really saddens me that people are getting so cold hearted that they can look at pictures of dead babies or parts of dead babies and shrug their shoulders and say, “so what?’ It doesn’t matter what argument you pull out, nothing is going to change the fact that it’s about dead babies. You keep saying that “A fetus is not the same as you or I.” trying to convince us that they are less than. If it were a choice between a fetus dying and a mother dying,a true life of the mother issue, which are almost non-existant, I could see the point. But we are not talking apples for apples or life for life. We are talking about death for school, relationships, careers, laziness, money, etc. I am not trying to minimize the situations of women who are in true crisis but the reality is that most abortions are for convenience or self-centered reasons. Very few fall into a true crisis category. So,no, absolutely not, convenience or school or whatever else abortions are done for do not justify the death of a child. ever!
No, no, no Lauren, it’s not about physical detachment. It’s all about the TREES!!! It is necessary to have either touched a tree or had tree pollen fall on you in order to be fully human with human rights.
Just ask Reality, trees and dogs were the deciding factor of whether or not one can be torn limb from limb.
It’s not cold-heartedness Deanna, it’s being realistic or pragmatic. Pro-choicers oo and ah over newborns just as fervently as anti-choicers. Because most people do not see a fetus as the same as you and me. You don’t like it but thats the situation. And even though science says it’s a human, people simply don’t see a fetus as being the same.
“But we are not talking apples for apples or life for life” – exactly.
Well said ElizabethG, let me know when a fetus gets its hand licked by a dog.
Reality
This is in response to your 8:01 post:
Is your argument because someone cannot remember pain it’s o.k. to inflict pain on them because they won’t remember. How would you determine that a child that’s been circumsized does not remember being circumcized. Before a child is capable of speaking just because they can not articulate verbally they are hurting the cry of pain lets you know there is pain. Of course there spirit would remember they just might not be able to converse with you about it. Take some of that common sense you have and form your own conclusions. When my son was so sick and I would hear babies cry I knew they were hurting but they were believing that same “””” your talking about. A few years ago the medical journal came to the conclusion that babies were indeed capable of feeling pain. Go figure. Babies have there own language as adults we’re suppose to be able to figure out when there in pain. So for as long as the medical community has been aware of the nervous system and its function do you really think the very smart believed a pre-born was not capable of feeling pain. Until you start thinking for yourself, honestly start thinking for yourself, please don’t reply to my post. I’ve reached my quota for ignorance and will be enjoying a quiet respite from lies for a season while my spirit heals.
Bethany, Lauren, and Deanne
I’m glad that your smart enough to know that when your right your right and when your personhood is attacted you keep on keeping on. Should medical school be a dream for any of you let me know and I will pray.
@reality “It’s not cold-heartedness Deanna, it’s being realistic or pragmatic.
No, it’s cold hearted! And shrugging your shoulders at dead babies is realistic about what exactly?
“Pro-choicers oo and ah over newborns just as fervently as anti-choicers. Because most people do not see a fetus as the same as you and me.”
So,how do yo see a fetus exactly, you have been arguing all evening about how they are worth nothing. I don;t think you see them the same way that I do.
“You don’t like it but thats the situation. And even though science says it’s a human, people simply don’t see a fetus as being the same.”
Ah, yes, you finally understand! That is the crux of the problem, “People don’t see a fetus as the same”
This is EXACTLY why Jill does what she does and why I do what I, and multiple others, and why we stand on streets trying to get the word out, trying to make people understand that a fetus matters so that they WILL see them the same.
Here we are, the comment thread in which the Reality explains that making direct physical contact with trees are what makes us human and gives us value. Tasting, , smelling, hearing, feeling things in this world mean nothing if you haven’t hugged a tree.
https://www.jillstanek.com/2011/04/jivin-js-life-links-4-18-11/#comments
Ask anyone who was circumcised as an infant if they can remember the pain or anything about it at all. They can’t. Certainly it hurt but in the grand scheme of things….
“Spirit”?
So if a fetus beyond a certain stage can feel pain it is not something that they or anyone else will remember or ‘carry’ in any way. I can understand that you find that harsh but it won’t stop abortion. It’s got nothing to do with language.
Are you a vegetarian? Ever suffered an injury? Pain exists everywhere. The word we are looking for may be ‘context’.
oh I hope that last post went through! ;)
That would be my friend Enigma. Brilliant pro-choicer. She “gets it.” Many of he pro-choicers here could learn a thing or two from here.
Bobby,
What is “it”? I guess I’m really dumb, ’cause I don’t follow…
@Reality, I wrote an article in your honor and posted it today. You can get to it by clicking on my name above. The title even has your name in it.
Well Reality – regardless of the arbitrary ‘ … let me know when a fetus gets its hand licked by a dog’ as the measurement of human-ness or value… How about this?
A very specialized surgery was done on a pre-born human suffering from spina bifida. Since this surgery was so early in gestation and very unusual, a photographer was on hand to capture the surgery for posterity.
Right after the surgeon opened up the uterus, and what happened next was captured on the film.
It’s not a fetus’ hand being licked by a dog – but a baby’s hand touching the finger of the surgeon. Since there is contact between two humans, I assume that is sufficient to meet your requirements. Take a look. ;)
Photo by Michael Clancy
Dr. Joseph Bruner at Vanderbilt is known for his work in fetal surgery, especially on babies with spina bifida, a condition in which the spine does not close properly during development.
Vanderbilt confirms that little Samuel Armus was 21 weeks-old in the womb when this surgery took place in 1999, which made the surgery very risky because if anything went wrong, the baby could survive on its own. Dr. Bruner and his colleagues, however, had done numerous successful spina bifida surgeries on fetuses that are not yet viable.
In this particular surgery, photographer Michael Clancy was in the operating room to document surgery on such a young fetus.
Clancy said that “out of the corner of my eye I saw the uterus shake, but no one’s hands were near it. It was shaking from within. Suddenly, an entire arm thrust out of the opening, then pulled back until just a little hand was showing. The doctor reached over and lifted the hand, which reacted and squeezed the doctor’s finger. As if testing for strength, the doctor shook the tiny fist.”
…
The surgery was successful and little Samuel Armas was born on December 2, 1999.
“shrugging your shoulders at dead babies is realistic about what exactly?” – that abortion always has, does and will take place. No amount of ‘science’, dna or whatever will change peoples’ thinking when it comes down to them and their situation.
Comprehension assist – “Because most people do not see a fetus as being the same as you and me.” note the word ‘as’ in my original wording.
“So,how do yo see a fetus exactly” – a potential person.
“I don;t think you see them the same way that I do.” – has my ‘comprehension assist’ helped you with this one?
“This is EXACTLY why Jill does what she does and why I do what I, and multiple others, and why we stand on streets trying to get the word out, trying to make people understand that a fetus matters so that they WILL see them the same” – yes, yes I know! But guess what. You lose. Because even if people say they agree with you they revert to what they want if something unintended happens. Especially when they learn that your campaign is not 100% as advertised.
Reality: “Well said ElizabethG, let me know when a fetus gets its hand licked by a dog.”
Hahaha!
You heard it folks! Straight from the guy named “Reality.” You can’t debate the mentally deranged, so why bother? At least he is sort of responding to people, even if it is with material drummed up from a vacuous intellect. Where are the smart pro-choicers? As crazy as SoMG is, at least he was smart. He has been the only one. Where are they?
@reality, “Especially when they learn that your campaign is not 100% as advertised.”
If you want to know what our “campaign” is go read the article that I wrote for you. I don’t think you have any idea what our campaign is.
Reality’s counterpart in the 19th century: “Slaves are not of a true rational human mind; they are mere animals. Show me a Negro that can write a truly great novel. Until then, Negros are surely not human persons. No amount of pictures or animal Negros petting their children will change anyone’s minds!”
Ha! Well Janet, I mean that she understands what the whole abortion debate is about. In other words, you’ll never see her really confused about the distinction between human beings and human persons, or confusing a personhood theory with bodily rights theory, etc. Many of our current pro-choicers make these very fundamental mistakes when attempting to defend their pro-choice position, which shows that they really don’t know why they are pro-choice. Or, for example, we’ll make analogies for why this or that personhood or bodily autonomy theory does not work, and many pro-choicers will simply not get the analogy at all. Then, rather than admitting that they don’t get it, they will respond to it by saying something that is completely irrelevant or get stuck on some semantics, or some other point which demonstrates that they don’t even get what it is we’re arguing about; what the pro-life view is trying to defend or even claim. Enigma does not make any of these really bad mistakes. That is essentially what I mean when I say she gets it… and pray for her, Janet… if she was on our side… my goodness…
Is this the best way to spend one’s time? Shouldn’t you all be helping drug addicted mothers get clean? There’s got to be something more worthwhile than making really bad animations, right?
Reality
This is in response to your 10:11 post:
The real words your looking for are willfully ignorant. If your not adult enough to feel a little responsible for the safety of those who cannot defend themselves go ahead. Wrap yourself in your deceit until your good and comfy while babies are being mutilated and burned in their mothers’ womb. Of course they won’t remember when there thrown out like yesterdays thrash. But you and others like you will be comfy when you wrap yourself in mercy intended for someone a little more helpless than you are. What’s wrong with that picture? I know somewhere along the way adults are suppose to be adults and stop expecting pre-borns to pay for their poor choices.
