Plan B advocate: Young victims of sexual abuse need it most – so they don’t have to tell
Most alarmingly, keeping Plan B behind the counter especially affects cases of sexual abuse. If a young girl needs birth control at the age of 11 or 12, she may be the victim of the crime.
While getting a prescription would alert the doctor and other adults to the abuse, it would not be fast enough to prevent a pregnancy.
In even more unfortunate circumstances, getting a prescription means going to your family doctor, which could translate to telling your parents. If your parents are the one causing you harm, then requiring their consent to remedy the immediate effects of their sexual abuse exacerbates the problem….
The most disheartening aspect of this [legislation] is the lack of trust the government puts in the decisions of young girls.
~ Adrienne Edwards, NextGenJournal, December 12
[Photo via teenagehealthfreak.org]
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.
That may very well be one of the stupidest things I’ve read in a while, and I read a lot of stupid things. We don’t trust 11-year-old girls with many decisions, but somehow those same girls — after being cruelly victimized — are supposed to be wise enough to decide what to do about being victimized?
Why not just come out and admit that easy access to Plan B is a good way for sexual predators to cover up their crimes?
I agree, Mark. The authors of some of these quotes have taken leave of their senses.
My 11 year old needs to be reminded to do her chores, take a shower, grab her piano books and make a cold lunch.
I guess the TRUST WOMEN slogan should be changed.
TRUST WOMEN AND LITTLE GIRLS!!
Argh!
So, according to this author, it is far better for these girls to be subjected to continuing sexual abuse than it is for them to become pregnant (and thus tangibly expose the sexual abuse). And the idea of the government trusting young girls to make their own reproductive decisions is truly preposterous.
No, this is just one more attempt by adult “handlers” to interfere with the parent-child relationship. Parents need to know what is going on in their minor children’s lives.
And if the parents are truly abusive, then the abuse needs to be exposed – not covered up by facilitating minors doing things behind their parents’ backs.
All these people are advocating is exploitation of girls.
No, the phrase should be “TRUST WOMEN AND PEDOPHILES”
Especially, since the girls “consent” to the abuse because they are “in love”. People, read up on pedophiles and their grooming techniques. To protect children, we want to expose the abuse as quickly as possible – not try to cover it up.
Girls 11 and 12 need to be protected from ANY partnered sexual contact. It is inevitably abusive. But if they are abused in this awful way, we should do whatever it takes to protect them from a resulting pregnancy.
Don’t worry, Adrienne Edwards, those 11-year-old victims can still go to their local Planned Parenthood and get the “needed” medication, and the good people at PP will be sure not to report any possible rape/abuse. Plus, if they don’t go in soon enough, I’m sure PP will be more than glad to provide “Other services” and help pay for them and STILL not report any suspicions! So calm down already, sheesh!
*sarcasm*
Right, JVR. There’s always PP!
The young girls do not know or want to buy the megadose. The older abuser will be purchasing and dosing her often, to cover up his abuse — as already happens. The victim will suffer again when the long-term effects on her body are manifested.
Sebelius made the right decision, but it is a weak one. Any kid with an older friend can get ahold of Plan B… as long as everyone thinks it is harmless. Will there be warning posters, “Don’t give Plan B to minors. It’s the law!” like we have for cigarettes?
Meanwhile, Plan B advocates are in serious denial of the adverse health risks from giving megadoses of Group 1 “known carcinogen” hormones to developing young girls. Would these same people buy 3 packs of cigarettes for a 14-year-old and tell her to smoke them all by tomorrow?
Del, THANK YOU. Thats what I don’t get. These people lamenting how Plan B won’t be sold OTC keep ignoring the dangerous effects on health that these pills have, especially frequent and longterm use. But we already know they don’t care about children. Who cares if 11 year olds keep getting abused? Who cares if they develop cancer later in life or other health problems from years of being dosed with Plan B? At least we stopped a couple pregnancies, amirite?
Just sayin,
No where in your selective quoting, or in the original article does it say “so they don’t have to tell”. What it does talk about is the possibility that if the parents are the abusers, going to the family doctor would result in the parents knowing the kid tried to escape them. It also said, that going to the family doctor, or any doctor, would take too long and make the effectiveness of the 72 hour range of the pill null.
So, the title, once again doesn’t match the article. Gets kind of old to see such poor journalism.
Still waiting, Duck, to hear one thing that you can plede your fidelity to 100 % of the time, under any circumstace. Just one thing.
Courtnay,
what are you trying to ask me?
You seem to have a caveat for everything, an excuse for everyone, a multi-morality approach to every problem.
Where is your line in the sand?
And further, what would you have to realize about abortion that would make you pro-life(Ie, scientific study, message from God, a total turnaround of PP, your own pregnancy, etc.)?
Abuse is going to continue no matter what, unless someone hears about it. Getting some OTC pills isn’t going to do a damn thing for anyone to even hear about what’s going on. The parents might hear about the girl going to the doctor makes it worse? Sometimes, definitely, but it’s going to get worse if nobody ever hears about it Personally I think that any sexually active twelve-year-old should be considered a victim until proven not.
Jack, agreed.
Courtnay, I don’t have a caveat for anything. I am just extremely literal and I can’t help it. So I ask questions when I’m not sure I understood.
What is there for me to realize? Science doesn’t prove either one of us right, because science is science. It’s philosophy that tells us what science “means”. I know I’ve discussed this before. My own pregnancy wouldn’t make me pro-life, because contrary to some opinions, pro-choice people have kids too. PP won’t turnaround, although I know some from your crowd hope it does. As for God, our personal relationship has nothing to do with you, and I’m quite happy with our agreement.
I’ve already discussed with you my views on “line in the sand”. You clearly didn’t like what I have to say, so instead of just thinking, hmmm Duck disagrees with me, you’re on some kind of mission to either prove me wrong (about a personal belief to which you can’t prove me wrong) or trip me up somehow. Neither has been successful. Maybe you should just dedicate your time to something else.
I guess I keep asking because you seem so mechanistic and unfeeling when it comes to life and living, and I just wonder what you really care about, what you would die for, what you would become selfless about?
I don’t like what you have to say, agreed, but that doesn’t mean I don’t like YOU. I’m just trying to understand.
Well,
I can’t really help you there. I am very mechanistic and logical and analytical. I just can’t help it. However, I’m not unfeeling. I’m very compassionate and empathetic. I just disagree with you about the significance of birth. There in lies the difference. I’m extremely selfless, and I’d die for a lot of things. Hell, I told my mom when I was young, I’d rather die helping someone stranded on the side of the road, then never stop to help.
Please read about Gianna. Would you have tried to help her?
Courtnay,
Gianna is on my reading list of things I need to get to. Until I read more about the full story, instead of just the references made to me about her on here, I will not comment, because I simply don’t have an informed opinion.
My Analysis:
http://gerardnadal.com/2011/12/09/sebelius-sensible-decision/
From my analysis:
Do-it-yourself gynecology is bad medicine for the young, and our daughters deserve better than such callous disregard for their lack of knowledge of their bodies, lack of impulse control, and lack of sufficient neurological development to enable them to make reasonable and informed decisions. For those who lack trust in the experience and wisdom of the adults who know them best, it is all the more imperative that we ensure they don’t fall victim to pharmaceutical merchants and their allies who would exploit the callowness of their youth.
For the women’s groups howling with rage at Sebelius, I remember a time when feminism demanded medicine’s best for women, not do-it-yourself gynecology for our teenage and pre-teen daughters.
“The parents might hear about the girl going to the doctor makes it worse? Sometimes, definitely, but it’s going to get worse if nobody ever hears about it.”
The main problems here: 1) If a minor requires a guardian’s signature, and that guardian is the abuser, then what? 2) Plan B is time-sensitive, obviously, and waiting to get in to see a physician might take too long.
What about point-of-sale counseling by a pharmacist? A victim of abuse should be able to access a trusted medical professional in a timely fashion. Child abuse shouldn’t become apparent only when a girl starts showing under her school uniform.
” 1) If a minor requires a guardian’s signature, and that guardian is the abuser, then what?”
I don’t know, that’s what happened to me. Not with Planned B, obviously, but for other medical issues. There isn’t always a good answer, but I know from experience it’s generally a really bad idea to give abusers and victims more ways to hide what’s happening. It isn’t helping a young girl to let her sneak in and get the MAP before she goes right back to her abuser.
“2) Plan B is time-sensitive, obviously, and waiting to get in to see a physician might take too long.”
