Pages

Tuesday, May 13, 2014

The "back-alley" argument, repurposed

Yesterday, Slate published an article by Boer Deng and Dahlia Lithwick entitled Liberal Guilt: In the push to abolish the capital punishment, opponents of the death penalty have made it less safe. 

Let us first take a moment to ponder the lunacy of that headline. What, exactly, is a "safe" death penalty? Safe for whom?

It's clear from the article itself that what the authors really mean is that executions are becoming less humane. Not that it makes a whole lot of difference from the inmate's point of view. (In fairness, I suspect that the authors didn't write the headline; that task is usually left to editors.)

But that's all beside the point. I bring this article to your attention because it's a fascinating re-tooling of an old pro-abortion argument.

Here's the crux:
Lethal injection was supposed to be the humane alternative to firing squads and hangings. But as American physicians sideline themselves and European pharmaceutical firms (and American ones with global ties) decline to supply the most known and efficacious lethal injection drugs, corrections officials have been pushed to use inferior methods and substandard providers. In other words—and painful though it is to admit—the real culprit in the death of Clayton Lockett is opposition to the death penalty. In pushing for outright abolition of capital punishment, we have undermined the countervailing effort to make it as clean and painless as possible.
Raise your hand if this sounds really familiar.

Those naive, stupid right-to-life activists, discouraging physicians from performing a lawful procedure and restricting access. They're just pushing it all underground... right? Whether you're talking about the death penalty or abortion, it's the exact same argument.

And it's utter nonsense.

Nobody is "pushing corrections officers to use inferior methods and substandard providers." Incredibly, the article elsewhere says that death penalty states have been "forced"—yes, forced—to use questionable sources of lethal drugs.

In the context of abortion, we have already addressed the bizarre idea that people are "forced" to create an underground system of killing people:
[T]he pro-choice argument about "back-alley" abortions assumes that women are stupid and/or without meaningful agency.
Women will be forced to avail themselves of illegal abortion procedures, abortion advocates say. They'll have to. It's inevitable. The idea that they might choose life instead? Preposterous.
In short, they are saying that the average American woman, living after the reversal of Roe, would be completely incapable of the following train of thought: "This pregnancy hasn't come at a good time. There's a pregnancy center a couple miles from here that might be able to help me out, but will that be enough? I suppose I could take a semester off. Or maybe I could take online classes instead. Will I have to take out a loan? Move back in with my parents? Get a second job? Go on welfare? Place my baby with an adoptive family? I'm not thrilled about any of these options. On the other hand, they are much better than the option of sticking a sharp object up my privates and hoping for the best."
Likewise, in the death penalty context, the available alternatives are quite obvious. Even if a state isn't yet prepared to take the death penalty off its books, it can declare a moratorium. They just don't want to, because they've decided that they value the death of particular people over safety considerations. (Whose fault is that?)

Sadly, that should sound really familiar, too.

I realize that not all Secular Pro-Life members oppose the death penalty. And you don't have to; it isn't an official SPL stance (although I personally am opposed, obviously). But the parallels here are pretty striking. Clearly, the movement to abolish abortion and the movement to abolish capital punishment can learn a lot from one another.

And if you oppose the death penalty, and you find the Slate article absurd, but you've never given much thought to abortion... may this be your introduction.

163 comments:

  1. Overall the Slate article was...pretty bad. And kind of shocking. I never would have imagined anyone on either side of the issue reasoning in this way. Perhaps that means this kind of "pro-choice" logic really is deeply ingrained, and comes up occasionally in unexpected ways.