It took me about as long to make the video as it took you to find the website, watch the video and write your comment. Why aren’t you working to help crack addicts, Ashtar? Why do you hate women!?
10 minutes to highlight how the pro-choice movement is based on a complete lack of reason is time well spent.
Goodness, where do I start!
Deanna, I’m not sure that ‘in your honor’ is quite accurate. Surely you mean ‘spurred on by you’? Are you that desperate for topic material? Pity it was all based on a dream clearly lacking any reality. I took a brief glance at the previous article too (groan, yes I read both), nothing quite like the sin of ommission and discredited claims to misrepresent the truth is there.
Deanna, I have spent enough time on this site and others to know what your campaign consists of. The use of simplistic, semantic high school science to extrapolate all sorts of allusions, claiming discredited studies and links as facts, citing certain elements of the scientific establishment who let their personal position overule the truth and engendering a victim mentality to encourage people to feel ‘damaged’ over something that they otherwise wouldn’t.
Ever heard of ‘reflexive action’ joyfromillonois?
Hello Oliver, got anything relevant to say? Your attempt at the slavery comparison is stale. The more accurate comparison is the denial of womens’ control over their own bodies with the denial of their right to vote.
That sounds like an admission that your argument is not winnable Bobby.
Reality @ “The use of simplistic, semantic high school science to extrapolate all sorts of allusions, claiming discredited studies and links as facts, citing certain elements of the scientific establishment who let their personal position overule the truth and engendering a victim mentality to encourage people to feel ‘damaged’ over something that they otherwise wouldn’t.”
Just as expected REALITY when someone tells you guys the truth you immediately try to discredit everything they say, documented or otherwise. Congratulations,you are a true full blooded pro-choicer.!
“If your not adult enough to feel a little responsible for the safety of those who cannot defend themselves go ahead” – that’s your subjective opinion Myrtle. My subjective opinion is that I am adult enough to acknowledge that those who already walk amongst us come first and that women have chosen abortion for millenia and always will. Hence it’s legality in almost every enlightened nation. And the fact is that it is only in recent history that women have been in a position where they have been able to defend themselves.
“10 minutes to highlight how the pro-choice movement is based on a complete lack of reason is time well spent.” – you mean ’10 minutes spent regurgitating the same stuff in a different format without adding anything new’. Smacks of desperation.
“Just as expected REALITY when someone tells you guys the truth you immediately try to discredit everything they say, documented or otherwise.” – no, not everything. Just the alleged breast cancer link, the equating of ‘human’ with ‘person’ based on science, the misrepresentative images sometimes used and the seeking out and inducement of people.
“Congratulations,you are a true full blooded pro-choicer.!” – why thank you. I am indeed fully pro-choice. That even includes yours.
@Reality “The “dream” was as real as it gets! Just because you don’t want to admit it doesn’t make it not reality.
Show one shred of evidence that anything was omitted and one shred of evidence that anything was discredited or otherwise we will know that you pulled that out of thin air because frankly, you can’t handle the truth!
Reality: “Hello Oliver, got anything relevant to say? Your attempt at the slavery comparison is stale.”
Do you actually want to debate whether the lick of a dog grants personhood? Surely you do not meant that a dog has magical personhood powers, right?
What is your argument anyways? “Abortion happens, get over it!” Murder happens, theft happens, pollution happens, spousal abuse happens. Are you suggesting that no one bother to overturn entrenched views that propagate the abuse of other humans? (You brought the example of women’s voting rights. Don’t you know that at the time, they had no rights, and that for a long time, the mainstream society did not view it as a fundamental right?)
The “staleness” of the comparison is irrelevant to its aptness, by the way.
Of course, I know I have wasted my time. I was better off just laughing at your stupidity.
Unless you can show me photos or give me an address to go to so I can see your hall of horrors for myself I’ll just have to assume that you are still in your reverie.
Shred of evidence!!! In regard to a totally unrealistic dream scenario??? Where was the truth?
“Abortion happens, get over it!”. Marriage happens, successful surgery happens, teeth-pulling happens, sex happens, enjoying food happens, falling over happens. What’s your point? Your attempt to compare abortion with crimes such as murder and spouse abuse is also stale.
“Are you suggesting that no one bother to overturn entrenched views that propagate the abuse of other humans?” – certainly not. We ended slavery, we gave women the vote, and we ceased enforced gestation.
Your arguments are about as ‘apt’ as a ‘dad joke’.
What is your point then Reality? I asked you, yet you failed to provide one.
(By the way, I don’t think you know what the word apt means.)
Where did you ask what my point is Oliver?
Your arguments are not pertinent to the facts of the point and you do not display acumen in your application of comparisons.
By the way Deanna, I meant to tell you earlier that I am mightily impressed with the image at the top of the ‘shoutingitloud’ page. An image of humanity in our environment, love it!
Reality: “Where did you ask what my point is Oliver?”
I asked originally: “What is your argument anyways? “Abortion happens, get over it!””
How is that hard to understand?
Reality: “Your arguments are not pertinent to the facts of the point…”
You haven’t made a point apparently Reality. Why else would you continue to ignore my question? So, how can I make a pertinent argument?
Reality: “…and you do not display acumen in your application of comparisons.”
You know, you have to do more than just say that my comparisons are like dad jokes. You have to actually make an argument why they are bad. So far, you have not done so.
“Argument’, ‘point’, make up your mind. An argument supports or negates a point, they are two different things. So you hadn’t asked my ‘point’. But…I have already answered your question. Yes ‘get over it’.
“how can I make a pertinent argument?” – you don’t appear to be able to so far..
You compared abortion with murder and spousal abuse. that is a false comparison. As I said, abortion is comparative to ending slavery and giving women the right to vote. So I have made an argument, more than once.
Reality: ““Argument’, ‘point’, make up your mind. An argument supports or negates a point, they are two different things. So you hadn’t asked my ‘point’.”
No, a premise supports a point, or conclusion, which may (or may not) be the negation of another “point.” In combination, a premise and conclusion create an argument. So, by asking for your argument, I actually was asking for both your “point” and your supporting evidence. Don’t play that game with me, Reality. I assure you that you are not well equipped.
Reality: “But…I have already answered your question. Yes ‘get over it’.”
You never did answer that. You quoted me when I said this, and then seemed to totally misunderstand what I said. Either way, now that you have stated your point….
How does “get over it” have any bearing on the issue? Are you suggesting that because abortion has been around for many years and that many people support it that it is justified? Why does this mentality not apply to virtually every other human phenomenon since the beginning of time? Countless atrocities have been supported for a longer time than has abortion, yet you agree that those past supporting actions were indeed atrocities. Please clarify exactly what makes abortion different. (Something else you have yet to do.)
Reality: “you don’t appear to be able to so far..”
Right. I needed you to state some sort of point first. Now we can continue.
Reality: “You compared abortion with murder and spousal abuse. that is a false comparison. As I said, abortion is comparative to ending slavery and giving women the right to vote. So I have done so, more than once.”
No, saying something is false is not an argument. Here, maybe I can use your earlier confusion to clarify your mistake.
Earlier, you thought an argument was used to support a point, when it, in fact, contains both the point and its supporting evidence. When you state a point, such as “you are wrong” you have to also back it up with some sort of reasoning such as “because of this evidence.” This is argumentation. So, you have done this so far…
Reality’s conclusion: “that is a false comparison.”
Reality’s premise: “???????????”
So, like I said, you have to do more than just deny my comparison. You have to provide some sort of argument against it. Keep in mind, since you are having issues understanding basic reasoning tonight, my comparison is designed to show that accepted norms, similar to abortion, can be overturned, as evinced in women’s suffrage, the overturning of slavery, etc, etc.
I’ll overlook your confusion, at least you can see that I made a ‘point’. Don’t bite off more than you can chew.
Premise:
[n] a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn; “on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not to play”
[v] set forth beforehand, often as an explanation; “He premised these remarks so that his readers might understand…”
[v] take something as preexisting
[v] furnish with a preface
but not evidence.
“How does “get over it” have any bearing on the issue?” – we have the motorcar, planes, television, medicines, refrigerators, education and electricity. There are those who don’t like some of those but guess what? Most of those in the world who don’t have them yearn for them.
“Please clarify exactly what makes abortion different.” – it is not an atrocity. It’s a social advancement, like women voting and the end of slavery.
Well then, despite the fact that your false comparions are self-evident I’ll explain further. Abortion is not a crime. It is not immoral. It is a social advancement. There is no evidence to the contrary. Only subjective opinion, much of it based on an ethos which is not based in reality and also seeks to subjugate women at the behest of men.
“my comparison is designed to show that accepted norms, similar to abortion, can be overturned” – yes they certainly can. “as evinced in women’s suffrage, the overturning of slavery, etc, etc” – is that another attempt to slip in your false comparison?
I note with interest that you provide not one scintilla of evidence to support your claims of abortion being comparable to murder and spouse abuse.
Reality I don’t see why the fact that humans begin our development in our mothers’ wombs somehow lessens our humanity during that stage. If embryos could develop in incubators, they would be fully human and worthy of protection (since they’re in the “same environment”), but if they are in the location that every human being is meant to be at that stage, they aren’t worthy of protection? If so, in what other situation is our humanity and worth based on our physical location?
