Pages

Wednesday, May 14, 2014

Unproductive responses to the Emily Letts abortion video

[Today's guest post by Rachel Enders is part of our paid blogging program. Get more thoughts from Rachel at her Pro-Life For All tumblr. She also blogs about sexual health at Birds, Bees, and Other Things, which is not remotely safe for work.]

Emily Letts is a woman from New Jersey, and she is pro-choice. She participates in abortion-related activism, and she is an abortion counselor at the Cherry Hill Women’s Center. In November, she decided to have an abortion. This choice has sparked an onslaught of respect and condemnation from people on all sides of the abortion issue.

Why is Emily’s abortion different than the fifty-five million other abortions that have taken place since 1973? Emily Lett filmed her abortion… and it went viral.

Miss Lett entered her video into the Abortion Stigma-Busting Competition sponsored by the Abortion Care Network in an attempt to dissipate the shame that many women feel after an abortion. She says:
I know there are women who feel great remorse. I have seen the tears. Grieving is an important part of a woman's process, but what I really wanted to address in my video is guilt… Our society breeds this guilt. We inhale it from all directions… I had one woman who messaged me saying she’d had an abortion that week, and she was plagued with guilt. Her boyfriend called her a killer…
Unfortunately, these sorts of reactions to post-abortive women are far too common in some facets of the pro-life movement. When I was perusing facebook looking for information about this case, the amount of pure vitriol coming from the peanut gallery was simply terrible. I’ll share a few (adjusted for privacy).

Some were slut-shaming:

Others wished her infertility:

Some even wished her death:

And some were simply a bit stupid:

All of these examples are very, very sad.

I’m writing this in the early hours of Mother’s Day, and I’m appalled by so many aspects of this case. On one hand, there is a woman who has bought into the lies that support abortion. On the other hand, there are people who supposedly support life that are wishing another person violent death.

I understand the anger of the commenters. I really do. It makes me mad that this woman chose to end her child’s life. I am disappointed that in her sexual activity she was not using any form of birth control, by her own admission. It also makes me angry to see fellow pro-lifers spit this sort of hatred at a woman they’ve never met. I am even more livid that high-profile pro-life websites have allowed this sort of commenting to go unchecked on their Facebook pages.

I’ve drawn one conclusion about this story: Nothing has occurred so far that’s positive.

However, we do have the opportunity to improve the situation. Many women who are considering abortion or are post-abortive feel a great deal of shame and condemnation from society and the people around them. Unfortunately, too much of that comes from people who claim to be pro-life.

We can change this. Bringing positivity to the abortion dialogue does a lot. Firstly, it decreases the amount of totally unnecessary stress to someone who is facing an unwanted pregnancy or has just lost a child. In any circumstance that’s difficult and nobody needs to be called a whore when their lives are going to be changed forever. Secondly, if a woman has had or is seeking an abortion, do you think this sort of trash talking will convince her to choose life? I don’t think so. Lastly, it’s just the kind thing to do. That factor is enough for me to use only productive language in any circumstance. The list goes on and on, but I’ve picked out the highlights.

I truly believe that with some hard work, the pro-life movement will ultimately triumph over abortion. It’s a firm conviction of mine. For this to occur, we have to stay productive and open. We can let our anger drive us to action, but we can’t let it consume us. Overall, I believe that we can change hearts and minds, but hatred only hurts our cause.

Calling someone scum doesn’t save the unborn – it only hurts people.

299 comments:

1 – 200 of 299   Newer›   Newest»
Elizabeth Doecke said...

The comments have been dreadful. I've been ashamed of many members of the pro-life community, and have actually stopped reading comments on most Emily Letts' stories because I couldn't stop cringing. It's unhelpful and unproductive.

purrtriarchy said...

Would you treat a woman who just dismembered her infant with compassion? No. Most people would not. If one believes truly that abortion is the equivalent of torturing an infant to death, then they are completely justified in wishing death and destruction on any woman who has an abortion. The vitriol and violence is justified.

purrtriarchy said...

If people were dismembering babies in your city would you not try to stop it violently?