Again, there aren’t always good answers. I do know that several of my female friends have just called their docs or the health clinic and had them call in a prescription, takes like ten minutes. Of course, that doesn’t address the aspect of a girl being abused, but it does address the aspect of time sensitivity.
“What about point-of-sale counseling by a pharmacist? A victim of abuse should be able to access a trusted medical professional in a timely fashion. Child abuse shouldn’t become apparent only when a girl starts showing under her school uniform.”
Well of friggin’ course it shouldn’t be apparent only then, it should be stopped or prevented as soon as possible. But the fact remains, especially when we are talking about sexual abuse, that abused children don’t talk about what happens, and they will lie and keep it a secret out of fear and conditioning. I don’t see how giving them to tools to do this more is helping them, at all. Nope.
So Duck, you’re selfless and would die for a lot of things, but you’d kill your own child in the womb if you so “chose”? Do I have that right? Every selfless, willing-to-die-for-lots-of-things woman should also be able to execute her own baby?
It’s not a child in the womb. A child is born. We’ve discussed this before.
The 6 inches or so of a vagina magically confer babyness!!!!
Who freakin’ knew??? Clearly not my babies, who were most definitely already themselves in utero. Got a picture of Emmy sucking her thumb…which she still will do in private if she’s stressed out a little!
Oh no, wait, she was just a fetus!
Duck, you’re like one of those people in 1800s who would argue with an abolitionist and say, “I don’t care if it has fingers or expressions or a heart or has EVERY LITTLE HUMAN CHARACTERISTIC I HAVE, it’s still a black person (you could insert another pejorative here)! And that means NOT EQUAL. So kill it, rape it, beat, whatever.
Social Justice begins at the womb, where our humanity does.
Duck you are a hoot!!
You come here day after day and then exclaim that we have discussed this or that before!!! OR that you have no time to discuss it because you have better things to do!!! OR that you have friends that would love to discuss it but they HATE it here!!
LOL
All I read is you blustering all over and referring to other threads and other conversations that have taken place. Go read what I wrote here. Go read what I wrote there.
It’s not a child in the womb. A child is born. Says duck.
Prove it.
Prove it, duck.
Actually Carla,
I have explained many of these things before. Is your memory that short term, or do you have so much going on that you don’t remember?
As for my friend the logician, HE HATES THIS BLOG. I know he would love to argue objective truth/whatever with Paladin, but not here. So, it is what it is. Just because I make a comment in passing to someone else, not you, that I know someone who would love to have that debate, doesn’t mean anything more than exactly what I said. Kind of like when you find out that someone you just met loves doing civil war re-enactments and a friend of yours does too.
But, I do try to stick to the topic of the thread, and especially not derail a thread with comments off thread topic, that I have already said before.
So sorry, that being a polite blogger gets you so irritated.
Courtnay,
I’m not pro-slavery.
Also “Social Justice begins at the womb, where our humanity does.” … is not a worldwide universal truth.
But you could’ve been, easily, because not all human life has value.
We begin our human journey in the womb. We absolutely do. It fdoes not magically get turned on when we slide down the birth canal.
Courtnay,
Please explain what you mean in your first sentence. Again, literal, I just don’t think I understand you.
Duck, with ethics like yours, you could be one of those people who discount human’s humanity at any given point if they do not meet your criteria–like proslavery folks.
Back then, might equaled right. And it did in1973, too. But the culture of death you so fierce debate and defend? Your days are numbered. The tide’s turning. Life and love are winning. People are looking at the pictures and realizing in their heart of hearts, abortion is the murder of a baby. Kids get that without even being told. That’s because they refuse to get involved with word games that what personhood means, etc.
People are coming out of Planned Parenthood and other mills and beginning to work for Life at CPCs and avocate for the unborn. Not the other way around.
It’s monstrous to kill a baby.
I’ve got news for you, Duck. I am a mother of three, and they were my children in the womb. They are flesh of my flesh and my husband’s flesh, in the womb, human beings, children.
There is no magic about delivery that bestows humanity that wasn’t there before. You deny the humanity of the child in the womb because it’s the only way to justify executing the “unwanted thing.” You deny the child is even a child in order to justify the killing.
But your justification is an illusion. It’s sophistry. It’s the epitome of selfishness.
“That’s because they refuse to get involved with word games that what personhood means, etc.”
“Word games”? It’s the heart of the debate. If you’re not conversant in the language of the debate, then your input will be reduced to cheesy appeals to emotion, personal attacks, and so on. In other words, the sum total of your contribution to any discussion here.
Duck,
You’ve got nothing. Never a link. Never a cite. Never a source.
Just wave that magic wand of humanity on those you deem human.
Carry on with your politeness.
Do you think it comes as any big surprise that those that are proabortion
HATE THIS BLOG??
Jill takes it as a huge compliment. We are on the right track when we are hated.
Courtnay, I’ve been round and round with Duck on this. Somehow birth makes you human. She cannot explain why or how, it just DOES.
But I hear you moms on the humanity and personality of your children in the womb. My first son sucked his thumb in the womb and at 5 still does. We’re not quite sure what to do to get him to stop. He also used to cross his feet and rub them together on ultrasound and when he is relaxing or falling asleep he still does that!
My first son was extremely hyper in the womb and he is still a hyper kid. My second son I now carry is very mellow. He moves but he is not a spaz. I can tell the personality difference. And believe me, I am eating way more brownies and sugary things this pregnancy than I did with my first. And yet this baby is just…mellow.
They are not blobs or humanoid creatures with no personality or life. They are tiny little human beings and are already the same people they will be at birth and later on in life. But you can’t explain that to people like Duck who choose not to hear that.
This is a game Joan? “Word games” are the heart of the debate? I guess I’m not surprised that you don’t see that life and death are at the heart of this debate.
“We begin our human journey in the womb. We absolutely do”
Oh wait. Do I detect some blasphemy here? “Womb?” That means that life begins at implantation and not at the moment of conception?
CC, if I can get you to implntation, we’ll consider it progress.
My thumb sucking daughter, Sydney? She’s 13. LOL! We pick our battles!
No, you guys have it all wrong. It’s not vaginal secretions that make a human being “A Real Person(TM)”. It’s a very rare, special, and hard-to-find element called “Mommy Want”. Applying the newly-discovered and fantastic substance called “Mommy Want” can turn a newly-conceived individual into “A Real Person(TM)” worthy of having the spare room turned into a nursery as early as the first positive pregnancy test! It can also make it possible for a newborn to be forever considered “not a human being”, given “the snip”, and incinerated or otherwise discarded as medical waste for you to spend the rest of your life trying to forget about!
Get yours today!
Argh!
So, according to this author, it is far better for these girls to be subjected to continuing sexual abuse than it is for them to become pregnant (and thus tangibly expose the sexual abuse).
Well, duh. The whole point of abortion and sometimes birth control is to hide the evidence.
Well, duh. The whole point of abortion and sometimes birth control is to hide the evidence.
So women and girls should be subjected to unwanted pregnancies in order to provide “evidence” of rape and sexual abuse?! Seriously? And BTW, sexual abuse has been going on for a long time without the morning after pill being available.
“So women and girls should be subjected to unwanted pregnancies in order to provide “evidence” of rape and sexual abuse?!”
Yes, that’s the logic, CC. What about requiring a licensed pharmacist to counsel minors seeking to buy the drug? The minor in question would still be speaking with a medical professional, who could screen her for possible abuse. If anything, requiring nonjudgmental, point-of-sale counseling would be like having another checkpoint for detecting abuse.
Putting up barriers to accessing contraception isn’t the answer to ending child abuse. If a girl has to be six months pregnant for the adults around her to notice anything funny, then what kind of message does that send to her? That her well-being only really matters when she’s carrying developing life inside of her.
Gawd Megan and CC. There is a difference between wanting some checkpoints to make sure that teen girls aren’t having to take the MAP to cover up abuse at home, and wanting the girl to get friggin pregnant.
I might be rare because I am a pro-lifer not opposed to birth control, but I don’t think anyone would be happy about and hope for a abused girl getting pregnant. I think your idea of having it behind the counter is better than just having it chilling with the condoms.
Jack, that’s what people ARE saying: that it’s better for a victim of abuse to get pregnant so there’s “evidence” of malfeasance, rather than the girl to take measures to prevent a pregnancy (or end it in its incipient stages, what have you).