Reality: “Premise….not evidence”
Are you really doing this? The definition of evidence is “grounds for a belief.” Hence, evidence is used a premise.
Look, you can quote the dictionary, which is really amazing (I have Google too!) but you don’t understand these terms. Don’t pretend that you do. I teach this stuff for a living. You already embarrassed yourself when you claimed I did not ask for your point when I asked for your argument, do you really intend to further embarrass yourself by misunderstanding the concept of a premise? Moving on….
Reality: “we have the motorcar, planes, television, medicines, refrigerators, education and electricity. There are those who don’t like some of those but guess what? Most of those in the world who don’t have them yearn for them.”
And this matters how? People yearned for slaves for thousands and thousands and thousands of years. Was that something people should have just “accepted?” I do not see how the prevalence of a phenomenon has any bearing on whether it could be overturned. Please explain the rational basis for the justification you assume.
Reality: “it is not an atrocity. It’s a social advancement, like women voting and the end of slavery.”
So your point about the justification of abortion…rests on the justification of abortion? Let me follow you then. Abortion is not immoral, and we should get over it, because unlike all sorts of bad things in the past that we did not get over, abortion is not immoral.
You do realize that this is circular reasoning? Besides, your argument presumes that abortion is not immoral, the very thing we are all debating, you must first establish that abortion is immoral in order to make your following point.
Reality: “Abortion is not a crime. It is not immoral. It is a social advancement.”
Slavery was not considered a crime. It was not considered immoral. Eugenics was considered a social advancement. What’s your point? You are actually drawing similarities between my examples and abortion, not differences. The people now think exactly about abortion as the people then thought about spousal abuse, slavery, eugenics, etc, etc.
Reality: “There is no evidence to the contrary. Only subjective opinion, much of it based on an ethos which is not based in reality and also seeks to subjugate women at the behest of men.”
First of all, we are talking about morality, so unless you subscribe to a universal moral system (which I doubt since you are a pragmatist) subjective opinion is important. However, even if you still denounce subjective opinion, it easy enough to prove abortion immoral through contingent principles. In other words, if you believe all of the things you do, you must also believe abortion is immoral. More on that in a second.
Second of all, there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. The fact that no other human organisms are allowed to be so mistreated at the expense of others’ rights is an example. Hell, the very fact that the preborn fetus/zygote/whatever IS a human organism is evidence to a degree.
Reality: “yes they certainly can.”
Okay then, you don’t think we should “just get over it” then, because you accept that once accepted norms can change. So, in fact, we should NOT get over it if we believe that abortion is as immoral as slavery. Gotcha. Why are you arguing here again?
Reality: “I note with interest that you provide not one scintilla of evidence to support your claims of abortion being comparable to murder and spouse abuse.”
Sure I do. At one point in time in history, it was socially acceptable to do those things. In fact, almost all civilized societies promoted them and accepted them. Yet, the accepted norms that they were changed with the goal of securing rights for a previously neglected group of humanity. Therefore, social norms can change, and therefore, we are justified in trying to bring about change if we believe it will secure rights for a neglected group of humanity.
See, my argument hinges on whether abortion is immoral. Your argument also hinges on it, although moreso, (since I am only claiming it is justifiable to seek change for something I believe in, whereas you are not only suggesting I shouldnt seek change, but that what I believe in is also wrong.) So, you are really just getting back to the bottom line discussion: “Is abortion immoral?”
So, since Reality is really just arguing whether abortion is immoral, let’s get down to the nuts and bolts.
I’ll start. Abortion is immoral because it denies the rights of a human being.
The preborn are human beings as all human beings because they are separate human organisms. That they are separate human organisms is biological fact. These beings are subject to protection and nurturing not as a function of intelligence or ability or participation in society. They are beings subject to protection and nurturing simply because they are living human organisms. Everyone already believes this, upon retrospection, as even the most mentally ill human is protected and nurtured, regardless of individual viability. This is also supported because human infants are not self-aware, nor are they more intelligent than nearly any animal, yet they are protected and given rights to nurturing. Although it is irrelevant why we all agree with this notion (since we all do,) the idea of protecting a vulnerable, useless human such a young child, mentally ill or handicapped adult, or a senile elder, stems from the innate idea that if we were in that position, we would want to be helped, even if we were incapable of understanding this want. Regardless, we all do believe this and thus all living human organisms are deserving of rights and protections (even if you don’t want to call them persons exactly.)
Abortion denies the right of the preborn human by removing from it nurturing. We all agree that adult parents are obligated to their progeny already. Take for example a parent caring for a 2 month old. We all agree that the parent must care for that child, even at the partial expense of his/her rights, until a suitable replacement guardian can be found. You may ask, what rights does a parent give up? Well, the most fundamental right of all: autonomy. A lot of people get upset that a parent gives up bodily autonomy to care for a child, yet bodily autonomy is just a kind of personal autonomy. Autonomy is still partially sacrificed as part of the obligation of child rearing. A parent must feed, clothe, house, love, etc a child that is under his/her care. These are all parts of nurturing that a parent must provide. When a child is no longer breastfeeding, or a suitable replacement for breast feeding is found such as formula or baby food, that child no longer has a claim to bodily autonomy. However, that child still has a claim to general autonomy, which is the parent of bodily autonomy. So, we already agree that a child is entitled to a portion of its parent’s autonomy. In the case of pregnancy, the parent must provide nurturing in the form of food, water, and shelter. Her autonomy is indeed infringed upon, but in the same way any parent has his/her autonomy infringed upon. The only difference is the specific kind of autonomy. Since there is nothing specifically special about bodily autonomy, (we give this right up in part to be a member of a functioning society – think cavity searches for criminals – so the precedent is already there) there is no reason why a mother would not be obligated to her genetic offspring until a suitable alternative is found. As soon as a mechanical womb exists, I am all for the mother abandoning the child as soon as possible.
Okay, you wanted the argument. There is a starter. Go ahead, point by point, and let me know exactly what is wrong, and most importantly, why. I promise to respond in full.
“The definition of evidence is “grounds for a belief.” Hence, evidence is used a premise.” Are you really doing this??
“I teach this stuff for a living.” – sure glad you never taught me.
“You already embarrassed yourself when you claimed I did not ask for your point when I asked for your argument” – I disagree, on both premises.
“Abortion is not immoral, and we should get over it, because unlike all sorts of bad things in the past that we did not get over, abortion is not immoral” – and now a false premise!?! Trying to insert an assumption that abortion is a bad thing, tut tut.
“You are actually drawing similarities between my examples and abortion, not differences” – no, you keep trying to compare abortion with ‘bad’ things like slavery and murder, I compare it with positive things like the abolition of slavery and the introduction of womens’ rights.
“The people now think exactly about abortion as the people then thought about spousal abuse, slavery, eugenics, etc, etc.” – I can’t decide whether this is more false assertion or an attempt to set a vanatge point. YOU think about it that way.
“The fact that no other human organisms are allowed to be so mistreated at the expense of others’ rights is an example.” – do you mean the ‘defence of others’ rights? That’s not evidence that abortion is immoral.
“So, in fact, we should NOT get over it if we believe that abortion is as immoral as slavery. Gotcha” – ya think? Thinking it does not make it so.
“At one point in time in history, it was socially acceptable to do those things. In fact, almost all civilized societies promoted them and accepted them” – as was enforced gestation. It no longer is. Rights were secured for women.
“therefore, we are justified in trying to bring about change if we believe it will secure rights for a neglected group of humanity” – yes, and in this case it was women.
“since I am only claiming it is justifiable to seek change for something I believe in, whereas you are not only suggesting I shouldnt seek change, but that what I believe in is also wrong” – yep, so what.
“So, you are really just getting back to the bottom line discussion: “Is abortion immoral?” – if you wish to think so. No, its not immoral.
Indulgence time, tomorrow.
Reality: “Are you really doing this??”
See, you can’t just say “are you really doing this” and then…not say any reason against my argument. Not only is it fact, but it is common fact that evidence is used as a premise to support a conclusion. You are making yourself out to be an idiot. Trust me.
Reality: “sure glad you never taught me.”
It might have prevented you from thinking that an argument is wholly distinct from a “point.” That was pretty laughable. I sure hope you haven’t said that in front of other people.
Reality: “I disagree, on both premises.”
How? Why? You don’t really get this game do you?
Reality: “I can’t decide whether this is more false assertion or an attempt to set a vanatge point. YOU think about it that way.”
What the f***? Are you just stupid? I was pointing out that people accepted slavery in the past, until it was overturned by civil rights activists who believed they were right, and that abortion is accepted today, yet pro-lifers, who believe they are right, hope to initiate change in a similar fashion. Read the previous sentence. I said this originally:
“Slavery was not considered a crime. It was not considered immoral. Eugenics was considered a social advancement.”
How would it make sense if I view abortion this way? I view it the opposite way. Hence, the similarities. People viewed slavery the opposite way as well. Pro-lifers are the analog to those people. The accepted norm of abortion is the analog to the accepted norm of slavery.
See, you have to use context clues. Maybe you would have been better off had I also taught you to read critically.
Reality: “Thinking it does not make it so.”
You are right. Thinking it is NOT immoral also does not make it so. There has to be argumentation, something you again fail to supply.
Reality: “as was enforced gestation. It no longer is. Rights were secured for women.”
So you get the analogy. It can apply to you as well.