    ReplyDelete
  2. And I thought this was just an Onion article: http://www.theonion.com/articles/lethal-injection-ban-leads-to-rise-in-backalley-le,2309/

    ReplyDelete
  3. Argent, wow!! I had not read that previously. Once again, news imitates the Onion.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Another proliferMay 13, 2014 at 11:45 AM

    For the sake of transparency, I will preface this with saying I am anti-death penalty and anti-abortion. I find it very interesting that administering potassium chloride to stop the heart of an inadequately sedated convict is considered to be a horrific and torturous death, but administering potassium chloride to an unsedated fetus is absolutely fine. It concerns me because for years, premature babies underwent incredibly painful procedures, including open heart surgeries, because we "knew" that they weren't developed enough to feel pain yet and the dosing of sedatives and pain medications was too risky in such tiny fragile infants. And then someone noticed that his preemie patients did better if they were given sedatives and pain medications, and eventually it became clear that preemies DO feel pain. So if potassium chloride is "torture" ... Then isn't it torture for every living thing, not just the convicted felons?

    ReplyDelete
  5. I know. After this, I'm going to have to stop making fun of people who post Onion articles without realizing that they are satirical.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I wonder if you could also to say that now that people are anti-death penalty there will be an increase of vigilantism as more people seek ways to keep violent repeat offenders off the street.

    ReplyDelete
  7. In short, they are saying that the average American woman, living after the reversal of Roe, would be completely incapable of the following train of thought:

    "This pregnancy hasn't come at a good time. There's a pregnancy center a couple miles from here that might be able to help me out, but will that be enough? I suppose I could take a semester off. Or maybe I could take online classes instead. Will I have to take out a loan? Move back in with my parents? Get a second job? Go on welfare? Place my baby with an adoptive family? I'm not thrilled about any of these options. On
    the other hand, they are much better than the option of sticking a sharp object up my privates and hoping for the best."

    The problem is, for a lot of pregnant people, your suggested alternatives aren't better than "sticking a sharp object up my privates and hoping for the best". Pregnant people do frequently evaluate their situation and decide that an abortion--even an illegal, dangerous abortion--is better than carrying to term. Kermit Gosnell's clinic was filthy and obviously unsafe--and women still came to him for abortions. According to the New York Times, women in countries where abortion is illegal do get them at about the same rates as in countries where abortion is legal.

    It is your argument that "assumes that women are stupid": specifically, it is your argument that assumes that pregnant people who seek illegal abortion in countries without legal abortion are all making the wrong decision. These women have decided that "sticking a sharp object up my privates" is a better option than carrying to term, and they are in a much better position to evaluate their situation than we are. Dismissing their conclusion because it's not the one you like is an insult to their intelligence.

    ReplyDelete
  8. No, deciding that I kill my child because that is better for ME, no matter whether it is legal or not, is an insult to human rights. The fact is, abortion is a choice, and some choices are wrong. Abortion is NOT nessessary

    ReplyDelete
  9. So giving a rapist and murderer KCl is torture, ripping apart a viable child created by that rapist, or giving the child KCl before delivering her dead body, is not?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Abortion after viability is illegal. Capital punishment should be illegal.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I agree capital punishment should be illegal, abortion after viability however, depends on where you live. Some places in the US, not others, and in Canada, abortion is legal till birth

    ReplyDelete
  12. What does "until birth" have to do with viability? Because if you carry any given pregnancy to term, the result is "viable"? Not in a million years. Stop conflating weeks of gestation and viability. They aren't the same concept.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Ah, you mean the viability should be up to the abortionist? Then unwanted babies will be vioable far later than others, heh?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Is English your second language? Not all fetuses will be viable, EVER.

    ReplyDelete
  15. English is my second language, the typos though are more coincidental. Yes, not all unborn will be viable, that doesn't change the fact tha killing viable unborn lives is very much legal many places

    ReplyDelete
  16. I respect that you are personally pro-life and feel that abortion would never be necessary for you. However, for some people it is a necessary medical procedure and denying them the right to it just because you are against it is wrong. If someone needs to or wants to get a legal, safe, medical procedure, it really should not be anyone's business but theirs, their doctor's, and anyone else that they wish to involve. Period.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Canada, US for socalled health reasons including familial and economic reasons etc

    ReplyDelete
  18. Abortion IS illegal after viability. If the health reasons are maternal, labor can be induced. If the health reasons are fetal, then the fetus isn't "viable." Once again, 22 weeks does NOT equal viability. If, for example, there is anencephaly, the fetus will never be viable. If there is renal agenesis, the fetus will never be viable. An abortionist is an OB/GYN and is perfectly capable of making that determination. Familial and economic reasons are different than health reasons.