And your second post: I think people are conflating prohibiting MAP from being sold OTC with actually taking measures to prevent child abuse. As it stands right now, there aren’t any more checkpoints being put in place. The abuser can buy the drug on his own. And by the time a girl does get in to see the doctor (if she actually decides to pursue that route), it might be too late to prevent conception. Pharmacists have advanced degrees–we should use them.
Well, if anyone thinks that a sexual abuse victim *should* get pregnant from the abuse… that’s disgusting.
Well, I wouldn’t consider preventing EC from from being sold OTC an actual measure to reduce child abuse. But I do know that abuse can go on for years and there may be very few opportunities for anyone to learn about it. Sexual abuse victims aren’t known for reaching out for help. Having to talk to a pharmacist, or a doctor, might be the only time anyone ever has a chance to notice that anything is wrong.
Megan and CC, it’s a false dilemma to claim that opposing OTC availability of Plan B equates to wanting abuse victims to get pregnant.
I want abuse victims to be FREE FROM ABUSE, first and foremost. If a pregnancy does unfortunately occur in that situation, I don’t want the innocent child executed as a result.
Duck – I’m very curious, if a child isn’t a child in the womb, what is it? If you look at the several dictionary definitions for “child” (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/child, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/child) both have the unborn listed as pertaining to that definition. Do you believe yourself to be more authoritative than the dictionary?
http://www.dictionary.com
JoAnna, the primary definition for “child” in many dictionaries is to the effect of “a person between birth and full growth.”
Dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive. Sure, you can say “unborn baby” or “child,” if you want to, but in not way does that have to be right or the only way it can be.
Thanks, JoAnna. I looked up your link and its interesting that even the definition of embryo has in it “developing individual human.” I still can’t figure out the “my body, my choice” argument. Individual developing human sounds like an autonomous body to me. Are the scholars at webster stupid? Did they get it wrong? Why don’t we ever hear these pro-aborts/pro-choicers finish the sentence for Pro-Choice?!! Why can’t they just come out and say “pro for aborting/terminating/killing a developing individual human life”!! Talk about word games on their side.
Carla,
Being hated by someone who’s prolife isn’t a compliment. I’m sorry, not everything is on the internet for you to stalk from behind your computer. So, no, I don’t have links to my friend, and no, I don’t have photos because my camera is broken. So what, get over it.
Courtnay,
You don’t know anything about my ethics except that I’m pro-choice. You assume the rest.
Sydney, Jen, JoAnna,
You may think I don’t understand your point, but I do. I still disagree. Also, the philosophy that it’s a person from fertilization isn’t a universal human philosophy. Just so you know.
Jack,
You already know how I feel about abusing children. I do think that EC is a great way to help prevent those who are abused from getting pregnant. Our child protection services need to be reformed, and it involves comprehensive policies, not just about access to EC.
Xalisae,
Seriously, being snarky for no reason doesn’t help your case. You should just cut it out. Civility goes a long way.
@Duck: You are not being civil when you make comments with poorly-veiled condescension like “It’s not a child in the womb. A child is born. We’ve discussed this before.” So you’ve stated your position before; so what? Repeating something a lot does not make it true. Heck, even explaining why you think that doesn’t make it true. Believing that there is no wrong or false answer doesn’t even make your statement true. The fact that you’ve said something before is neither compelling nor relevant.
1. This is a frequently-updated blog with lots of traffic. You have absolutely no right to expect everyone to hunt through every thread ever to make sure they find every statement you ever made about every issue. It’s laughable that you think you can expect this.
2. We are not going to accept your perspective as authoritative and correct just because you explain it a bunch of times.
3. You came to to a pro-life blog as someone who is not. You are, by the very nature of your comments here, challenging the “status quo” in this particular arena. You ought to expect all your statements to be challenged all the time, since–in this context–you are the one making the assertions. This is not a scenario where both perspectives are assumed as equally valid, justifiable, or even tolerable. In a debate setting you would get that. This is not a formal debate.
If you want to get any traction here, ever, you need to start doing two things and start doing them right now. One: stop talking down to us as if we are unaware of the fact that we’re being tough on you. We know this. Of course we are. We disagree with everything you stand for as an abortion apologist. This audience is hostile to your views. Get over it. Two: stop acting like it’s a big pain to have to restate things. If you want a particular piece of information–even if that information has been stated elsewhere on this blog by you to the same person–in a given thread, it is your responsibility to put it, or a relevant link, in that thread. It is not your audience’s responsibility to make sure they’ve read every letter of the internet to be sure they didn’t miss it.
Either way, this condescending, my-friends-are-smarter-than-you, maybe-if-I-just-repeat-myself-hard-enough, pseudo-courtesy snobbery is not impressing anybody.
With condolences to the students who now wish they could transfer out…
Is it a coincidence that Ms. A. Edwards hails from “Sandusky Blitz University”?
Pharmer, I thought Sandusky was from Penn State, not UPenn. Am I confused?
Yes, Doug, I’m familiar with your moral subjectivity.
Duck, the fact is that several dictionaries also include “unborDun fetus” in their definition of “child,” which makes your claim that a child does not exist until s/he exists the birth canal patently false.
Once again, if it’s not a child while in the womb, what is it?
Duck, again, you disagree because you want to be able to kill and call it your choice. You disagree because you want the right to take another human being’s life. In order to do that, you must deny the humanity of the other person. Your “logic” is so transparently self-serving it’s pathetic. It’s sophistry. It’s the epitome of selfishness.
It’s not a “philosophy” to call the child in the womb a human being; it’s recognizing FACT. We’re not talking about a cat or a cucumber or a seahorse, but a newly-conceived, genetically-complete and unique human being. That’s a scientific fact. Humanity is not a function of utility or independence or ability; unless, of course, you want to be able to kill someone at your own discretion — then the other guy is less human than you are.
I believe human embryos and fetuses are human beings very early in the pregnancy. I don’t want to argue about the exact point being fertilization or implantation. A human being is in existence by the time most abortions occur.
However, I don’t support outlawing abortion across the board due to moral and practical problems in forcing unwilling pregnant females to carry to term and give birth.
I do support a wide variety of measures to limit abortions. For one thing, we need a family allowance system so women won’t be scared that there won’t be enough money to support a baby.
We also need to revive the nuclear family and possibly even the extended family so they won’t feel emotionally overwhelmed at taking care of children. A husband should be in the home and perhaps the husband’s mother and father as well.
It is important to encourage women who don’t want children ever or who have completed their families to undergo tubal ligation. It is important to ensure that as many as possible are using the most effective contraceptives.
We must also encourage people to relate to each other on non-sexual bases but this is easier when the female is out of reproductive age range — and that is unfortunate but true.
There are many things that can be done to decrease abortion and should be done. Pregnant females should WANT to carry to term.
To Pharmer: your rather insulting comment is disgusting and highly offensive to those of us who attended Penn State and are equally horrified and disgusted by what occurred as the result of one man and a handful of *ssholes that made no effort to uncover it. Making a comment like that isn’t clever, and equating all of us with that monster is pathetically stupid. So making a comment to the effect of ‘makes sense, she went to Penn State, they had that pedophile there’ is patently idiotic. And if its true that she went to UPenn, then you need to do your research a little better before you denigrate the graduates and students of an institution who do way more good for this world than the media gives the credit (look up ‘largest student run philanthropy in the WORLD’… Oh and guess what, that organization is run to help SAVE CHILDREN). No, a whole bunch of students don’t want to transfer (at the beginning, it seemed that way, what with the media going overboard in making it look like everyone was jumping ship). This is just a symptom of being spoon fed by the media, so I can’t hold it against you too much. My brother attends Penn State and is proud to do so. I’m a proud alum. And what Penn state alums and students do is pull together and try to fix problems (look up ProudPSUforRAINN and PSU’s THON organization). Quit equating us with a monstrous pedophile who just happened to be at Penn State when he victimized young kids. Newsflash: He wouldve done it anywhere, and you’d be just as offended if it was your alma mater being treated as ground zero for molesters! The only reason it even came to light was that it happened at one of the most famous schools in the world with a big name the media could drag through the mud. And looks like it worked…even on an educated person like yourself.
It’s been a long time since I’ve posted here, and I check back from time to time, but this just boiled my blood. I will die trying to protect and save kids from any abuse, whether it be abortion or molestation, but being compared to a child molester just because of my choice of schools is wrong. By making a statement like above, you implicitly say that anyone disagreeing with you based on birth control and minor girls has a reason to do so if they came from Penn State. That’s horrendous.