Reality: “f you wish to think so. No, its not immoral.”
Brilliant argument. Really. It is amazing that your entire post is nothing but statements without any supporting argument. You just say it is so, without trying to make a point. I think I may be talking to an AIM bot.
So, to wrap up. You now accept the analogy and understand that your argument “hey just get over it” is as illogical as telling that to anti-choicers in the 60’s or pro-slavery types in the 19th century. Now, the only thing to make sense of is whether abortion is immoral. I already put out the starting argument, it is now up to you to respond with your own points. Let’s see what happens. (Not exactly hopeful, given your poor track record in this thread so far. Oh well.)
“let me know when a fetus gets its hand licked by a dog.”
I think Reality subconsciously wants her own animated video.
Oliver
Thank you.
What is the point of these animated videos? I like you guys, but I’m gonna go ahead and disagree with you here. It’s mean-spirited, and seems suspiciously like baitingand bullying. It will not help our cause; it will drive people away. It’s unfair, and not at all fruitful.
@Reality,” Unless you can show me photos or give me an address to go to so I can see your hall of horrors for myself I’ll just have to assume that you are still in your reverie.”
Here you go, The House of Horrors, at your request.
http://www.100abortionpictures.com/Aborted_Baby_Pictures_Abortion_Photos/
@Reality “and we ceased enforced gestation.”
So is “enforced gestation”, your new, “making it sound not so horrible catch phrase for killing babies?”
Oliver,
u make awesome points and logical arguments. I’m sure reading ur responses to Reality will be like a mini training for pro-lifers on how to communicate our messege better.
Unfortunately Reality’s main responses basically amount to “I disagree because I disagree” or “That’s your opinion”. She never actually bothers to even try to explain WHY she disagrees with any of your points. She only says that she doesn’t agree with them. Lazy.
Reality is illustrating for all of us that lack of coherent arguments for being pro-choice based in fact and not opinion. All she does is make assertions. She never backs them up with biology, reason, or logic.
@marylee, “What is the point of these animated videos?”
There is a huge difference in a spoken word and a written word as far as impact goes. It is easy in a written word to “miss” a lot of the implication of what is being said. The videos make it so very clear exactly how absurd the pro-choice arguments are. This is important for possible fence sitters to see the ridiculousness of what is being said and also it helps me personally to see it so much clearer.
It’s not mean spirited at all when you are simply quoting the person word for word. How could it be mean to quote them? As I said, all it does is drive home the absurdity.
I see what you’re saying, I do. But it reminds me an awful lot of something that happened to me on another message board, which was flat-out bullying. We know what the abortion advocates who comment on this board think–and we have very long debates with them in the threads. To call them out as if we’re making fun of them seems to be very backwards; I’m not sure what it will accomplish. It goes against the spirit of the pro-life movement.
Pregnancy and abortion arent analogous to anything. The unborn are like slaves–what a riot. Please extend the analogy. If they’re slaves then they need to be liberated. From their mothers. Why stop at criminalizing abortion. There are other things that could be harmful to a fetus, like why not demand that women stop working during pregnancy? Or drinking coffee or taking antidepressants. IF you can say that a woman’s interests in being a physically sovereign entity are secondary to the fetus’ right to life then what stops you from putting other restrictions in place?
Krys @”
Do you seriously equate taking an antidepressant and working with ripping a babies arms and legs off and crushing it’s skull? They are not the same!
“We know what the abortion advocates who comment on this board think.”
We do, but many people do not. They think that the pro-choice argument is based on facts and reason. I did not take anything “out of context” or do anything to twist the words of the pro-choicers. I simply took their words and animated them.
The point is to highlight how illogical these arguments really are in a quick, 1 minute video. Perhaps you aren’t aware of xtranormal and goanimate. They’ve really taken off in the past few months as ways to highlight an absurd situation. Notice that I have not insulted or berated the pro-choicers in question in the slightest.
Krys, I don’t think you understand the concept of an analogy. When making an analogy, one does not assume that every single aspect of the two things compared are the same. An analogy looks at one specific facet of situation and compares it to something that shares that facet.
In this case, both the unborn and slaves share the characteristic of being classified as “non-person” humans. Do you dispute this?
As for the rest of your post, pregnant women are already disallowed from ingesting illegal drugs or alcohol during pregnancy because of the result that such actions have on her child. There’s no reason that this framework would change in the slightest if abortion were illegal. You don’t see Irish women being arrested for drinking coffee during pregnancy, do you Krys? Of course not.
But anyone who visits these boards can clearly read what the vocal abortion-advocates think. I don’t understand why we have to call them out; it seems suspiciously like mocking to me. I dunno. *shrugs*
Krys, when I was pregnant, my pro “choice” friends were all “don’t eat deli meat, it will hurt the baby!” and “I’m glad you quit smoking, it will hurt the baby!” and “stop eating California rolls, you’ll hurt the baby”….but it’s not a baby when it’s not wanted? Abortion kills a baby. Period. Unborn babies are dehumanized by abortion advocates because it’s easier to kill someone when you claim they aren’t human. So yes, the dehumanization of the unborn is quite like the dehumanization of the slaves. Unborn babies aren’t parasites, they are not tumors, they are not part of the woman’s body. They are not invaders. Pregnancy is not a disease or a flaw that needs to be fixed. The rights of the unborn are not diametrically opposed to women’s rights….they are intrinsically linked. It is blatantly obvious that pro-aborts have no actual logic, no scientific integrity, and no intellectual or emotional honesty about what abortion truly is.
“But anyone who visits these boards can clearly read what the vocal abortion-advocates think. I don’t understand why we have to call them out.”
Most people don’t have 2 hours to read through 300 comments. This is a short version for fence sitters.
Reality is obviously a STAUNCH pro-lifer who posts here to make abortion fans look crazy.
“The unborn are like slaves–what a riot. Please extend the analogy. If they’re slaves then they need to be liberated. From their mothers”
Swing and a miss. They are like slaves in that they are treated as sub-human property. They need to be liberated by having their humanity recognized which will preclude subhuman treatments like ownership and murder.
Krys, there are other restrictions in place. A mother who abused meth to kill her pre-born child was charged with a crime. The same mother just got arrested again for stabbing her 6 week old post-born daughter. That’s just.
If a doctor can choose between two or three antidepressants and he prescribes the only one of those that can hurt a pre-born child, when he could have prescribed another just as effectively that didn’t hurt a pre-born child, then he is practicing bad medicine and better hope his malpractice insurance premiums are paid up.
Yes, Krys, mothers or their doctors who do deliberately cause harm to a child are guilty of crimes and should be prosecuted as such.
Caffeine intake can be harmful (even if you’re not pregnant) but it would totally depend on the dosage ingested. If a mother texts her boyfriend that she’s getting rid of the baby then downs two bottles of caffeine pills, yes, that’s a crime. If she stops at Starbucks and gets a half-caf-half-decaf-latte-with-extra-whip-creme, she has not committed a crime. See how easy that is?
“Abortion is immoral because it denies the rights of a human being.” – see, now there’s your problem straight away. As I keep trying to demonstrate, the reality is that most people just don’t see a fetus as being quite as much of a human being as someone they can fully interact with, someone who is fully developed. And all the obfuscating in the world about dna, development stages and disabled people does not change that. A woman with an unwanted pregnancy does not think of a developing fetus as a ‘total’ human being. That’s what you need to ‘get over’.
Simple join-the-dots logic and high school biology does not mandate peoples’ mindsets.
So, do you campaign as vigorously against the death penalty? Do you campaign against other restrictions of ‘human rights’?
“How? Why? You don’t really get this game do you?” – 1. I am not embarrassed. 2. pro-choice people aren’t abiding by the rules that you wish to impose.
Yeah yeah, you keep saying the same thing. That abortion is comparable to bad, immoral and/or illegal acts. I keep saying that it’s comparable to good, just/moral and/or legal acts.
“The accepted norm of abortion is the analog to the accepted norm of slavery.” – utter bunk. You wish it were the accepted norm. It obviously isn’t.
So in summation, peoples’ choices aren’t made under the guise of your beliefs, opinions or logic.
No Deanna, the one described in the unreality of your dream. Not the odd photo of a few aborted fetuses. A hall full of dismembered fetal corpses.
No, Deanna, enforced gestation is the description of women being forced to continue with an unwanted pregnancy.
The trouble is kris, like I have said, most people don’t function on some automaton like basis.
“They think that the pro-choice argument is based on facts and reason.” – yes and no. It is based on the facts that a woman with an unwanted pregnancy faces and her own reasons for making whatever choice she does. Not all anti-choice arguments are based on pure facts and reason either.
I don’t need to make much of an effort in that regard ninek. But then you naturally think the same of me. That’s just how it is. I can ‘get over it’. :-)
“Abortion is immoral because it denies the rights of a human being.” – see, now there’s your problem straight away. As I keep trying to demonstrate, the reality is that most people just don’t see a fetus as being quite as much of a human being as someone they can fully interact with, someone who is fully developed. And all the obfuscating in the world about dna, development stages and disabled people does not change that. A woman with an unwanted pregnancy does not think of a developing fetus as a ‘total’ human being. That’s what you need to ‘get over’.
Simple join-the-dots logic and high school biology does not mandate peoples’ mindsets.