    ReplyDelete
  19. An abortionist that makes money on the abortion and not of not doing it, is not the right person to make that determination. He might say a perfectly healthy fetus at 29 weeks isn't viable because he needs the money. And again, no. In canada, there are NO gestational limits, and in the US, Doe's definition of viability is so broad as to allow abortion for about any reason at all. I wish you was right, but you are not.

    http://thehairpin.com/2013/09/susan-robinson It shows abortion in the third trimester are available for other reasons than fetal non-viability. I garee that aboriton for the mother's health after viability is an oxymoron, but these abortions happens for many other reasons than non-viability, such as incest, "didn't know I ws pregnant" etc

    ReplyDelete
  20. Its necessary if the pregnant person does not want their body to continue to be violated.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Birth is torture

    ReplyDelete
  22. And doctors will force c sections because there is money to be made

    And adoption agencies will lobby for abortion restrictions because they can make 60k for a healthy white male baby.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Violated? Where do you think the child comes from? She is MADE inside the mother, BY the mother and her partner

    ReplyDelete
  24. Births and adoptions don't end with a dead baby

    ReplyDelete
  25. Abortion is murder

    ReplyDelete
  26. And yet, in Canada, doctors won't abort after 24 weeks. In fact, the country lacks the facilities. For women with doomed pregnancies are sent to new mexico or Kansas.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Which proves my point, abortion is legal after viability for reasons other than fatal deformities manye places, including several states in the US

    ReplyDelete
  28. So exploitation of children does not bother you?

    ReplyDelete
  29. Please elaborate.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Yes, the child is innocent, and is there through no fault of his own, so claiming to be violated is just an excuse

    ReplyDelete
  31. Oh, I thought we was just doing slogans here.... Like 12 hours of labor with pain-relief is more torture than a 4 day abortion that ends in a dead baby, IF that arguemnt at all had validity anyhow..... You are willing to say anything to justify the killing of the unborn, why would I bother.

    ReplyDelete
  32. I think it is sad adoption costs so much, but the baby gets to live and have a happy life, aboriton offers no chances

    ReplyDelete
  33. No it does not. The women are all suffering from fetal deformity which is why they are sent to Kansas and NM - because only those places have the proper facilities.

    ReplyDelete
  34. The guinea worm in your body is there through no fault of its own. It is merely existing. Your fault for drinking thr dirty water.

    To remove it is murder

    ReplyDelete
  35. No guarantee of a happy life

    You are pro child exploitation. How unfortunate.

    ReplyDelete
  36. And that makes it OK???

    ReplyDelete
  37. Ingrid, just stop. You have no idea what viability means. It is not a product of "X weeks of gestation."

    ReplyDelete
  38. Labour can last up to 72 hours
    Pain relief is NOT guaranteed
    Birth injuries from either vaginal or c section can last a lifetime and cause pain

    Fetuses cannot feel pain

    ReplyDelete
  39. You do not get to decide what is necessary for me and my life. Why do you think you are so special that you can tell me how to live my life?

    ReplyDelete
  40. Child birth and pregnancy is torture... and BTW most abortions are not four days long. Most of them are either a two day procedure at home with pain pills if the woman takes RU-486 or a day procedure since most are done before 8 weeks.

    ReplyDelete
  41. So the child gets to live and have a happy life, but who cares what happened to the pregnant woman right? Her life means nothing to you guys anyway...