Duck–I have asked you again and again to clarify your ethics. If you’re interested in making your views known and understood, then explaining where they come from is a huge part of this.
Yay, Alice.
Amen, Alice!!!
Duck,
I am hated by proaborts. And I am fine with that.
Seriously. Talking to you goes nowhere fast. So what? Get over it. It’s like talking to my teenager.
You have nothing to back up any assertions you have ever made here.
Call your mother today and ask her what you were when she was pregnant with you. Ask her when you became a human being.
I know you have better things to do…..you explained it on some other thread that I must dig for………your phone is broken along with your camera?
Yes!! Duck!! Call your mom!!
Oh, and Carla: We absolutely LOVE you here.
Xalisae,
Seriously, being snarky for no reason doesn’t help your case. You should just cut it out. Civility goes a long way.
I’m not being snarky for no reason. I’m snarky because you’re condescending. See how that works? No? Maybe you should have Rachel Maddow explain it to you. Then you might understand. Or I’m sure you’ll at least pretend to understand so the rest of your cohorts don’t think you’re stupid. XD
Well, I’m not suprised by our most vehement abortion advocates’ thoughts on this matter. Their priority, as always: abort first, maybe ask questions later, if at all.
Now, let’s pretend for a moment that their concerns are correct that SO MANY young girls are getting abused by their own parents that we all have to endure laws that let underage children injest poison without anyone else’s knowledge or permission. PEOPLE! If child abuse has gotten that epidemic, then might it not occur to you that we need a better solution than just abort the new children and let the older ones keep getting abused?
Why not? Even here, on this site, one of the usual abortion advocates pipes in with a comment that some 13 year old girls are very mature… really? Because that’s what abusers say, too! Oh, the danger of the seductive child, right, abortion fans? What I see you saying is this:
Abortion trumps everything. No matter what, no matter how many children are abused, you must not waver in your blind and devout faith to the abortion industry.
Alice,
I shouldn’t have to repeat myself to those who have regularly asked me the same questions like it will change my answers or something. That’s what was meant. It’s not being condenscending. It’s saying quit asking the same question if you didn’t like the first answer. As for the fact that you say you are aware that you’re being tough, that’s just not cool. I wouldn’t, don’t and haven’t allowed that behavior to people challenging the status quo on my blog. Did anyone ever stop and think that maybe the reason why there are two sides screaming their heads off at each other, and a moderate middle going WTF is up with those crazies pointing at both sides, is because of the fact that both sides are hostile? Hmmm? No, likely not. As I’ve said before, and I’ll gladly repeat for you. I am not like everyone else. Get used to it. If you ask me a question again because you can’t remember, want to know a link to the current topic, etc I have no problem answering. Asking me a question again, just because you want to “make fun of me” for my answer, or just to show how much you didn’t like my answer the first time, is just rude. And not civil. Grow up and talk like adults instead of gossiping teenagers.
To the rest of you,
Child is legally conferred upon birth. Hence why abortion is legal (along with patient privacy). As for whether or not it’s about philosophy it is. Please tell me, for those of you who are against abortion, how it is “wrong” without using any philosophical viewpoints. NONE. You can’t do it. Why? Because science tells you how something is created, how something interacts, how it works, what it’s made of, etc. IT DOESN’T TELL YOU WHY it does what it does, IT DOESN’T TELL YOU WHAT THAT MEANS. That’s philosophies job.
Carla,
My mother agrees with my views on abortion, and is very happy to report that she CHOSE to keep me.
Courtnay, I have already discussed my ethics with you, and you roundly dismissed them. Therefore, what’s the point? None, you just want to get your rocks off or laugh at how stupid I look to you.
Oh, and btw, when you guys act like that just getting around and badgering people who disagree with you, it really shows how much you care about others. Just sayin. I’m actually a moderate, but you wouldn’t care to notice.
Oh and, the more you keep up ^ behavior, the more you’re going to lose your moderate prolife base. Might want to start actually behaving like “those on the side of right” instead of screaming how much you are, while being a jerk.
“Child is legally conferred upon birth. ”
Cite the law in question that states this, please.
Moreover, this is a weak argument. The United States, at one time, did not legally confer personhood upon black people. Does that mean that they were not, in fact, persons until it was legally conferred upon them by the government?
JoAnna: Yes, Doug, I’m familiar with your moral subjectivity.
And with the subjective morals of many other people, too, pro-lifers included.
____
Duck, the fact is that several dictionaries also include “unborDun fetus” in their definition of “child,” which makes your claim that a child does not exist until s/he exists the birth canal patently false.
It’s no more incorrect for Duck or anybody else to say “not a child” than it is for you to say “child” for the unborn. The primary definition in many dictionaries for “child” is between birth and puberty, or between birth and some other later time. That usage is as correct or more so than yours.
___
Once again, if it’s not a child while in the womb, what is it? The strictly correct, objective terms are embryo, fetus, etc. Those are true for everybody. Beyond that, hey – call it a twinkie if you want, but it’s not going to be any meaningful argument in the abortion debate.
I shouldn’t have to repeat myself to those who have regularly asked me the same questions like it will change my answers or something. That’s what was meant. It’s not being condenscending. It’s saying quit asking the same question if you didn’t like the first answer.
Seeing as I have seen you refuse to answer even basic questions about why you support abortion beyond, “Well that’s my philosophy” this is the lamest justification I’ve ever seen. So it’s your philosophy. Why? Why do you think the way you do? And yeah, since you’re essentially asking us to adopt your way of thinking, you need to be able to provide those justifications. You want us to change. If you can’t tell us why, then you’re just being petulant when you are displeased that we decide not to.
As for the fact that you say you are aware that you’re being tough, that’s just not cool. I wouldn’t, don’t and haven’t allowed that behavior to people challenging the status quo on my blog.
Brace yourself, because this may be a shock. This is not your blog. You can mod your own blog whatever way you see fit. And so can everyone else. We are not required to go easy on you just because you go easy on some nebulous, faceless group of other people on some other website that isn’t this one.
Did anyone ever stop and think that maybe the reason why there are two sides screaming their heads off at each other, and a moderate middle going WTF is up with those crazies pointing at both sides, is because of the fact that both sides are hostile? Hmmm? No, likely not. As I’ve said before, and I’ll gladly repeat for you. I am not like everyone else. Get used to it.
This is exactly what I meant by condescending. “Clearly you aren’t considering this issue in the way that an enlightened and reasonable person, like myself, would. The reality is much closer to my view and when you adopt it (since any thinking person undoubtedly will, eventually), you will be better off.” And then you have the gall to tell us to grow up after going off so hard about civility and courtesy. There’s not enough irony in this county…
Try this one on for size. Did you ever stop to think that your views on abortion are offensive? I don’t disagree with you. I am offended on a molecular level by the fact that you think killing innocent human beings is ever okay. You are advocating against the most fundamental human right and you offend me. Don’t come whining to me because I’m not respectful of your views. I don’t owe you the time of day. Having said that, I would be perfectly happy to have a civil conversation with you if you would A] stop being so impossibly condescending and B] actually explain the meat of your views every so often. (And for the record, I’ve never seen you actually answer any of the challenges to your comments anywhere on Jill’s blog. I’ve seen you say, “I’ve said that.” a whole bunch, but I’ve never seen you actually respond to a challenge with a complete argument. Not once.)
If you ask me a question again because you can’t remember, want to know a link to the current topic, etc I have no problem answering. Asking me a question again, just because you want to “make fun of me” for my answer, or just to show how much you didn’t like my answer the first time, is just rude. And not civil. Grow up and talk like adults instead of gossiping teenagers.
Oh, well thank you so much for defining the conditions under which you can bear to associate with us. I’ll remember that if I ever care enough to actually try something as ridiculously impossible as getting you to give a straight answer to anything.
*facepalm*
I have answered. You just didn’t like my answers.
Duck – sorry, I can’t be “moderate” about the killing of innocent children. The fact that you can speaks volumes about your morals (or lack thereof).
Once again, you avoid the issue. The United States, at one time, did not legally confer personhood upon black people. Does that mean that they were not, in fact, persons until it was legally conferred upon them by the government?
Doug – if we were speaking solely in a medical context, then I would use blastocyst, zygote, embryo, fetus, etc. However, we are not speaking in a medical context, therefore my use of “child” is both appropriate and accurate, especially given the dictionary definitions provided.