Also, I mainly meant rhetorical violence.

jocelyn said...

What if she was your daughter? Obviously I would be disappointed and horrified if she was mine. I would have thoughts akin to "I can't believe I raised someone who would murder her own baby in such a cold and dismissive fashion." But I also would not tolerate others wishing death, infertility, and hell upon her...especially if they voiced yheir wishes out loud.
Emily Letts represents the epitome of pro-abortion thought and action which is full of selfishness, ignorance, and brain-washing. Wishing for her to come to a similar fate as her child may feel "fair" as in an-eye-for-an-eye, but it only adds to the problem and only brings the wisher down to her level.

Taryn said...

People do dismember babies in my city. Every time I drive by the Planned Parenthood where it happens, I feel angry. But I don't do anything violent - rhetorical or otherwise.

purrtriarchy said...

People who dismember and torture infants/embryos deserve zero sympathy. Only contempt. Like Nazis.

If you are saying that vicious and violent murder is OK because of brainwashing, then the Nazis should never have been vilified for their crimes after all it was just brainwashing.

If my kid cheerfully and happily tortured and dismembered her baby for a YouTube video I would treat her with contempt just like those angry hateful commenters.

purrtriarchy said...

If people were taking their children to dismemberment clinics instead of going to kindergarten that day I assume you would be just be just as blase about it as you are now?

Jocelyn said...

What is your response to child soldiers then? Seven year olds who rape torture and murder?

purrtriarchy said...

Why are you trying so hard to make excuses for violent murderers?

sue c said...

The frustration felt on the prolife side of this issue is tremendous! Why don't we show the same positive support for these prolifers whose hearts are broken by all the selfish proaborts who kill their children? They would not physically harm these women who get abortions. How are we supposed to vent the feelings when we hear these stories? If we comment to prochoicers in calm rational tones, we are always met with rage and ridicule. We are only human, as they are only human also. It's a tough place to be in this society....on the prolife side.

Douglas Noble said...

My ability to empathize is strange. Do you know what pisses me off more than genocide in Africa? Having a crappy internet connection.

My empathy is maybe lacking, but I can recognize what an injustice looks like. As I've explained in another blog, this is just an awkward reality that has been going on since before I was born. If we want to make a difference, it is important that we are able to show our sanity and give reason. Blowing up abortion clinics is not going to bring change.

And the take away from this well articulated thought is that this sort of behavior is harmful in the important matter of reversing inertia in this plight.

No differently than how a moral vegetarian feels killing animals for meat is akin to murder, if he wants to make a difference, violence isn't going to help his cause.

purrtriarchy said...

Violence ended the holocaust...

If abortion is truly a holocaust.. Then the people who resort to violence and vilify women who get abortions are in the right.

Clinton said...

Please don't feed the trolls.

Tullia_Ciceronis said...

Yes, purrtriarchy is a troll. I have learned not to engage with her the hard way. Nothing productive comes of it.

Deanna Young said...

Most abortions occur early enough in the pregnancy that the child feels no pain. So in general calling abortion the equivellent of "torturing a child to death" is not scientifically accurate.

There are also other things to consider. Most women who have abortions don't know that the fetus is a living human being and they don't understand what they are doing. I also think the bodily component of pregnancy makes abortion less bad than infanticide because it involves a conflict of the rights of the child and the mother's bodily rights. I don't think it justifies abortions that actively kill the unborn child but it does, I think, change the morality if the situation to make it not as bad.

Lastly, violence is almost never justified and it certainly isn't justified in this case

Ingrid Heimark said...

I think violence in an attempt to stop abortion would be justified as defense of others. BUT it would also, and I say that as a pro-life christian, remove the abortionists chances of ever being saved, and THAT is inexcusable. Also, violence would backfire at our movement and pourt credibility, it would lead to abortion being legal even longer than if we don't use violence, and ultimately more babies will die. Unless we are willing to use massive violence, and then we are back to the backfires and the souls lost.


As long as abortion is legal, and the police are on the abortionists side, violence will never work. And should abortion be illegal, we could call te police, and violence would not be nessessary.