    ReplyDelete
  42. Usually it can be drawn from gestation yes, especially when you come above 26 weeks. But what you are really saying is the viability definition is up to the abortionist, so there should be no gestational limits on abortion whatsoever.

    ReplyDelete
  43. No? Of course we care about the pregnant woman, why do you think pro-life centers give women jobs, housing, child care etc so they can care for their children and support themselves after they are born? You just kill their babies and then gives crap about them

    ReplyDelete
  44. Life offers no guarantees, abortion offers no chances

    ReplyDelete
  45. But now we were talking about late-term abortion

    ReplyDelete
  46. They cannot? And you know that for sure? Do you know how to test that? Did you know unborn children can feel tjeir mother's anxiety and hear?

    ReplyDelete
  47. I bet several serial killers have said the same

    ReplyDelete
  48. That is not human, it does not belong there, and removing it kills it, but is not murder

    ReplyDelete
  49. Worthless if a woman does not want to be pregnant. If she would rather die than be an unwilling incubator.

    ReplyDelete
  50. So a human child is worthless, who was talking about child exploitation eh?

    ReplyDelete
  51. So now you are comparing the pregnant women you supposedly care about to serial killers.

    OK Ingrid. What should the criminal penalty be for women who abort if they are all as depraved as Ted Bundy?

    ReplyDelete
  52. Prejudice. The worm is mindless just as the zygote is.

    Neither are people.

    ReplyDelete
  53. No, yo misread. Your platitudes are worthless if you force a woman to go through hell so you can sell a baby for 60k.

    ReplyDelete
  54. The worm is a paracite, it was not invited, the fetus is your own child. The fetus is also not mindless, at a poiunt in gestation they are conscious and can learn, remember, recognise etc

    ReplyDelete
  55. I didn't say that, it was a repsonse to "I know what is best for me, and you don't get to say anything about that"

    ReplyDelete
  56. And the "right" to live does not include the right to use a persons body as life support.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Yes you did. You were implying that pro choice view = psychopathic, because all you have are emotional arguments.

    Its actually rather amusing.

    ReplyDelete
  58. If I could help a pregnant woman and save her child from abortion, i would let her moev in with me in my 1 room apartment. Adoption is an excellent alternative to abortion iof the woman don't want to have the child, and I would love for that process to be free

    ReplyDelete
  59. They are anaesthetized and sedated while in utero. Prior to 26 weeks they are not even sentient.

    ReplyDelete
  60. No, I said the way she was arguing could just as well have been said by a serial killer, not that pro-choice is the same as psychopathic, although it is rather close if you look at the reality of aboriton and still defend it

    ReplyDelete
  61. So that is why they recognize music, their parents voices etc?

    ReplyDelete
  62. Oh. So someone 45 = serial killer

    Got it.

    ReplyDelete
  63. I said the arguments could have been said by a serial killer as well

    ReplyDelete
  64. If you drink dirty water you invite the parasite in.

    The fetus is not capable of sentience until the 26th week and it is unconscious in utero.

    ReplyDelete
  65. The ears work. Parts of the brain are functional. None of this means that they are awake and conscious.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Adoption is an alternative to patenting not pregnancy.

    ReplyDelete
  67. And again, you know that how? Is it tested and asked?

    ReplyDelete
  68. Its an excellent way to not become a parent without killing your child, it removes every argument for abortion because of economics and career and stuff like that. When you have created a life, the least yoiu can do is not kill it

    ReplyDelete
  69. Ok, and how exactly do we know the child is anesthetized?

    ReplyDelete
  70. How does that help women who would rather kill themselves than be pregnant?

    ReplyDelete
  71. Ok, so the logic goes, unless you let me kill my child, i will kill myself, and then we say, ok....? Go ahead, kill your child?

    ReplyDelete
  72. You compared her character to that of a serial killer.

    Stop backpedaling.