One, I haven’t engaged you in any serious debate on this site, beyond pointing out someof your egregious abuses of the logical method in other threads, because you don’t give any straight answers, you lecture us on all manner of things as you look down your figurative nose, all the while pretending civilty as if butter wouldn’t melt in your mouth. Throwing myself against a brick wall will only get me bruises. I have better things to do with my time.
Two, perhaps I could form an opinion as to like or dislike if I ever had seen you give any actual arguements on this site. But I haven’t and as I said, if you want something in this thread, it’s your job to put it here. I’m not hunting through all your comments on this site every time you get too lazy to actually explain yourself in a debate. Better things to do with my time.
I cannot believe this article got published. It is poorly written, no research was involved in reaching the conclusion – which in theory would impact a large and vulnerable segment of the population – and the logic often does not follow. Are the qualifications for university journalism really so low nowadays?
That is not what I asked you, Duck. Hardly surprised that you continually dodge any direct question. I didn’t ask you if your mother was proabortion like you.
I asked you to ask your mother
What were you when your mother was pregnant with you?
When does she believe you became a human being?
Now I am asking you.
If you weren’t a human being in utero, what were you??
Yes, Duck. Please talk to your mom and answer Carla’s questions. We really want to know.
Duck considers herself a moderate in relation to those who she associates with, therefore, being pro-legal-abortion is is a moderate position to her. When you build a nearly 2,000 person facebook group just to tell you how right you are, of course you’re going to feel like a “moderate”, because your echo chamber is so freaking huge.
And Duck, this is a PRO-LIFE BLOG. Sorry if the topic of discussion in MOST THREADS gets back to why abortion is/is not wrong, the philosophy, the science, the personal values, logic, and reasoning behind why it is or is not wrong. Sorry if the comments on just about every thread gravitate back towards those ideas, and people are forced to restate their assertions, evidence, and logical processes CONSTANTLY.
hehehe. Duck was just a choice to her mom.
I was respected and loved for the human being and mother’s child that I was my entire life. My mom didn’t just choose me.
I’m glad my siblings and I (and my children) have more significance to our mothers than “Would you like the chicken, or the fish?”
XD
Carla,
My mom, also believes that a fetus is not a child. There are many more people in this world who believe that as well.
Alice,
then perhaps, we should take that debate elsewhere. That way my comments and your comments don’t get lost in threads.
Xalisae,
If you’d like to stalk my page for information, perhaps you should pay attention better. It is not what you claim it to be.
Also, I’m aware that this is a pro-life blog. If you don’t like what I have to say, then don’t engage with me. I’ll stick to talking to the other people.
Duck, you still aren’t answering Carla’s questions.
PS–if a fetus (latin for “small child”) is not a child, then what, exactly is it?
I had the same question, Courtnay.
Duck also refuses to answer my question about the government’s authority to legally confer personhood. Could that possibly be because she doesn’t like the logical conclusion to her beliefs?
Courtnay,
A fetus. A fetus in english, is just that. A fetus. Lots of words in our language are borrowed from others. *sigh*
JoAnna,
I do not agree with slavery. I think everyone who has been born is a person, and after years of civil rights debates, the government finally put in legal protections as such.
Btw,
Fetus in latin, during the times long ago when latin was the dominant language, would have been used for what we call an infant in english. If you really want to get technical about language and semantics
I have answered Carla’s question twice. I have stated that my mother agrees with me about abortion, and that she believes a fetus is not a child. How is that not answering the question? Or is it really about the fact that you don’t like the answer, and that you don’t like that a pro-choice woman decided to have kids?
I know we borrow words from other languages, Duck. Sigh. You’re not the only one here with a degree.
The question was, when did she think you became a human being? What was that in her belly that was moving around, making expressions, having dreams, sucking her thumb, eating and pooping?
And if you say fetus (little baby), then how, except for the 6 or so inches of vaginal travel, does that differ from being a REAL baby. In your opinion.
P.S. I’m Phi Beta Kappa too. Did I mention that? Sigh.
As I’ve already said, it’s the rite of passage of birth. EVERYONE GOES THROUGH IT! (caps for emphasis not for shouting). So yes, my mother believed I was a fetus. My mother would talk about my younger sibs as being future brothers not her babies. There are many people in the world who agree with this assertion. So, that’s my answer. Again. Now, if you ask it of me again, I will know it’s just because you don’t like my answer.
So……you don’t know. You could just say you don’t know instead of answering questions I did not ask. I don’t like your answers because they don’t answer the questions I asked you. But you know that.
So one more time.
I asked you to ask your mother
What were you when your mother was pregnant with you?
When does she believe you became a human being?
Now I am asking you.
If you weren’t a human being in utero, what were you??
If you refuse to answer then I will know it’s just because you don’t know.
Carla,
Today I will Indulge you
“So one more time.
I asked you to ask your mother
What were you when your mother was pregnant with you? A fetus
When does she believe you became a human being? Birth
Now I am asking you.
If you weren’t a human being in utero, what were you??” A fetus
Hope that’s clear enough for you, because it’s the same answers I’ve always given.
When you talk about something (one) in the ‘future’, you usually mean something that’s not there yet. But clearly you were there. And if that wasn’t you, who was it?
Please answer the question, too, about what made you human OTHER than the birth, which was really just a location change. And were you a human before the cord was cut or just when you were out? And houw much of you had to be out for you to be fully human?
Courtnay,
“other” than birth? So still disregarding my answer huh? Oh well.
But a fetus IS a human being, Duck. Just a smaller one.
Do you see how much circular nonsense you keep spouting? IT MAKES NO SENSE.
But thanks, I guess, for your indulgence.
Courtnay,
That’s your belief. It’s ok to admit it’s a philosophy. It is what it is.
Pathetic.
Is a fetus a living human being, Duck?
You have so far brought NOTHING to back up your assertions btw.
I don’t need to bring up anything to back up my assertions. They’re a philosophical viewpoint same as yours.
I was born premie. So, I was outside which meant abortion fans could call me a human. But, another human who is at the same gestational age is a target for murder. Why? A few centimeters of abdominal muscle and skin (in the case of Cesarean delivery)?
Biologically, scientifically, and visually I was identical to another baby of the same gestational age. One can be murdered legally. One cannot. Same species. Same gestational age. This is why abortion advocacy is so completely irrational. It is based 100% on emotion: If a mother or her boyfriend/husband/mother/father/employer don’t want a new baby to be born, they can legally kill it, even though there is no scientific or biological basis to do so, even if the mother is healthy, the child is healthy, etc. Abortion advocates have a creepy view of what makes a human: basically: if we want to believe it because of our emtions, then it gets to be a person, but if we don’t want to believe in the child’s humanity, then we get to slice it up or poison it to death.
So, does a fetus, being a person, just get issued a really tiny driver’s license? Oh,wait. You need a Certificate of Live Birth to obtain one of those. What was I thinking.
Nonono. Back up. You have said that fetus + birth + personhood. But your’re not going to deny that what you were in your mom’s belly WASn’T a human being?
BECAUSE fetus mean little ababy. That’s why we use the word.
Please answer my question of 2:05PM.
Oh, and Kiminatrx? Clever, you!
I told you what it was. It’s a fetus. Why is that answer so difficult for you to hear? It is what it is.
Neither living nor dead, neither human nor beings, they roam the streets in search of unsuspecting wombs to inhabit.
They are…
THE FETUSES.
Sorry, I just couldn’t resist. It gets so freaking ridiculous after a while.
Oh, wait, I forgot to add something:
“Neither living nor dead, neither human nor beings, and certainly not driving because one has to be 16 and pass courses for that, they ROAM the streets in search of unsuspecting wombs to inhabit.”
What were you when your mother was pregnant with you? A fetus
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Lots of things are fetuses, Duck! We’re talking particularly about YOU and what YOU were when YOU were a fetus. There are pig fetuses, horse fetuses, cow fetuses, elephant fetuses-the list goes on. Every mammalian species has a fetal stage of development. That is just a stage of growth! Like when we say you were an infant, or that a newborn lion is a cub…”fetus” doesn’t denote WHAT something is, it denotes what stage of growth and development that placental mammal is in, Duck! This is basic stuff! Are you freaking kidding me? You seriously act like you know everything, and then you go and say something that is just so absolutely STUPID! LOLOLOLOLOL
Duck, when you were “a fetus”, you were a fetal homo sapiens spaiens, which qualifies you as a human being, because any living member of the human species is by definition a human being. CONGRATULATIONS! There’s a fun fact you apparently never learned in school and your mother wouldn’t tell you because I can only imagine she was ashamed to tell you that she thought you and your “future siblings” should’ve been on the chopping block any time she wanted.