And what does the comprehension of others (or lack thereof, in this instance) have to do with fact? If we could get a consensus going that you’re not actually as human as everyone else here, does that mean killing you should be lawfully permitted? The only people here who are obfuscating are the prochoice, who by your own admission seem to rely on as many people as possible having as little understanding of biology as possible in order to allow such a barbaric practice as abortion to be continued legally.
You don’t need to make much effort to make abortion fans look nuts? I totally agree! Keep up the good work anyway, lol!
Maybe at next Walk for Life you can wear a button or t-shirt so we can see who you are and thank you for all your efforts on behalf of the pro-life movement. I don’t often have time to make abortion fans look so full-on crazy, so I do appreciate your filling in.
:>) !
I am so sick of the abortion equals slavery argument… To even try to justify that argument you have to be seriously racist. You are trivializing the decades of oppression, poverty, and struggle of the black community by even trying to equate the two. It’s disgusting.
Also I am sick of the dead babies’ argument, it is not a baby. It is a fetus or a zygote but not a baby according to the American Medical Association. If it were a baby we would call it a baby. You guys just like to use that word because it adds emotional fuel to an argument about a legal medical procedure that is approved of by the American Medical Association and has been legal for over 40 years!
You know the U.S. courts and medical establishment are against you so you throw words around like baby killers to provoke a knee-jerk response from anyone who has ever had children. The problem is that this type of rhetoric can and has been twisted into a justification for murdering doctors in cold blood in a church, in front of his family and friends. Your hyperbolic rhetoric is killing real people and leaving children fatherless…
Going down to the local burger joint for cheese burgers with your kids sounds pretty nice until you can’t get in the parking because it is blocked off by a horde of PETA people calling you a murderer in front of your kids and holding up the bloodiest pictures of baby calves with their heads smashed in saying cash register workers are evil hate filled Nazi’s.
To most people it’s just a burger and fries but to those PETA people it’s a life that they are dedicated to saving from the evil, baby calf killing, meat eaters… Sound familiar?
Show a picture of a 20 week fetus to people xalisae and they will probably agree with you that yes it looks human so yes it must be human. But the thought in their head will be ‘but not quite human’. And when they have a pregnancy they really, really don’t want, they’ll easily convince themselves that ‘it’s just not the same’.
Look nuts to you ninek, to you. But then I think the same of you. Poor us ;-)
Nah, I’ll be one of those people who cross the street to avoid the crazies with their placards and prayers.
Reality
I believe one of the individuals at this site gave you a site to go to where you could see actual pictures of babies that had been aborted. Are those pictures subjective and not based in reality or do they look real to you. Say what you think clearly because from now on each time you attempt to make someone appear challenged intellectually, spiritually or emotionally I will make a reasonable attempt to point out to them what your really o.k. with lest they doubt themselves. And of course should your conscience start functioning, I think that would be a good thing.
Show a picture of a 20 week fetus to people xalisae and they will probably agree with you that yes it looks human so yes it must be human. But the thought in their head will be ‘but not quite human’. And when they have a pregnancy they really, really don’t want, they’ll easily convince themselves that ‘it’s just not the same’.
And once again, who gives a rat’s rear end about “what people think”, what “they will convince themselves” of, what someone looks like, etc.? Since when does majority perception change what the facts are and what is known scientific certainty? I don’t think you’re quite catching my drift here.
Myrtle…..we were discussing Deanna’s unrealistic, daydream based little tale. In it she was in a hall full of numerous fetal corpses. Now she claims that I can view images of this. Short of climbing into the imagination center of her brain, I doubt it.
The drift that you’re not catching xalisae, is that people operate on perceptions tempered by their own situation, feelings, beliefs and acceptance or interpretation of facts and science. Exhibit A – religions.
lauren,
I agree with you that not everyone can read 300 comments in a sitting and that these short clips are effective. They’re like a short political cartoon. The first one is my favorite, the faces, the monotone voices, especially the British accent. What’s interesting about them is the lack of logic on the part of pro-aborts. As for whether it’s real or not, how could anyone make this stuff up???
Biggz,
I accidentally posted this comment on the “happy dance” thread. Here’s a re-posting of it.
Biggz,
Sorry, but the slavery comparison to abortion is a valid one to anyone who believes in the inherent dignity of every human life given to us by our Creator. The accusation of racism is totally unfounded.
Reality @ “we were discussing Deanna’s unrealistic, daydream based little tale. In it she was in a hall full of numerous fetal corpses. Now she claims that I can view images of this. Short of climbing into the imagination center of her brain, I doubt it.”
Don’t pretend as you don’t understand that story. It happens exactly like minus the babies in the floor. Instead of in the floor they are instead thrown in garbage dumpsters, put down garbage disposals, packed up and shipped to labs, put in freezers and a host of other things DOCUMENTED. The rest of the dream was an analogy and a realistic one.
Reality @ “Now she claims that I can view images of this. Short of climbing into the imagination center of her brain, I doubt it.”
Here is that house of horrors link. Did you ever go look at them? Trust me,they are not just in my mind!
http://www.100abortionpictures.com/Aborted_Baby_Pictures_Abortion_Photos/
Reality
I went to the link she provided. Please let me know if this is objective enough for you. And especially if you still consider pro-lifers challenged because they fight to prevent this.
Have you read your own story Deanna. You described one scenario and now you keep trying to get me to accept that completely different scenarios represent what you described.
I’ve seen the dead and mutilated fetus photos numerous times but that is not what your story portrayed.
Reality@ My scenario was an analogy. I think that you must know that. The point is the dead babies. So, did you go to the link? Did you look at them? I want to know what your thoughts are on those pictures at that link.
Just to stop you from blowing a gasket Deanna, I went to the link you provided and looked at all the photos. All of them. Not dissimilar to many I have viewed before. Given what I saw of the site they are on, how many are actual aborted fetuses?
Now will you stop trying to make me believe that photos of singular and small groups of dead and mutilated fetuses equate to your hall of horrors. It’s about as much of an analogy as a picture of an orange is to an orchard. Not to mention the rest of your daydream imaginings.
Happy now?
@Reality In my state there were roughly 35,000 abortions last year. If you divide this into the number of clinics in my state that would make each clinic average 2100 abortions per year. So it isn’t unrealistic to think that there would be a “house of horrors” had they all been there at the same time. As , I said it was an analogy.
But really,I doesn’t matter. All you are trying to do is pick at anything and everything that you can to try and discredit me and other pro-lifers. “how many are actual aborted fetuses?”
Seriously, what do you think happens, that we dig up babies that died naturally, got them from the morgue, what? Anyone with any kind of thought processes at all can look at those pics and tell that they are real. But really, that ”those pictures aren’t real” argument is very old, worn out, used up and downright stupid. Sorry buddy but you are going to have to think up a better excuse than that to dismiss those dead babies.
So, just pacify me for a minute and assume that they are real, what do you think about them?
“So it isn’t unrealistic to think that there would be a “house of horrors” had they all been there at the same time.” – sure. But they’re not, nor would they be left strewn around the floor, so ” As , I said it was an analogy.” is not accurate.
“All you are trying to do is pick at anything and everything that you can to try and discredit me and other pro-lifers” – and your repeated attempt at fallacious extrapolation is?
“how many are actual aborted fetuses?” – the site you cited does not engender a positive opinion of it with it’s visual appearance or language. And we know about the doubtful validity of some photos that anti-choicers use.
“they are real” – I’m not disputing that they are real images of dead and mutilated fetuses (that’s another argument), what I question is cause and origin – not of all of them.
“But really, that ”those pictures aren’t real” argument is very old, worn out, used up and downright stupid” – is that supposed to amount to evidence of the contrary?
What do I think of them? They are yucky. So are many other things.
Are you pacified now? Maybe even irenic?
Reality
So your response to the link she provided is. What do I think of them? They are yucky. So are many other things. That’s your response to a picture of dead babies. They are yucky. That’s in response to the pictures at http://www.100 abortionpictures.com/Aborted_Baby_Pictures_Abortion_Photos/
What’s really yucky is that somewhere along the way you have relagated the unborn to the state of yuck. Their suffering, their untimely death, their lack of a proper burial means nothing more to you than yuck. I’m just going to leave it right there because what can you really say to someone who believes pictures of dead babies are yucky.
Reality @ Yucky? Dead mutilate babies are yucky? No they are sad, horrific, unfathomable, appalling, hellacious, hideous and grisly among a host of other things.
“the site you cited does not engender a positive opinion of it with it’s visual appearance or language” Dead babies do not give of an air of positivity nor does the abortion issue at all. What do you want butterflies and rainbows as the background?
Again, pick apart the pictures, pick apart the website, pick apart the documentation, pick apart the dream story, pick apart everything we say. It really is that you are choosing to belittle, discredit and ignore the evidence just because thats what you want to do. So until you want to be honest with yourself you aren’t going to listen to anyone anyway.
All I do Deanna, is try to impart the message that no matter what sort of words, language, images, tales of woe etc. etc. etc. you come up with, when a woman is facing an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy, it doesn’t mean a whole lot.
Some of the fetuses looked like new-borns, some looked like they would end up looking that way, some didn’t look like anything much at all. But in the mind’s eye of someone in a tough situation, they just aren’t quite as real or fully human as someone who is born and can be seen and touched in the flesh. To those who are against choice, that is incompehensible. C’est la vie.