    ReplyDelete
  73. I compared her ARGUMENT, stop misreading

    ReplyDelete
  74. So it does not bother you if desperate women would rather die than be pregnant?

    I thought you cared for women? Guess not! You just want those babies to sell for 60k.

    And no, suicides are not more common after abortion. Those studies have been debunked.

    ReplyDelete
  75. The implication was clear.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Maybe that should give pro-choicers womthing to think about, how their thought might resemble psychopathy, ie killing others because I decide it is ok

    ReplyDelete
  77. It bothers me, it is still not ok to kill a child. And stop that stupid 60k, I don't make a dime from adoption, I still support it. And no, these studies have not been debunked, especially the finnish one

    ReplyDelete
  78. If I remove your liver on purpose, and mine is a match, it would be obvious to me that you having a piece of mine is self-evident

    ReplyDelete
  79. Yeah. Because as we all know, the victims of serial killers live inside them, steal nutrients from their blood, drill into a blood vessel, inject toxic biowastes into their body, and torture the serial killer for 6-72 hours and then shove a large bowling ball sized object out of a tiny hole in the serial killers body.

    Yep. Exactly the same thing. Women, just like serial killers, abort for sadistic, BDSM pleasure.

    LOLOLOL.

    ReplyDelete
  80. The Finnish one had skewed stats and improper methodology.

    You support through adoption lobby.

    You compare women who are PC to serial killers. Something tells me that you don't give a flying fig about those who would rather die than be forced to give birth.

    ReplyDelete
  81. That does not even make sense.

    ReplyDelete
  82. You don't care about the pregnant woman at all. All that matters to you people is that she carries the unwanted pregnancy to term.


    You claim you give them support after the child is born but yet all I see is conservatives trying to cut welfare/food stamp benefits.

    ReplyDelete
  83. 99% of the time those are for a fetal defect or to save the pregnant woman's life. I do not see how anyone could be against it in those cases.

    Or for a case like my friends. There was "no signs of life or heartbeat"- words from 3 different doctors. So she had a choice to carry around a dead fetus or have an abortion at 30 weeks.

    ReplyDelete
  84. The difference is serial killers kill actual born and living people.

    ReplyDelete
  85. I believe the decision ought to be left between women and their doctors. PERIOD. Abortion is illegal after viability.

    ReplyDelete
  86. I ahve stated my opinion, you can believe what you want. I care about women, AND their babies

    ReplyDelete
  87. That I got a visitor, or that I understand all you are doing are looking for any excuse nessessary to kill a baby?

    ReplyDelete
  88. And yo assume i am socially conservative based on what?

    ReplyDelete
  89. If the fetus is dead, it is induced labour, abortion is killing a living fetus, and you know that. Stop playing with words. Besides, I cannot fathom what case it would be nessessary to KILL the child instead of delivering the child alive at the same time in order to save the mother.

    ReplyDelete
  90. Aboritonists kill living people also, but they are not visible to the poutside wortld, thereby killing them is easier. Yet very cowardly

    ReplyDelete
  91. That is a lie, and you know it, but keep saying it, maybe some idiot believes you and supports this deadly practice on viable babies

    ReplyDelete
  92. Ectopic pregnancies...? -That right there is a reason to save the woman.



    I also know that my friend had to drive to a PP a few hours away because the local hospitals refused to do anything for her. That is what the world will be like if that anti-choicers win.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Abortions removes a non viable embryo/fetus from a living pregnant woman who has a right to decide if it uses her body as its host.

    ReplyDelete
  94. You might not be but the majority of anti-choicers are against any form of government assistance toward single moms. After it is born they change it to , "Well if you can't afford a kid you shouldn't be having sex"

    ReplyDelete
  95. I support social support, public health care, public funded contraception, I simply think life starts at conception and so deserves protection

    ReplyDelete
  96. That decision she made when she had sex. Npt because there is soemthing wrong with having sex, but because this baby became a reality through that choice, through no fault of her own, and the mother then is responsible for her life. She would not be there if the mother didn't do somethingt o put her there

    ReplyDelete
  97. The child is not viable when the pregnancy is ectopic. Noone opposes abortion in such a case.