Duck–this is the best you got and you have 2000 followers. And all you do is rely on the one word?
Am I being punk’d?
Again, re-read 2:05pm and answer the questions. It nowhere requires you to use to word fetus.
So, does a fetus, being a person, just get issued a really tiny driver’s license?
Yes. The DMV keeps them in boxes next to all the teeny-tiny license plates for when toddlers come in to get their cars registered. Moron. XD
Xalisae,
How clever, you know the difference between Homo sapiens sapiens and Homo sapiens neanderthalis. Too bad that being a human fetus doesn’t grant one personhood. I’ve said that dozens of times too. In fact even Courtnay quoted me on that.
Congratulations, you repeated yourself simply because you didn’t like my answer.
Oh, and finally, Duck:
I’ve been on the interwebs long enough (I don’t know how old you are, but I hit the big 3-0 last January and have been a netizen since at least my senior year in high school) to know a hugbox when I see one, honey. Why is that answer so difficult for you to hear? LMFAO
Kel,
Your joke is actually pretty funny. Thanks. :)
Xalisae,
you think it’s a hug box, but it isn’t. Hmmm, could it possibly be that people can get together from various issues and look at the big picture and share news? Holy crap, it’s the interwebs! You’re barely older than me. Just because people aren’t snarky jerks to me, doesn’t mean it’s a hug box. Perhaps you need to learn the difference.
Too bad that being a human fetus doesn’t grant one personhood.
I’m sorry, but where the #$%@ did I say ANYTHING about “personhood”? I don’t think I did. I just stated the fact (and you can look this up in any dictionary for yourself, there’s even a wikipedia article on “Humans/Human Beings” that state this as well!) that a living organism of the species homo sapiens sapiens IS. A. HUMAN. BEING.
Why is this answer so difficult for you to accept?
It’s not difficult to accept. Why do you get so mad when I say that personhood is the issue that people can’t agree on?
Right, Duck. That’s why you go over there and BAWWWW about how people over here are so gosh-darn mean to you all the time, and then they leave comments about how stupid we are and how awesome you are. No, that’s not a hugbox at all, oh no.
Sweetie…I know it must be difficult trying to come to terms with the fact your mom viewed you and your “future siblings” as disposable. I’m sure it’s hard, and it hurts. But that difficulty does not give you the right to re-define words, rewrite dictionaries, textbooks, and encyclopedias. Get a dictionary, read it, then get some help.
Xalisae,
1)Please reference when that has happened when I’ve “BAWWW” about people over here, since the time when I challenged you and Prax to own your bullying.
2)Don’t call me sweetie, I’m not your significant other, your child, or your friend. You’re also only two years older than me.
3)There’s nothing difficult about knowing that my siblings were potentials until birth. You just find it difficult that people are comfortable believing that.
Why do you get so mad when I say that personhood is the issue that people can’t agree on?
because we didn’t ask you about “personhood”. That is you changing the subject, in a big way. When we ask you what you were when you were gestating, you say, “fetus”. We say “a fetal what?”. You say, “I WASN’T A PERSON!!!”. That shows that YOU are the one having a problem coping with something.
Thanks for answering my question, xalisae. It has always puzzled me.
Xalisae,
Hate to break it to you, but a human fetus is literally a fetus.
I’m glad to know, as a mother, I had the choice to decide which of my pregnancies were disposable…Seriously, start taking care of your own uterus and stop worried about everyone elses…
Don’t worry, kiminatryx. I’ll be fighting for the right to live of ALL your offspring contained within your pregnancies, too! Just like if I saw a child being beaten to death in an alley, I’d do what I could to stop it, even if the parent said, “start taking care of your own kids and stop worried about everyone elses…”
a human fetus is a fetus. I never disagreed with you. But he/she is ALSO a human being, by definition. The two are not mutually exclusive. SWEETIE.
Main Entry: human being
Function: noun
Date: 1751
: HUMAN
Main Entry: 2human
Function: noun
Date: circa 1533
: a bipedal primate mammal (Homo sapiens: man ; broadly : hominid
— hu•man•like \-m?n-?l?k\ adjective
There’s nothing difficult about knowing that my siblings were potentials until birth.
hehehe. You give yourself away. I didn’t just say your siblings. I said you, too. Apparently, it’s a lot easier to accept that there was a time in your siblings’ lives that they were “potentials” than your own. XD
kiminatryx wrote:
So, does a fetus, being a person, just get issued a really tiny driver’s license? Oh,wait. You need a Certificate of Live Birth to obtain one of those.
(*weary sigh*) Another volley from the “if someone doesn’t have a driver’s licence, then they must not have been a person in the first place” crowd…
I suppose you weren’t aware of the fact that not all human persons are issued drivers’ licences? Driving does require the requisite motor skills, reading skills, response time, etc., in order to manage a vehicle safely; and I really do think that you know of the inabilities of the typical unborn child, in that regard, yes? Personhood is currently necessary in order to get such a licence, but it is not sufficient. You need proof of birth in order to vote, as well, but I do wonder at anyone who would consider voting (or driving) to be a valid “litmus test” for personhood!
What was I thinking.
At this point, your guess is as good as mine, friend.
kiminatryx says:
December 15, 2011 at 3:17 pm
Thanks for answering my question, xalisae. It has always puzzled me.
(??) Speaking of “puzzling”… when, exactly, did you ask Xalisae a question? Forgive me for asking… but given the crowd of sock-puppets that have invaded this blog, from time to time, I admit to being a bit curious…
Kimmy–I’m not worried about your uterus. Really. I’m worried about the human being growing in there who cannot trust his own mother to let him live. THAT’s what I’m worried about.
@Paladin…..so that’s where my unmatched socks go.
@Paladin…..so that’s where my unmatched socks go.
:) If only all of life’s mysteries could be answered so easily!
Xalisae,
I have no problem, no discomfort, no hurt, no pain, nothing wrong with the fact that I was also a potential person. As were you, as was my mother, as were my siblings, as will be my nieces and nephews, as was my girlfriend… Is it clear enough for you? I’m not giving anything away. You and I disagree. You just don’t like that, and keep trying to convert me when you don’t like my answers.
Duck, you will not answer me will you?
Courtnay,
I’ve answered you. Perhaps you need to re-read the many times I’ve answered you this thread alone.
There you go with that “person/personhood” b.s. again when no one has mentioned that AT ALL. I guess it’s like a coping mechanism. Sad.
It’s not bs. That’s exactly what all this fighting is about. If it’s not, then why is your side trying to pass personhood amendments X?
and for your information:
My mother never degraded me by thinking of me as just a choice. My mom always respected my siblings and I as HUMAN BEINGS both before and after birth, because that’s what we were/are. She didn’t dream up a bunch of “personhood/not a person” garbage to make herself feel better about maybe thinking that perhaps she might like to get rid of us and have us killed while we were still gestating. She didn’t have to use that “potential person” nonsense to rationalize a friend or family member doing the same to their offspring. She’s always, always, ALWAYS respected and loved us for the very real and absolute human beings we have always been, ever since she first knew that we were inside of her. She’s always known that giving us any less than the love and consideration she would want if she were in such a vulnerable position is the right thing to do, and that thinking of your offspring as some ethereal, non-tangible quasi-entity in order to attempt to legitimize treating them as anything less than a human being just like you is wrong.
Just so we’re clear.
Duck, if you believe that government has the legitimate authority to confer or withhold personhood from human beings, then you cannot possibly oppose slavery or the Holocaust. By your own logic, the US gov’t and the Nazi gov’t had the right and authority to withhold personhood status from blacks and Jews, respectively.
What would you think if the gov’t suddenly decided to withdraw your own personhood status, or that of your family, in order to kill you? Would you think it was right and moral?
X,
My mother never thought twice about “not keeping” her potential children. She CHOOSE to keep all the fetus she was carrying because she wanted the kids that would be born. I don’t like you insinuating that just because my mother is pro-choice that it means she can’t decide upon immediately discovering she’s pregnant to keep the pregnancy. WHOA GASP, you mean prochoice women actually reproduce? What a freaking concept. My mother also never degraded any of us for knowing that we are potential people. And Yes X, I will continue to use the word person, because that is what makes all the difference. If person and that word didn’t make a difference, there’d be no such thing as personhood amendments.
Just so we’re clear.