Plus, pro-life means exactly that, we are a non-violent movement. So yes, the violence if abortion can cause us to consider the justification of defending the unborn with violence. I have an assumption you believe we are not true pro-lifers if we don't defend the unborn as we would a born child.


But all those points I have made, makes violence a very bad idea, and will only cause us to be killers and abortion to be legal even longer. Thus, violence is CONTRAINDICATED. Still, that doesn't minimize the horrible violence of abortion and the humanity and rights of the unborn

purrtriarchy said...

Pro-lifers routinely tell me that 6 week embryos have functioning brains and hearts and that they are awake and can feel pain and all of the emotions...

Besides, a paralyzed person can't feel pain, but it would still be torture to cut them up, wouldn't it?

Most women who have abortions don't know that the fetus is a living human being and they don't understand what they are doing.

The Nazis didn't understand that jews were people either. The slavers didn't understand that non-whites were people either. Ignorance is not an excuse for cold blooded torture and genocide.

I also think the bodily component of pregnancy makes abortion less bad
than infanticide because it involves a conflict of the rights of the
child and the mother's bodily rights.



Yes, there is a conflict, but she is responsible for it because she put it there, kind of like kidnapping. She coerced it into existence, and put it into a state of existential dependency. It's all her fault, and she needs to take responsibility.

purrtriarchy said...

Abortion is the equivalent of antebellum slavery and the holocaust. Those were only stopped with violence. The true believers are in the right, with violence and angry rhetoric.

purrtriarchy said...

It's called examining the issues and the motivations of people in the pro-life movement.


If you're going to go around saying that abortion = WORSE than the holocaust and slavery put together, then you can't say 'but I am going to combat it by writing my congressman and saying nice things'.


No, that is not how we humans have EVER dealt with mass murder and crimes against humanity.



We need to examine the issues, instead of issuing worthless platitudes and making excuses for people.


BTW, you're just butthurt that you weren't able to convince me that zygotes and coma patients were exactly the same re sentience. Which is why you had to cowardly resort to ad homimen attacks, accusing me of having had abortions and going over to LAN and saying that I have a personality disorder. Sad!

Ingrid Heimark said...

Not true, this cannot be compared, as we don't have any government behind us, like the west had during the war or the US north. We would be hunted down and accomplish nothing. The only way for us to achieve anything, would be to win people's hearts and babies lives. We then can fight to make unborn lives protected, and then we can prosecute abortionists. There is a difference between a just war and plain stupidity because we can achieve only the opposite of our goal.


Nice try though. It took the allied years to fight the nazis, all the german humanists could do was try to save the ones they could. And we are the german humanists

purrtriarchy said...

And we are the german humanists

Yes, which is why it really won't go that far. As I said, the true believers, the ones who will go to war, are the ones who will only ever end it. Especially if abortion really IS worse than every holocaust and crime against humanity put together. (according to many pro-lifers, and the people insulting Emily Letts in the article)

Ingrid Heimark said...

No, you are wrong, because we have to relate to the reality we live in. We have to measure our position, and how society is regulated. Making the public our enemies in a democratic society will cause MORE deaths in the long run. You WANT us to be villent, because then you will go back to Rhrc and claim we ARE that. You want us to be, because then you win. If the german humanists were violent against the nazis, they would save less lives, because they themselves would be killed. We have to save as many as we can, working to win hearts and minds and votes, and one day, we will get the human life amendment

purrtriarchy said...

Think about it this way. The people who blow up clinics and assassinate abortion doctors literally do save lives. For every doctor that is killed or clinic bombed, women literally CANNOT get that abortion. There is one less clinic and one less evil doctor.


Compare it to bombing a train track during the holocaust. The is one train carrying jews that won't make it to the gas chambers. Those are some lives that are saved.



The true believers might not be playing the long game, as you are, but they are playing the immediate game, which is to IMMEDIATELY save lives. As in, they believe that actual babies are being murdered in the most horrific ways, and they are taking immediate steps to stop it.