    ReplyDelete
  98. Just because she had sex does not mean she is giving up rights to her body and life. She is not responsible to loan out her body and life to sustain the existence of the unwanted pregnancy.

    ReplyDelete
  99. Her action caused the child to come into being, the child is ionnocent and deserves to life when it became a life through other's actions. It is not fair to kill a life that has done nothing wrong because you don't like the consequenses of an act you consented to knowing, or should have known, the chance

    ReplyDelete
  100. Its a mindless animal organism that assaults the pregnant person in order to survive. It has no right to life.

    ReplyDelete
  101. If s woman undergoes uterine ablation and no blastocyst can implant because of this, does this make her a serial killer or mass murderer?

    ReplyDelete
  102. You would prefer that abortion remain illegal even if women kill and maim themselves from illegal abortion and
    pregnancies gone wrong.

    Or put a bullet in their brain because they would rather be dead than be forced to give birth by people like you.

    You don't give a flying fig about women unless they live their lives according to your opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  103. People aren't single cell genetic blueprints.

    ReplyDelete
  104. It doesn't matter if her actions caused it to be there she still is a human with the basic right to control her own body.


    You also can't say they are equal when you are putting the life of the embryo/fetus above the pregnant woman by forcing her to have her life ruined by carrying to term.

    ReplyDelete
  105. Too bad you did not bother reading your own link. If you had, you would have got to the part where she says she doesn't DO "elective" abortions (as in, "I just don't want to be pregnant.") after viability. Now just imagine the horror of being told at, say 26 weeks, that most of your baby's brain didn't develop. Now, compound that with the horror of being told "Too bad. You have to carry to term anyway" putting yourself at risk, and your baby is going to be born with a condition that is incompatible with life. Why do you want to mentally harm women and their families? Why should they listen to anything you have to say? You're awfully nervy, lady. It's someone else's tragedy. Keep your big nose OUT of it.

    ReplyDelete
  106. You know you give yourself away. It's so obvious.



    And -- what is so terrible about being a great teacher of Middle Eastern Dance, as well as a great performer?

    ReplyDelete
  107. Well, that's funny, because I haven't seen that, and I use food stamps to buy food just about every week.

    ReplyDelete
  108. You have a citation for that? Or, are you just blowing it out your posterior?


    Making it up as you go along? As long as there's a dead baby.


    I am a single mom. My kids grew up on government assistance of every kind.


    Nobody ever said I shouldn't have had my kids if I couldn't raise them without government assistance. So, I KNOW you are making it up as you go along.

    ReplyDelete
  109. Whereas, YOUR platitudes are etched in platinum.

    ReplyDelete
  110. Abortion is also not an "alternative" to pregnancy. It just kills the baby before birth.

    ReplyDelete
  111. You can't say that you care about a class of people and then turn around and enslave them.

    ReplyDelete
  112. All babies are born.

    ReplyDelete
  113. Okay, then don't do that.

    ReplyDelete
  114. Yes, this old trope --- again from the pro-abortion dictionary. No babies are unborn. Yes, clever. I get it.


    They are human beings from the moment of conception. Babies one month before birth aren't so different from a baby one month after birth.

    ReplyDelete
  115. How does that help moms who have committed suicide because of grief, despair and anger after abortion?

    ReplyDelete
  116. She had to answer the door. It makes perfect sense.

    ReplyDelete
  117. So what? That wouldn't make abortion ok, even if what you say were true.

    ReplyDelete
  118. Tee, hee. You mean you really believe that?

    ReplyDelete
  119. Where is the law that forces women to abort against their will?

    ReplyDelete
  120. Yes, Ingrid, I think that's their ploy -- hoping that vulnerable young folks will jump on the abortion bandwagon.