The real ‘belittling’ of your alleged evidence is done by those who walk past your placards and prayers and into the clinics.
I am being honest with myself. I acknowledge the reality of the ‘human condition’, you don’t seem to be able to.
Just in case this was missed by others:
Reality says:
By the way Deanna, I meant to tell you earlier that I am mightily impressed with the image at the top of the ‘shoutingitloud’ page. An image of humanity in our environment, love it!
Anyone else notice that Reality is able to see “humanity” in trees, but not in our own preborn offspring?
Too bad – hopefully you will see aborted children for what they are: Humans hurt & killed and discarded at the hands of other humans.
Most people would find that sad, tragic and unfathomable. Most people would want to say ‘Never again!’ ‘How can we stop this holocaust?’ ‘How can we stop this atrocity?’ ‘what can we do to help?’
To be human is to have empathy; to care about others; to want to help others – all humans, not just some; not just some when convenient.
Here’s hoping, and praying that those whose hearts are closed to the cries of the poor and downtrodden, will have their hearts open wide with love, care and concern.
There are always miracles. There is always hope.
“Most people would find that sad, tragic and unfathomable. Most people would want to say ‘Never again!’ ‘How can we stop this holocaust?’ ‘How can we stop this atrocity?’ ‘what can we do to help?’” – well obviously most people don’t.
“To be human is to have empathy; to care about others; to want to help others – all humans, not just some; not just some when convenient.” – I repeat, the ‘human condition’.
“the cries of the poor and downtrodden” – they get heard but people don’t include fetuses in that group.
“There are always miracles.” – no there aren’t. “There is always hope.” – well usually.
Reality@ “I am being honest with myself. I acknowledge the reality of the ‘human condition’, you don’t seem to be able to.”
No, it’s not that we don’t acknowledge the reality of the human condition. We acknowledge it very well. What we try to do is CHANGE IT by showing people that there is a different way. There is a way of love and joy and giving and kindness that can replace the “way humanity is”. Our message is one of hope for a future, hope for the mothers, hope for the babies. We are not of the mindset of “well they are all going to hell in a hand basket anyway so why bother?” We know that there are many who will not listen to our voice, but on occasion one listens. And as a result of her listening she gives birth to the love of her life. No one who has changed her mind and given birth ever comes back and says, Why did you talk me into keeping this baby, I wish I has aborted it.” No, what they do is come back and say thank you for being there, thank you for being a voice for my baby when I couldn’t hear. There are thousands upon thousands of these stories because we do what we do. Some of these women going for abortions do not even want abortions, they just don’t know what else to do. so, we take them by the hand and show them the way, a better way, that includes life and not death. I personally know a 65 year old woman that still weeps daily over her two abortions. I also know an 18 year old girl that is beautiful, charismatic and charming. When her mother was pregnant with her she came to the crisis pregnancy center where I worked and I spoke with her about life vs death. She decided to give birth. Now 18 years later the “baby girl” is my friend. Every valentines day she thanks me for saving her life and her mother thanks me. This is why we do what we do. You can minimize abortion down to a “cause” but the reality is that these are people. People who laugh and cry and hurt and rejoice. None of your pro-choice arguments will ever compare to a valentines card that says, “thank you that I am alive.” When you see those pictures of those babies you see something “yucky”. What I, and other pro-lifers see is that girl that sends me that valentines greeting. What you see as a non-person we see as a charismatic teenager going to her prom. The difference is that they are real people to us.
So, yes, we know the human condition is bad, thus this conversation. But life always outweighs death, love always outweighs cruelty, and mercy always triumphs over judgment. There is a way out of the human condition. It is mercy. If we have mercy towards each other then there is no reason for death, including the death of an unborn child.
“Our message is one of hope for a future, hope for the mothers, hope for the babies.” – yes, well…things don’t always turn out as rosy as the scenarios you relate do they? And to some their ‘hope’ is that they don’t have to become mothers, not right then anyway. And have you listened to the mothers who say ‘I love my children but…’? Or seen those who mistreat them because they are unwelcome?
Abortion is not my ’cause’, the rights and freedom of women to make a choice is my cause.
“If we have mercy towards each other then there is no reason for death” – then perhaps you could start a little higher up the list of priorities.
The drift that you’re not catching xalisae, is that people operate on perceptions tempered by their own situation, feelings, beliefs and acceptance or interpretation of facts and science. Exhibit A – religions.
Yes. And some peoples’ interpretations and acceptance of facts and science are tempered by their situations in such a way that they believe others to be space aliens from the planet Namblax and it is their mission to save the world by destroying those aliens. Doesn’t mean we should legalize murder for those individuals, to aid them in their quests according to their “interpretations” and “perceptions”.
:-) :-) :-) – nice try!
reality@ And have you listened to the mothers who say ‘I love my children but…’?
Some mothers say, “I love my children but” with planned pregnancies also and the end of that sentence is never, “I wish I had aborted it”
“Or seen those who mistreat them because they are unwelcome?” So to keep them from being mistreated as a child you dismember them and crush their skulls as a baby?
“And to some their ‘hope’ is that they don’t have to become mothers, not right then anyway.”
Their “hope” of not being a mother is irrelevant. They ARE a mother. The question is not, will they be a mother, they already are one, the question is will they be the mother to a live baby or a dead baby. Some women considering abortion will say they will not consider adoption. Which translated means, ” I don’t want to parent the baby but I don’t want anyone else to have it either so I’m just going to kill it”. There are a lot of “I’s in that sentence. There is nothing in life so important that it can’t be put on hold for a few months in order to save someones life. Abortion is a very self centered act, thinking of ones self over the life of another. Adoption is a selfless act.thinking only of the child.
“Abortion is not my ’cause’, the rights and freedom of women to make a choice is my cause.”
Then why are you on here day after day dissecting every word we say, trying to discredit us, calling us frauds (as in the pics are fake) instead of realizing that we are the second half of that choice. The choices are life or death. We are the life side. Why are pro-abortionists so afraid of what we have to say? If choice is a two sided coin then why do you try to hide the second side, why do you try to discredit it, why do you question it? That behavior is what makes us know that pro-choicers aren’t about “choice” at all.
I’ll take that as a concession. God knows I’m never going to get one out of you directly. Goodnight.
Boy you’re hopeful xalisae! I found your comment ludicrously irrelevant. Sleep tight.
“the end of that sentence is never, “I wish I had aborted it” – well, maybe not out loud.
“you dismember them and crush their skulls as a baby?” – no, as a fetus, before they become a baby.
“They ARE a mother” – no they’re not.
“Adoption is a selfless act.thinking only of the child.” – que? The reasoning behind not keeping a child or continuing a pregnancy both entail not wanting a child. I wouldn’t call that entirely selfless.
“trying to discredit us, calling us frauds” – well you do disseminate misinformation. “(as in the pics are fake)” – and sometimes they are.
“we are the second half of that choice” – yet you would deny people the right to make a choice other than yours, that’s why the pro-choice side need to be active too.
If choice is a two sided coin then why do you try to fix the toss?
Pro-choicers believe in more choices than you do. It’s that simple.
Reality, do you think sex selective abortion should be legal?
I’m feeling generous (some people say I’m ‘generous to a fault’ but that’s another story) so I’m going to give you something.
99.99% of abortions will probably cease when various (future?) forms of contraception and the morning after pill become near enough to 100% safe, successful and available.
But a percentage of you folk (no, I won’t hazard a guess) will still be less than happy and move your focus to trying to make even basic contraception ‘wrong’. You will not be happy until sex only ever occurs between a man and a woman, only ever in marriage and only ever in almost the hope that it will result in conception. And that is the fundamental flaw that will see you continue to fail.
I haven’t formed a final opinion on that yet truthseeker, and that’s the truth.
@reality
“the end of that sentence is never, “I wish I had aborted it” – well, maybe not out loud.
I have never heard of a woman wishing her baby dead unless she were psychotic.
“you dismember them and crush their skulls as a baby?” – no, as a fetus, before they become a baby.
Fetus is just a medical science term for a baby before it is born. WHAT it is does not change. Only it’s name changes.
“They ARE a mother” – no they’re not.
I dare you to tell any pregnant woman who WANTS her child that!
“Adoption is a selfless act.thinking only of the child.” – que? The reasoning behind not keeping a child or continuing a pregnancy both entail not wanting a child. I wouldn’t call that entirely selfless.
No,in adoption the woman may WANT the child but not be able to care for it. In abortion she just doesn’t want it, at least not enough to give it life. In adoption the mother, even if she simply does not want he child loves it enough to not kill it. In abortion the woman has a strong love too. But the love is towards herself instead of the “fetus”. One is a selfless love , the other is a self-centered love.
“trying to discredit us, calling us frauds” – well you do disseminate misinformation. “(as in the pics are fake)” – and sometimes they are.
I have never heard or seen of a fake abortion photo (if you have proof show it) and even if there were one that in no way implies that the multitude of others are fake.
“we are the second half of that choice” – yet you would deny people the right to make a choice other than yours, that’s why the pro-choice side need to be active too.
Yes, because the other choice includes death. We are for life not death.
If choice is a two sided coin then why do you try to fix the toss?
Because we do not believe that death is a valid choice.
Pro-choicers believe in more choices than you do. It’s that simple.
I guess you are right about that one. I wouldn’t be proud of it!
The fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks. This is probably a conservatively late estimate, but it is scientifically solid. Elements of the pain-conveying system (spino-thalamic system) begin to be assembled at 7 weeks; enough development has occurred by 12-14 weeks that some pain perception is likely, and continues to build through the second trimester. By 20 weeks, the spino- thalamic system is fully established and connected.
Deanna, this is not enough for conscious pain perception. It’s necessary, but not sufficient. Ranalli either purposely left out the part about the thalamus needing to be connected to a cortex that’s also developed and operating enough, and that comes later, or he’s been misquoted. There still is a big debate about when pain can be truly felt.
“I have never heard of a woman wishing her baby dead” – that’s not what I said. I said that some may wish they hadn’t proceeded with gestation and had their baby.
“Fetus is just a medical science term for a baby before it is born.” – we could throw definitions at each other all day. The reality is that if a pregnancy is wanted women will often refer to the fetus as a baby. If it is unwanted they are less likely to.
“WHAT it is does not change” – yes it does.
“I dare you to tell any pregnant woman who WANTS her child that!” – then they’re being subjective aren’t they. When is a person’s birth certificate issued?
“In adoption the mother, even if she simply does not want he child loves it enough to not kill it” – if she was being completely selfless and only thinking of the child she would want it.
Others here have seen and heard of the fake photos. What about the misinformation?
I am for life. The one that already exists.
Apparently death is a valid choice.
I’m very proud of supporting the freedom of women.
Have you given any thoughts to applying your time and effort to a cause where you could have a real impact?
Documents that state fetus’s can feel pain.
http://www.cirp.org/library/pain/anand/
In testimony before the House Constitution Subcommittee, Professor Robert White confirmed that the ‘fetus within this time frame of gestation, 20 weeks and beyond, is fully capable of experiencing pain…. Without question, all of this is a dreadfully painful experience for any infant subjected to such a surgical procedure.”
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/Fetal_Pain/FetalPain091604.pdf
Doctors point out that an unborn baby reacts to pain in an article from the British Medical Journal:
“The fetus needs to be heavily sedated by sedating the mother before intrauterine manipulations such as transfusions…The changes in heart rate and increase in movement suggest that these stimuli are painful for the fetus.”(5)
H.B. Valman, MD and J.F. Perarson M.D. “What the Fetus Feels” British Medical Journal, Jan 26, 1980 p 233
Another doctor who performed saline abortions said the following. Saline abortions are not done anymore, but they have been replaced by D & E abortions, where the baby is torn apart using forceps and taken out piece by piece. This process would still be painful for the baby.
“All of a sudden one notices that at the time of the saline infusion there is a lot of activity in the uterus. That’s not fluid currents. That’s obviously the fetus being distressed by swallowing the concentrated salt solution and kicking violently — [that’s part of] the death drama.”(6)
Richard Exley: Abortion: Pro-Life by Conviction, Pro-Choice by Default (Tulsa, Oklahoma: Honor Books, 1989) 56
@Reality “Have you given any thoughts to applying your time and effort to a cause where you could have a real impact?”
That doesn’t deserve an answer.
Yes it does actually. You’d could save multiple lives for the same effort and time that you put into possibly preventing one abortion. You know, the lives of people who have been born and are with us.
Deanne
He’s just wasting your time. Dead babies don’t bother him. The killing of pre-born babies doesn’t bother him. And he or she is full of them selves. I’m not wasting any more of my time on him or Doug they can’t put forth arguments like they do and not know that the pre-born is a viable human being.
@Reality “Yes it does actually. You’d could save multiple lives for the same effort and time that you put into possibly preventing one abortion. You know, the lives of people who have been born and are with us.”
You know, I could give you a laundry list of things that I do that “impact” people and it would probably surprise you. But the truth is that it doesn’t matter. My being a voice for the ones with no voice will never stop and if the only thing accomplished my whole life is to save that one baby who is now an 18 year old then I will be content and I will be positive that it will be one more life than what you will save by pushing your abortion agenda.
Myrtle@ I have a suspicion that the goal is to waste our time and that is the very reason that some of them bother to come to a pro-life activist website. They certainly don’t think they are going to convert us to killing babies I’m sure.
Myrtle@ I have a suspicion that the goal is to waste our time and that is the very reason that some of them bother to come to a pro-life activist website. They certainly don’t think they are going to convert us to killing babies I’m sure.
Bingo.
Deanne
I think there just full of themselves in psychology theres a term for it I think it’s called narcicism. I know what you mean though about if it’s just one life you save it’s worth it. When my son was still getting chemo once we were put in a semi-private room and the baby on the other side had undergone heart surgery and was crying for long periods of time so at this point in Daniel’s journey I had noticed how often pain issues of children were being ignored so I asked the lady what the doctor was giving her baby for pain and it was just regular Tylenol. This was after receiving heart surgery so I encouraged her along with her mom or husband to confront the doctor and expect their babies pain to be treated so anyway she did. Later her and her husband came to thank me it was such a good feeling to know I had made a difference. I didn’t save his life but I saved him from going through pain he shouldn’t have to deal with. Doing good always makes you feel better about yourself I think as a person. I like to read your posts it encourages me to know there are intelligent people on the side of life. I don’t think Reality could convert you but I do believe with his rhetoric that he could convince you that your just not as reasonable as he is. And at this point I guess an eye roll would be appropriate!
@Myrtle. “I don’t think Reality could convert you but I do believe with his rhetoric that he could convince you that your just not as reasonable as he is. And at this point I guess an eye roll would be appropriate!”
I don’t buy into any of their rhetoric. I am too old and too stubborn for that :) I KNOW that abortion is murdering a baby and there is no one on the planet that I am afraid to say that to. I don’t look at him as being reasonable at all. There is nothing reasonable about arguing for someones “right” to murder a baby. I am hopeful that someday he will be honest with himself or grow a conscious and remember our talks though.
I found your comment ludicrously irrelevant.
Because you have no counter. Once again, I’ll take that as a concession on your part, Realtin.
UNreality said: “the cries of the poor and downtrodden” – “they get heard but people don’t include fetuses in that group.” UNreality has also said in many different ways that “people” don’t think of fetuses as people or babies. As usual, what s/he says is in direct contradition to the facts. THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE ARE PRO-LIFE. Unreality-warning-facts ahead-quick look away!!
The 2009 Gallup Poll, conducted May 7-10, finds 51% of Americans calling themselves “pro-life” on the issue of abortion and 42% “pro-choice.” This is the first time a majority of U.S. adults have identified themselves as pro-life since Gallup began asking this question in 1995.
The new results, obtained from Gallup’s annual Values and Beliefs survey, represent a significant shift from a year ago, when 50% were pro-choice and 44% pro-life. Prior to now, the highest percentage identifying as pro-life was 46%, in both August 2001 and May 2002. SO NOT ONLY ARE THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS PRO-LIFE, BUT THE TREND IS GOING PRO-LIFE.
In a 1999 Zogby “American Values” poll respondents were asked to choose between the two statements, “abortion destroys a human life and is manslaughter,” or “abortion does not destroy a life and is not manslaughter.”
The nationwide poll of 1,005 likely voters with a margin of error of +/- 3.2% showed that 51% believed that that abortion destroys a human life and is manslaughter (unlike what UNreality claims) while another 35% said that abortion does not destroy a life and is not manslaughter. Eight percent agreed with neither statement while 6% said they weren’t sure.
But there’s more…..
The 2010 NARAL survey, examined the views of young Americans and found a stark “intensity gap” on abortion.
Some 51 percent of the under 30 voters who are pro-life call opposing abortion a “very important” voting issue compared with just 26 percent of abortion backers.The 2010 poll found a pro-life gap, too, with older voters but it was smaller. For NARAL president Nancy Keenan, that is a huge problem.
Keenan talked about the emerging pro-life generation with Newsweek and said her concern is that abortion advocates are dominated by women over the age of 50 and that younger generations aren’t filling the ranks of pro-abortion groups the same way young pro-life advocates are getting involved in the pro-life community.
Also, a 2010 Gallup poll shows that young adults are the most pro-life age group.
So in conclusion; Pro-life is the majority and each year that majority increases. We have the youth, pro-choice does not. We have the intensity. Pro-choice does not. Sorry Reality.
I posted this for all of my pro-life friends here on this blog who have been trying so hard to use reason, logic, statistics, biology to talk to Reality about abortion to no avail. ”Reality” is unrepresentative of most people. And unfortunately Reality only values his/her feelings and not facts. That won’t change no matter how many wonderful points are made on the pro-life side. Answering Reality is a waste of time.
What isn’t a waste of time is learning how to defend ur pro-life views better. So we owe Reality a thank u for that. Now when we encounter the many undecided or moderately pro-choice people who truly have questions and really desire a dialogue, we will be better prepared. They are out there. I encounter them all the time in my line of work. And those pro-choice people ARE NOT a waste of time. They are a true delight to speak to in my experience.
Just this morning I received a call from a member of St. Vincent de Paul society, who let me know that their group will be sponsoring a family we brought to their attention… a widow and two adult children, with one month’s rent to keep them in their housing. And this afternoon, I will be bringing a woman for an ultrasound.