And no, I don't want you to be violent, nothing of the sort. However, instead of flat out condemning the violent/angry anti-abortionists, I am trying to understand where they come from. And where they come from, is that they believe that abortion is genocide, and that this is a war, and that babies must be saved RIGHT NOW - because each and every life that can be immediately saved is precious.


Understand?

Ingrid Heimark said...

I understand them, really I do. But I do believe it is counterproductive and will cause more deaths in the long run. But yes, I do understand why people shoot abortionists, although the train comparison is not the same as the train itself isn't bombed. But as I said, it is counterproductive and leads to more deaths in the long run. But I understand were they come from

Rachel Anne Enders said...

Psst. Don't feed the trolls.

I'm glad my piece has gotten a good amount of views so far. I think this issue is so important.

purrtriarchy said...

That's all I am trying to do. Thank you Ingrid for understanding!

By their logic, I think, it can take decades to shut down abortion clinics and eventually outlaw it. How many millions of babies will die in that time ? They are looking at the small picture, and trying to save *individual* lives.

Josh Brahm said...

Thank you so much for writing this, Rachel. I completely agree with you.

sarah5775 said...

When clinics are bombed and abortion doctors are killed, women reschedule their appointments. I have never heard of a single woman who did not have her abortion because of clinic violence. it certainly does not eliminate her desire to abort, it only makes her even LESS likely to consider alternatives. When clinics are set on fire or doctors shot, women go elsewhere. Violence also energizes the pro-choice movement. It convinces people that pro-lifers are evil and crazy - and fewer women go to them for help when they are pregnant. Fewer women go to crisis pregnancy centers because they associate prolifers with violence.Fewer people listen to pro-life arguments or read pro-life blogs or trust pro-life info. Medical students for choice is a group that was founded after the first abortionist was killed. The pro-choicers who founded it said that they would not have been inspired to found it if the killings hadn't happened. MSFC had trained over 300 abortionists. We killed five. These are people who may have been won to the pro-life side if not for the violence. If you look at statistics, the biggest amount of clinic violence took place in the in the 90s. The highest number of abortions EVER was in the 90s. Staistics show that the violence saved no lives and even may have contributed to the death of more babies. When people are convinced that pro-lifers are crazy and evil, and that their arguments are not worth listening to, babies die.

Anne said...

especially one who doesn't hold to any opinion other than if you say black I say white and vice versa.

Jocelyn said...

There is no excuse. Their behavior is abhorrent. But so is slinging vitriol and hate the way a chimp slings feces.
You want to hate her and treat her like garbage and wish ill upon her then that's your prerogative. But know that such an approach only further entretches people like her in their abomidable behavior, and gives them fodder to sling likewise back at you.

Clinton said...

I've been trying to get people to ignore the trolls on my articles for a long time. You haven't lived until the comments on your article breach 200 because people can't let the trolls get the last word.

Guest said...

What's your opinion of the White Rose project? Were they heroic for trying to save innocent people at great personal cost, or were they just cowardly hypocrites for not picking up guns and shooting a bunch of S.S. officers or whatever?

Rachel Anne Enders said...

Thanks :)

Rachel Anne Enders said...

I run a blog on tumblr. Believe me, I've seen it.

Coyote said...

"Some were slut-shaming:"

Yes, this could probably be interpreted as slut-shaming. However, it is worth noting that even some/many pro-choicers tell males who don't want to pay or to risk paying child support something similar ("Keep it in your pants!").

Thus, it appears that it should either be okay to say something such as this to both sexes/genders or that it should not be okay to say something such as this to either sex/gender. Otherwise, it appears to be a case of double-standards.

Coyote said...

Please define "rhetorical violence" here.

Suba gunawardana said...

If a day comes when every single child is welcomed & loved, and GUARANTEED a life free from neglect/abuse, then you may have an ethical argument against abortion. (Not a legal one.)

That day is not today. Far from it.

Coyote said...

"Would you treat a woman who just dismembered her infant with compassion?"

Dismembered? No. Painlessly euthanized her infant with the "baby daddy's" consent in a hypothetical situation where there is currently a shortage of adoptive parents and where what she did is legal? Probably Yes.