    ReplyDelete
  121. Yeah? Now say that about zygotes and blastocysts please.

    ReplyDelete
  122. Ingrid, maybe we shouldn't waste our precious time with these blockheads?


    They're just here to troll. They have no interest in having an actual, respectful discussion about the issues.

    ReplyDelete
  123. Oooh, ladyblack, ID wendy and two guests all vote up. That proves that you are right.

    ReplyDelete
  124. There is nothing that means anybody is awake and conscious.


    We are human beings, before and after birth. All humans are connected.


    It is not your place to determine whether another human lives or dies.

    ReplyDelete
  125. "Where is the law that forces anyone to smoke cigarettes?"


    Said the tobacco companies.

    ReplyDelete
  126. Women aren't stupid. They have been aborting unwanted pregnancies for thousands of years.

    ReplyDelete
  127. Coneon. Explain how a single cell zygote is no different than a newborn infant.

    ReplyDelete
  128. Then why are other mindless human organisms - such as anenceohalic babies and beating heart cadavers - often unhooked from feeding tubes and life support? They exhibit the same level of brain activity as a fetus.

    ReplyDelete
  129. A woman should not have to carry any pregnancy or give birth to a fetus who has conditions incompatible with life. Tough if you don't like it. It has nothing to do with saving the mother. It's done to end a doomed pregnancy and allow the family to grieve and move on. Just because it's not the choice YOU would make doesn't make it a "wrong" choice.

    ReplyDelete
  130. So what? She STILL isn't obligated to use her body to sustain it.

    ReplyDelete
  131. It's also more common after giving birth. Your point?

    ReplyDelete
  132. Yes, it most certainly IS an alternative to being pregnant.

    ReplyDelete
  133. I already answered this question, and more than once. Your buddy Ingrid put up a link that purported to show that abortions are done after viability, only she didn't bother reading it before she posted it. This doctor doesn't abort healthy pregnancies post viability. Only ones that have gone dreadfully wrong, thus NOT "viable". I have no problem with that. No woman has to continue a doomed pregnancy just because YOU think she ought to. MYOB.

    ReplyDelete
  134. Yes, abortion IS ok. Get over it.

    ReplyDelete
  135. Does this comment have a point, or are you just being snide?

    ReplyDelete
  136. You must not be from Texas and you must not read comments from most anti-choicers...

    ReplyDelete
  137. My ex-husband was born in Dallas.

    "Anti-choice" = pro-life?

    No, I read comments from pro-lifers pretty frequently. Only a few times a week now, as I am taking a class. Before that, I read pro-life comments every day.

    I've rarely seen pro-lifers write a thing like that. I see many pro-aborts writing that, though.

    Further, my dear someone45: You already know this, because we've been through it before. I've told you and all your other little AKA friends that my kids grew up on welfare, in the projects, on food stamps, and liviing in subsidized housing.

    But, even so, ---- Who cares what someone says?

    I am opposed to the death penalty. I know some anti-death penalty jerks who have said nasty things, ok?

    Does that make me stop being opposed to the death penalty?

    I think that's called jumping on the bandwagon or something?

    I wouldn't really care if a pro-lifer was nasty, filthy, smelly, sneaky, drunk, or a lying, thieving crackhead. That wouldn't make me stop being pro-life.

    ReplyDelete
  138. I have no problem with anyone getting government help as long as they really need it. Conservatives are the ones against welfare and food stamps.

    ReplyDelete
  139. No, they're not. Why do you keep saying that? It isn't true. That is absolute, utter nonsense.

    Nobody is "against" welfare OR food stamps. I think many might be "against" obtaining them fraudulently, or selling them to buy drugs. Also, many might be "against" corruption in the local governments that administer them.

    All pro-lifers are NOT conservative.

    You just bring up these silly stereotypes because you don't want to talk about the real issue.