JoAnna,
The difference is that I believe in personhood beginning at birth as a moral issue. A philosophical issue. As do many others like me. I don’t necessarily agree with the state being the one with the “right” to confer personhood. What I do agree with, is the people electing members to the state, and participating in our republican democracy to represent our views. Those views include a majority of people who’s moral path signfies personhood at birth. That is not the same thing as slavery or the holocaust, although I know you’ll disagree and call me a hypocrit, because you wish it to be the same. So, with that, there’s not much else to debate.
Also,
Since we’re talking about who hasn’t answered what…
I mentioned earlier, that to be against abortion, or to be for abortion rights, is a moral/philosophical issue. I mentioned that it’s based entirely off of what one philosophically believes. I stated that science tells you how something works, what it does, what it’s made of, and how it interacts, but it does not tell you why or what that means. I stated that it is the job of philosophy to tell you why and what that means. I then challenged anyone to prove to me that abortion is “wrong” (a philosophical/moral term in itself) without using morality/philosophy.
Like I said, since we’re on the subject of who’s not answering who.
Clearly, “what we have here is a failure to communicate.”
oh, and btw, about my challenge. Philosophy and religion are not the same thing. All religions are a philosophy, not all philosophies are a religion.
hahaha. Duck,
if you’re unable to bring yourself to utter the words that a human organism in its fetal stage is a human being, it becomes painfully obvious that it has been ingrained in you to degrade gestating human beings. It means your mother degraded and continues to degrade you and your siblings to this day because she will not let herself recognize (and now as a consequence you will not allow yourself, either) the fact that gestating human beings are just that, and not merely “choices” or “potential”. I’m not insinuating. I’m stating it bluntly. If your mom is a supporter of legal abortion, she thinks there was a time in your life-and the life of every other human being she has ever gestated-that she thinks/thought that it should be perfectly acceptable and legal for her to decide to have you and them killed. THAT is what is degrading. And that is not my fault, either. Please don’t shoot the messenger.
I’m not saying that she ever would’ve done it. I’m not saying that she wanted that, had that in mind, or ever intended to do it. She just felt and feels that if she HAD wanted/intended to do it, it would be perfectly right of her to do so and should be legal for her to do so. You say you’re fine with that? Fine. Act like it. You are the one who sticks your fingers in your ears when someone reads to you from the freaking DICTIONARY the definition of human being which does indeed include gestating human beings going “LA LA LA, I CAN’T HEAR YOU!!! PERSON! PERSON!! I DIDN’T SAY I WAS A PERSON!!!” when you know DAMN well none of us ever even uttered the word “person” or anything close, we’re just reading the definition of HUMAN-FREAKING-BEING to you.
You are definitely talking to the wrong pro-lifer if you want to talk about “Personhood Amendments”. I never recommended taking that tact, and I don’t think we should. I think that a single constitutional amendment citing all human beings as being protected by the law from conception onward affording them equal rights they deserve as HUMAN BEINGS. “Persons” is irrelevant. It’s a delusion. A coping mechanism dreamed up by pro-legal-abortionists.
If you think I’ve never uttered human with fetus, you have selective memory. If you think I’ve never uttered being with human and with fetus, you’re delusional. The difference (whether you yourself believe this, or just your crowd) is the significance of the person. When does person begin? Because in our english and our understanding of civil rights, it’s person that matters. Just like earlier when I said that I know that a fetus carried by a human is going to be a human fetus, it’s still quite literally a fetus. It’s not a person. So rant and rave all you want about how brainwashed you think I am. I’ll just sit back and realize, you all keep asking me over and over again, because you’d probably understand what I’m saying better if I spoke to you in klingon. It’s a failure of communication, and a failure of translation. Combine that with the disagreement of what a person is, and it’s no surprise that the two sides scream at each other while the middle just shakes their head and walks away.
Nothing better than logging on to your e-mail and finding like one hundred notifications for thread that got way out of hand, lol.
I see what Duck is saying and I don’t think she is being deliberately obtuse. She believes that birth is the rite of passage that confirms a human being as being an equal member of society. Yeah… that’s something that I cannot remotely agree with. Societies and cultures draw those lines all the time, some earlier, some later, and the pro-life line is the only one that protects all human beings at all stages of development. I’m sorry Duck, but a philosophy where a human is not protected during a whole stage of development is pretty arbitrary, seemingly more so than one which assumes all humans need and deserve protection at all stages.
I wish people could argue without being mean, though.
Jack,
I know you’ll disagree with me about the philosophy, and that you think it’s “too” arbitrary. :) I do thank you for respectfully pointing out that I’m not trying to be a jerk, I’m just different than the average JS reader in my philosophy, and that doesn’t make it any more or less of a philosophy than the anti-abortion philosophy.
I guess you have nothing to worry about then, Court My uterus is currently occupied by Mirena.And its happy that way.
Duck-
I didn’t say you refuse to associate the word “human” with a gestating homo sapiens sapiens fetus.
I said you refuse to acknowledge that a gestating homo sapiens sapiens fetus is a human being, by definition. Which you do.
The “human” vs. “human being” word play is one of the pro-legal-abortionist’s favorite games. They simply say, “Yes, the fetus is human, but so are my toenail clippings!”, intentionally confusing the entire organism (the fetal human being) for cells belonging to a human organism (human cells of whatever variety, be they skin, cardiac, neural, etc.)
I don’t play that game. HUMAN BEING, Duck. Human being is what we are talking about here, which fits the gestating homo sapiens sapiens fetus by definition.
I’m not playing any games. You doth accuse me of games because you don’t understand me.
Sure, Duck. It’s not because you’re rationalizing, it’s just cuz yer too damned smart fer me! S-M-R-T smart! The person who thinks “fetus” is the same thing as a gestating human being denoting species and everything in a single word-“fetus”-because no other mammals share that stage of development or anything…is just too smart for dumb ‘ol me. XD
Duck. You break my heart.
YOu can’t even stand up for yourself.
Answer my question at 2:05pm.
X,
Holy crap you mean people speaking different languages can’t understand eachother? Are you sure it’s not cause one of them thinks their intelligence is better? WHOA, you’re blowing my mind.
You seem to misinterpret my claim of misunderstanding for intelligence. It’s not. It’s communication
Courtnay,
I have answered your questions. Perhaps you, like X, just don’t understand me.
I’m sorry, I thought we were both speaking English. Apparently though, I am speaking “English”, and you are speaking “Delusional Moron”. You should get your next degree in that dialect, because you apparently excel at it.
No, we’re both speaking English. You’re speaking pro-life, and I’m speaking pro-choice.
no, duck,you haven’t. 2:05, 2nd paragraph.
3 questions. your answers, please. Learn how to scroll back.
2:05, 3 questions.
Answer.
Ergh… too many questions, too little time! I’ll try to answer a few, tomorrow…
Paladin,
Your logical mind operated even differently than prolife and prochoice logic. You and I should discuss the values of logic elsewhere. :)
Courtnay,
I have answered these already.
“Please answer the question, too, about what made you human OTHER than the birth, which was really just a location change. And were you a human before the cord was cut or just when you were out? And houw much of you had to be out for you to be fully human?”
Q1)”other than birth” signifies that you completely disregard the validity of the right to have a philosophy that differs from yours. Unfortunately for you, simply because I have a philosophy, you have a philosophy, the world is full of them. Some agree, many disagree, such is life.
Q2)I was a human fetus before birth. I’ve said this before.
Q3)I’m pretty sure someone is born when their whole body gets out, so I’m not sure why this question is so redundant. Again, I’ve answered this already.
Now, is this clear enough for you? Do I have to indulge your every redundant question? No, either learn that we disagree, and we have different philosophies, or stop asking questions you don’t like the answers to.
I would like to bid a fond farewell to duck.
I will no longer engage in any conversation.
Totally and completely pointless.
I do however admire the TENACITY of so many that try to get a straight answer.
I’m not trying to be a jerk. I can’t help it. Whine. Whine. I’m just so literal. Blah, blah, blah. It’s just who I am. I can’t change. It’s poor communication. I’m trying to get along. Blah, blah, blah, blah, derail, avoid, blame, run away, call in the troops, confront, argue, lie and then do it all over again and again to see who will fall for it again and again.
Glad to see you can smell the BS through your computer too, Carla. I quit communicating with her a while back as well. She argues just to argue and gets off on the drama.
Hope your little ones are safe and snug. The cold is setting in. God Bless.
what troops did I call in? Pretty sure I don’t know a single other prochoicer here
Hi Praxedes,
I get tired of the reindeer games.