Deanna’s comment: You know, I could give you a laundry list of things that I do that “impact” people and it would probably surprise you. But the truth is that it doesn’t matter. My being a voice for the ones with no voice will never stop and if the only thing accomplished my whole life is to save that one baby who is now an 18 year old then I will be content and I will be positive that it will be one more life than what you will save by pushing your abortion agenda.
is exactly right. We can make an impact, one situation at a time. One life and a time. One family at a time.
Reality and others will not get it until their hearts are opened. Let’s hope that happens some day.
Kindness is never wasted. Love big. Love all. It is what we were made to do.
While I’m pleased that you’re pleased with saving one life Deanna, I’m not sure that I would be. More can be saved for the same time and effort that you exert.
I’m not here to waste your time. I’m here to provide a different viewpoint and point out anti-choice inaccuracies for those who may visit who haven’t yet decided where they stand on the issues.
Reasonable, pragmatic, realistic and more Myrtle. I find it interesting that there is much focus on my assertion that more ‘benefit’ can be achieved elsewhere yet no response to my comments on how to make abortion almost non-existent. The only way to prevent abortion (well maybe 99.99% anyway) is to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Trying to prevent people having sex will not prevent unwanted pregnancies yet some of you would waste your time pushing for that. Why not focus on actions which will actually make a significant difference.
“grow a conscious” – it would appear that I’m more conscious of reality than you.
Kris, do you realise how many flaws there are in your presentation?
“calling themselves ‘pro-life’ on the issue of abortion” – does not mean they are anti-choice in all cases. Especially when certain circumstances fall upon them. We all know about ‘pro-lifers’ who slip round the back when the need arises for them.
“The nationwide poll of 1,005 likely voters” – 1005? Really? Not exactly a large test group is it? How was the poll conducted? Was it by phone? If so at what time of day? What is the demography of those who would answer the phone at that time? What is the demography of those who agreed to participate in the poll? If it was a paper poll conducted in person what was the demography of those who agreed to participate? What was the demography of the location/s where the poll was conducted? Maybe it was conducted outside a church?
“Some 51 percent of the under 30 voters who are pro-life call opposing abortion a “very important” voting issue” – where and how was the vote conducted? What was the lower age limit of the respondant group? I love it when I hear these ‘under 30’ things. They are all ‘pro-life’ until they suffer an oopsie.
Half the ‘pro-lifers’ think its an important voting issue while only a quarter of pro-choicers do. Wow, maybe because ‘pro-lifers’ feel the need to be activist while pro-choicers don’t. They don’t see the need for any vote.
Lies, damned lies and statistics!
Maybe the question that needs to be asked is “is there any circumstance under which you would have an abortion, yes or no?” – even then there’d be some ‘no’ voters who’d still have one if it suited them.
“What isn’t a waste of time is learning how to defend ur pro-life views better. So we owe Reality a thank u for that” – bingo! There seem to be some slow learners though :-) But there will also be those who see through some of the anti-choice rhetoric too.
Kris
When you take advice from Reality your receiving advice from an individual who thinks the pictures of dead aborted babies are yucky. I don’t want to bias you with my opinion of Reality’s opinions but think this will help you understand a little better his value system.
They are all ‘pro-life’ until they suffer an oopsie.
You’re so full of it, I bet your eyes are brown.
My “oopsie” is a beautiful 8 year old girl right now, and the driving force behind my pro-life fervor.
Good for you xalisae. Isn’t it wonderful that you were able to make your own choice. A number of so called ‘pro-lifers’ make a different one when they have their ‘oopsie’.
No, it wasn’t “wonderful”. I’d have preferred that my daughter’s life was protected by law, even in utero regardless of my circumstances or feelings.
And, I can call myself an astronaut if it makes me feel good to think I’m one, but that doesn’t make it so now, does it?
You were (and are) protected by law as an existent person. Your fetus was protected by law from anyone except you as the ‘host’, ‘carrier’, ‘bearer’, ‘owner’ or whatever term you wish to use. Because it is you who is protected first and foremost. You don’t suddenly decrease in value because of the presence of a potential new person.
Astronaut has nothing to do with it. The fact is that fervent ‘pro-lifers’ have been known to …’make allowances’ for themselves.
Seriously Reality?
You talk about owning another human being and yet can not comprehend the analogy of abortion to slavery?
Yes I certainly do ElizabethG!
We ended slavery and we ended enforced gestation. A woman is not ‘owned’ by a fetus.
We gave women the vote and we gave women the right to end an unwanted or risky pregnancy.
You were (and are) protected by law as an existent person.
She was an existent person as well, only in utero. I didn’t just imagine her, duh.
Your fetus was protected by law from anyone except you
Yes. And that was wrong. Her life should’ve had just as much protection under the law as mine. Our lives are and always have been equal, not one over the other. This is what is commonly referred to as “injustice”. A mother doesn’t have any other sort of “right” in regards to killing her children anywhere other than in the womb. Equal treatment under the law for all children, please (and before you go there, because I know you will, a fetus is the biological child of his/her parents. That is an undeniable scientific fact, so don’t even start).
as the ‘host’, ‘carrier’, ‘bearer’, ‘owner’ or whatever term you wish to use.
How about “mother”, since biologically that’s the relationship I share with any fetus that happens to be inside my uterus? I might’ve been born and raised most of my life in California, but my father’s family is from the south, and we were taught a very costly lesson about viewing other living human beings as property and calling ourselves “owners” thereof. Perhaps it’s time for northerners to learn the same lesson, oui?
Because it is you who is protected first and foremost.
Yes, we all get that you’re a fan of injustice. This is what we here in the pro-life camp are trying to change.
You don’t suddenly decrease in value
No one is saying that I did/do. But that has nothing to do with protecting and valuing the life of my child(ren) as much as mine. I don’t go *POOF* and become uneducated, barefoot, dirty, have all of my property confiscated and my first amendment rights revoked just because I become pregnant. You’ve created a false dichotomy in your mind of EITHER you carry and birth your child (and this all happens on its own biologically-no force involved. IMAGINE THAT!) as some sort of sub-human morlock, OR you can kill your child in utero and instantly be given a bag of 100 dollar bills, a car, a house, and your own 15 minute segment on CNN.
because of the presence of a potential new person.
Gestating humans are not “potential people”. They do not magically exit the birth canal and grab a briefcase, get a white collar job, and apply for a home loan. A person is a person 50 years after birth, 20 years after birth, 5 years after birth, 6 months after birth, and one month BEFORE birth too.
lol. “enforced gestation“. That’s like saying “mandatory sunrise”.
——–COMMENT DELETED BY AUTHOR———
“She was an existent person as well, only in utero. I didn’t just imagine her, duh.” no-one said you did. But you existed first. You shouldn’t be required to subsumate yourself.
“Yes, we all get that you’re a fan of injustice.” – yet here you are telling women that they suddenly come second to a fetus.
“This is what we here in the pro-life camp are trying to change” – and the pro-choice ‘camp’ support womens’ rights.
“You’ve created a false dichotomy in your mind of EITHER you carry and birth your child (and this all happens on its own biologically-no force involved. IMAGINE THAT!) as some sort of sub-human morlock, OR you can kill your child in utero and instantly be given a bag of 100 dollar bills, a car, a house, and your own 15 minute segment on CNN” – 1. actually it can happen by force. There are also accidents, which we have developed the means to rectify. 2. Every woman who has an abortion gets all that! Good promotion!
“Gestating humans are not “potential people” – yes they are.
no-one said you did. But you existed first. You shouldn’t be required to subsumate yourself.
I existed first. So? Everyone who is older than everyone else is not more of a living human being simply because they are older.
Yet here you are telling women that they suddenly come second to a fetus.
Protecting the life of my child in utero by law does not devalue my own. By your logic, enforcing child endangerment/neglect laws subjugate/enslave/devalue parents. Equal protection under the law does not entail oppression of those from which the law protects the victims.
– and the pro-choice ‘camp’ support womens’ rights.
And pro-slavery individuals were just supporting slave-holder’s rights. 9_9
1. actually it can happen by force.
Really? I’ve given birth twice, missed the bit where my fetal children were using threats and intimidation to get my uterus to gestate them. I thought it just kinda happened naturally, on its own as a biological process. Silly me. I guess my biology textbooks lied. Oh, wait, there it is, “…and after it travels down the fallopian tube, the zygote threatens the endometrium with violence until the uterine lining allows him or her to embed.” I guess you’re right after all!
There are also accidents, which we have developed the means to rectify.
Translation: We pro-choicer’s have also developed the means to rationalize dubbing some humans as “accidents”, sort of sub-humans in our own minds, allowing us to use such euphemisms as “rectification” to make ourselves feel better about what it actually those humans’ wholesale slaughter and eradication. But we don’t like to actually say those things, because they make us feel bad and our poor little heads start hurting when that happens.
very woman who has an abortion gets all that! Good promotion!
I was being facetious. I thought it was a pretty nice contrast to what you paint as some imagined pro-life world in which women who become pregnant are reduced to second-class citizens with no rights or legitimacy of their own. I wish you were being facetious, and it’s rather sad that you’re not and you actually believe this tripe.
“Gestating humans are not “potential people” – yes they are.
Then pray-tell, what is the difference between “real, actual people” and “potential people”? Silly me, I thought the only qualifications were to be a.) alive and b.) a member of the human species. So please, enlighten me as to your criteria for which living humans are worthy of lawful protection and which are not.