    According to your "thinking," ---- a pregnant mom might say to herself: "OMG, I just read that some alleged 'conservative' asked for a quality control check at the local level, so that only truly qualified people can obtain food stamps.

    I must kill my baby immediately, so I can blame it on that "conservative," legislator.

    That will SHOW THEM!!

    Never mind that this would not have stopped her or her baby from getting food stamps, or any other benefits that they're entitled to.

    Just keep saying it, and wishing it were true.

    Conservatives and pro-lifers are being blamed for Kermit Gosnell, too.

    ReplyDelete
  140. Because you say so?

    Many moms who have killed their babies say otherwise. They wish they had known the truth.

    You know, dear, I recognize you from that picture. I've known you for 30 years.

    Get over it.

    I don' even know why you are denying it. It seems a little -- well, immature, for one thing? Willy, for another.

    Who even cares?

    ReplyDelete
  141. You have to be pregnant to have an abortion, right?

    It's not an alternative. You're already pregnant.

    ReplyDelete
  142. YOU said, "All babies are born."

    You were trying to pretend that there is no such thing as a live baby before birth. You were implying that a fetus is not a baby.

    The single-celled zygote stage has already passed by the time the mom even knows she is pregnant at all.

    ReplyDelete
  143. Zygotes embryos and fetuses are not infants.

    ReplyDelete
  144. Women aren't stupid. They've been allowing their babies to live for thousands of years.

    ReplyDelete
  145. So, that makes abortion ok, then. Got it.

    ReplyDelete
  146. Zefs are not people.

    ReplyDelete
  147. ID Wendy and ladyblack are two dedicated pro-abort trolls. The two "guests" --- probably also ID and lb.

    ReplyDelete
  148. What is the difference between a Jewish person and a zygote? can you figure that one out?

    ReplyDelete
  149. Well, the male Jewish zygote will (we hope) have Bar Mitzvah about fifteen years later, while the female Jewish zygote will have Bat Mitzvah (we hope --- if her parents are dedicated enough to take her to Shabat) at that amount of time later.

    Well, maybe more like sixteen, because after all, they're still zygotes.

    ReplyDelete
  150. In scientific terms please

    ReplyDelete
  151. I learned this dance from lady black
    DJ Snake & Lil Jon - Turn Down for What: http://youtu.be/HMUDVMiITOU

    ReplyDelete
  152. Actually the burden ought to be on you to explain exactly when life does start, and how, if you think there is some point other than conception when life "begins".


    Because the idea of equality under the law says that either all unborn babies are nothuman, or all unborn babies are human. The idea that the mother gets to choose whether or not her baby is a living person vs. a bit of biological trash is doomed to go the same way laws protecting wife-beating and slavery went.

    ReplyDelete
  153. Zygote- embryo- fetus = correct medical terms for the developmental stages of all viviparous vertebrates, of which humans are one.

    ReplyDelete
  154. I can prove it. I have never been a dance instructor. Or even studied dance myself, much less taught it. Only in your universe do people teach what they themselves don't know. I don't worry about how to lie "intelligently" because I just don't lie, period. You are the consummate liar, I'll leave those details to you. And a picture doesn't prove jack shit. I look like someone you know. That doesn't equate to my being that person. If you "know" this person, simply go ask them. They will tell you you're wrong, just as I have, nut.

    ReplyDelete
  155. Thanks for verifying all that I wrote.

    God bless, dear.

    ReplyDelete
  156. I cannot verify what you wrote. Only YOU can do that. Go ask this person that you "know." That's how you can verify what you're saying. I dare you.

    ReplyDelete
  157. Oh and by the way, people are either dance instructors or nurses. Both require a lot of dedication.

    ReplyDelete

Fair warning: sometimes this blog has trolls. We encourage all thoughtful responses and dialogues. We also encourage you to not bother responding to anyone you feel is just trying to start a fight. Don't feed the trolls, guys.