To constantly spout assertions and not back it up while the burden of proof has always been on her to do so?
Idiocy.
The little ones are well and anticipating CHRISTmas and vacation!! :)
God bless you and yours Praxedes.
Well Duck, I am very impressed by your (dare I say) godlike ability to decide when human life begins and when that life has a right to be protected. You must have a special gift and vision to be so clear and certain that YOU are the last and only word on the subject. You are such an authority that you don’t even have to prove your proclamations. I wonder what it must feel like to wield such power. I hope you are able to instruct other anti-life blasphemers who have conflicting opinions about when life begins. Countless many of them think that life begins at quickening or sentience. Others are sure that life begins at viability or at a specified number of weeks gestation. Don’t they know that you are the supreme authority? By the way, since we are nothing but a lowly fetus until birth and abortion of a fetus is permitted at any time, would you be able to go through with an abortion at 39 weeks, just before the anticipated birth? What would be the best way to kill your fetus just days or hours before birth?
How prophetic it was in 1973, that before the coming of Duck, after centuries of believing that pre born humans should be protected as persons, a majority among 9 men finally saw the light of truth and negated that protection. They must have sensed your imminent arrival on this earth. If only you had been a born person centuries sooner, you could have brought the truth to the ignorant masses. Just think of how many more women could have been protected from their children.
How is it possible for anyone to think that there is any stage of development that is more or less important than another? To you, the time in utero is insignificant to the point that a pre born person is not worthy of protection. I suggest that, due to the fragility of a developing life in the womb, the pre born deserve special protection from harm.
Imagine this: for the next 2 years, 2012 and 2013, all pregnant women choose abortion. No babies are born. It is hard for me to accept that even the most ardent anti life zealot would approve of a 100% abortion rate. If you do approve, well, at least you are consistent. If you don’t, how will you decide who lives and who dies? Which abortions will you authorize and which will you disallow? Will you try and convince some women to keep their babies? Which ones? It is impossible to be for abortion and against abortion at the same time. What will you do?
Jim,
You mistake my pointing out that my philosophy is one of many, and that the pro-life philosophy is one of many with being all knowing. That is not the same thing.
That seems cowardly to me. Don’t you think you are right? Now, you imply there is no ultimate truth. You sounded quite sure of yourself earlier. You stated your ultimate truth: a human fetus is not a person.
Jim,
I stated my belief. The value of “right” and “wrong” are both philosophical points that differ across the millions of philosophies that exist in our world. I’m not being cowardly. I’m being reasonable.
So, Duck – child rape ( for example) is not wrong, it’s just a different philosophy. Interesting moral code you have there.
Duck – that’s goofy. Is a civilized society even possible with a million different “philosophies” of right and wrong? Is there nothing that is right or wrong?
May I suggest that people who find deep significance in the canard that ‘fetus’ is Latin for ‘little one’ or ‘little child’
a) Learn to use a dictionary
b) Find out what ancient Latin-speakers did with unwanted children.
Sigh. Haven’t been able to get links in since the format change.
The meaning of ‘fetus’ in Latin: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dfetus2
The fate of unwanted Roman children: http://www.jstor.org/pss/300867
Lisa, what is your point?
yeah, Lisa C…now they kill them sooner. This is better how, exactly?
Oh, but thanks for drawing the parallel, Lisa! You’re right-one day abortion will be just as wrong, illegal, and unthinkable as killing an unwanted child by abandonment and exposure! You’re a brilliant pro-lifer!
*trollface*
JoAnna: Doug – if we were speaking solely in a medical context, then I would use blastocyst, zygote, embryo, fetus, etc. However, we are not speaking in a medical context, therefore my use of “child” is both appropriate and accurate, especially given the dictionary definitions provided.
No more appropriate than saying “not a child.” No more accurate, either. Just to describe the unborn – that’s not really a big deal. But often we see arguments that amount to “abortion is wrong because it’s a baby.” That’s the same thing as saying “abortion is okay because it’s not a baby.” Nobody gets anywhere that way.
Courtnay: if a fetus (latin for “small child”) is not a child, then what, exactly is it?
Well, it’s not Latin for “small child” in the first place.
Dictionary.com says it pretty well:
“(used chiefly of viviparous mammals) the young of an animal in the womb or egg, especially in the later stages of development when the body structures are in the recognizable form of its kind, in humans after the end of the second month of gestation.”
Duck: All religions are a philosophy, not all philosophies are a religion.
How does that really work, Duck? I see them as the same. Aren’t you taking the larger group – in your case, philosophies, and implying they don’t include as much as a religion, necessarily? That is, it would take more to be a religion, and hence philosophies would be a broader and less-selective group?
Jim Sable: How prophetic it was in 1973, that before the coming of Duck, after centuries of believing that pre born humans should be protected as persons, a majority among 9 men finally saw the light of truth and negated that protection.
Uh, no – the unborn were never “protected as persons.” Abortion had been legal under English common law, and that’s what held sway in the Colonies and in the US – abortion was okay to quickening – until anti-abortion laws began to appear in the US states in the 1800s. Those laws required doctors to say an abortion was called for, in the given situation, otherwise it was illegal. It was not the case that the unborn were “protected as persons.”
Doug
There were colonial laws against abortion as far back as the mid 1600’s and into the 1700’s. An admitted pro life bias prompted me to conclude that any abortion laws in effect centuries ago conferred “personhood protection”. Was it an overstatement? Hard to say, as the legal records from that time are incomplete and laws were not always codified. Medical records from back then are also hard to come by. This link provides a solid recap of “Abortion Rites” by Marvin Olasky, which is considered the definitive book about U.S. abortion history. This is an anti abortion website, but the discussion of this book (and other sources) is accurate and fair.
http://www.abort73.com/abortion_facts/us_abortion_history/
Here is a source that contradicts your claim about the legality of abortion under English Common Law.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,881,00.html
Jim,
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10297561
–from the National Institutes of Health, saying “In the British colonies abortions were legal if they were performed prior to quickening.” I guess it’s a question exactly things were.
On “personhood protection,” when abortion was illegal in the US, abortions could be done as long as doctors said they were necessary. Obviously, that would not have been the case were personhood attributed to the unborn. That would mean Constitutional protection, the 14th Amendment, etc.
I never did say anything about a formal establishment of personhood. Even without a formal declaration of personhood, don’t you agree there was an implication that a human person was being protected by laws prohibiting abortion?
Lisa, what is your point?
My main point is that the definition of ‘fetus’ as ‘little child’ (‘little one’ is what pro-life websites usually say) is wrong. Arguments are not strengthened by errors, even if the weight of the argument does not rest on said error. My second point is that even if it were true that the classical world (those who spoke Latin) equated ‘fetus’ with ‘child’, that equation would have little relevance to a contemporary argument about the inherent rights of a fetus.
So my comment was really about etymology and the construction of arguments, not about abortion per se. When I post on pro-life sites it’s frequently in response to faulty logic or misuse of history (or in your case, Courtnay, a good-faith repetition of a common error) rather than in opposition to the pro-life position as such.
Doug,
Because other issues such as prolife prochoice are philosophies that may or may not be religious. Being green of being climate denier are philosophies that may or may not be religious. :)
Lisa C,
You are correct.
JoAnna,
My point, that you clearly missed, is that people need to realize that declaring something “right” or “wrong” doesn’t automatically mean Correct. There is a HUGE difference between me pointing that out, and saying that I have no morals, or that I think that all behavior should be excused because of other people’s morals. So, reflect more about my point, instead of ignorantly trying to make me look like a stupid prick.
“Abortion Rites” by Marvin Olasky, which is considered the definitive book about U.S. abortion history.
I ran a search through four academic databases and found the book cited only twice in scholarly journals (and one of those was in a lukewarm review), indicating that rather than being considered “definitive,” it has had virtually no impact. Regardless, a law against abortion does not necessarily indicate that the fetus was considered a human person as opposed to a potential person.
Jim Sable: I never did say anything about a formal establishment of personhood. Even without a formal declaration of personhood, don’t you agree there was an implication that a human person was being protected by laws prohibiting abortion?
No, I really don’t think “person” was implied. Some people did feel abortion was wrong, but there were other big influences like doctors wanting to shut out midwives, homeopaths, etc., and the anti-abortion laws held that doctors only could say that abortion was called for in the situation.
You did say: How prophetic it was in 1973, that before the coming of Duck, after centuries of believing that pre born humans should be protected as persons
That really was not the case.