Coyote said...

You are aware that you appear to be begging the question here, right? Else, your rationale here could likewise be used to justify things such as elective late-term abortions and infanticide in the hypothetical event of a shortage of adoptive parents.

purrtriarchy said...

The people who say that she's a nazi killer slut who should die for her crimes.


The GOP members who say that fetus's should have guns etc. That stand your ground laws should be applied to fetuses, so that if anyone is going to harm a fetus should be shot dead (ie kill abortion doctors)

Coyote said...

"Violence ended the holocaust..."

Violence in the sense that various countries went to war and defeated the Nazis, thus stopping the Holocaust.

Coyote said...

"If abortion were happening in one country then you might, MAYBE, have a point."

Perhaps, but only if she was talking about using violence in the sense of having countries go to war with this country, rather than about ordinary individuals taking the law into their own hands and committing violence.

Coyote said...

"The people who say that she's a nazi killer slut who should die for her crimes."

OK, but this appears to be a possible threat and/or incitement on their part. I don't approve of either of these things, so yeah.

"The GOP members who say that fetus's should have guns etc."

Fetuses shouldn't have guns because they are incapable of using them. Heck, even already-born children shouldn't have guns.

"That stand your ground laws should be applied to fetuses, so that if anyone is going to harm a fetus should be shot dead (ie kill abortion doctors)"

I oppose doing this regardless of whether or not abortion is legal. Why? Because I don't think that abortion doctors should be given the death penalty even if abortion is made illegal.

Coyote said...

As a side note, though, even if all other arguments are unconvincing to someone, it is worth noting that supporting having individuals take the law into their own hands in regards to this could very well *hurt* their cause, which is an outcome that I don't think that these individuals want.

Suba gunawardana said...

-Not hypothetical. There IS a huge shortage of adoptive patents. Otherwise our foster care system would not be clogged.

-I have no problem with late term abortion.

-The decision to carry a pregnancy instead of abort, is a commitment made to the future child. It's tantamount to a legal contract never to abuse or kill the child, and should be treated as such.

-Spitting out a child does not end your parental responsibility. That's where it effectively begins. If all your "consideration" for fetuses were actually directed towards living children, these problems would be pretty much solved by now.

Coyote said...

Oh, and as a side note, the only change of government which I support are a change of government which is done through democratic means, rather than through something such as a coup d'etat.

Coyote said...

Couldn't shooting S. S. officers simply have resulted in a worse outcome for their cause, though?

Coyote said...

Yeah, frankly, I might need to side with purrtriarchy (a.k.a. Lieutenant Nun, a.k.a. Mirable, et cetera) in regards to this. I think that she provides interesting points to consider, at least sometimes.

Coyote said...

What if someone does not consider human infants to be persons and thus considers elective painless infanticide to be morally justifiable in the hypothetical event of a shortage of adoptive parents?

Coyote said...

"-Not hypothetical. There IS a huge shortage of adoptive patents. Otherwise our foster care system would not be clogged."

OK. Thanks for this info.

"-I have no problem with late term abortion."

What about with elective painless infanticide as long as both parents consent and as long as a shortage of adoptive parents remains?

"-The decision to carry a pregnancy instead of abort, is a commitment made to the future child. It's tantamount to a legal contract never to abuse or kill the child, and should be treated as such."

I am not entirely sure that I would agree with you on this. After all, people *do* change their minds in regards to this--for instance, a woman could purposely get pregnant only to change her mind later on and get an abortion. Thus, why exactly couldn't such a rationale apply to infanticide as well in certain cases?

"-Spitting out a child does not end your parental responsibility. That's where it effectively begins. If all your "consideration" for fetuses were actually directed towards living children, these problems would be pretty much solved by now."

Actually, I have no problem with helping out children who are already born. This is why I support liberal economic policies, a social safety net, et cetera.

Suba gunawardana said...

-There should be a reasonable time limit to change your mind. Whether it should extend beyond birth is debatable. Personally I think 9 months of pregnancy should be more than enough time to decide between commitment or abortion.

-I agree with liberal economic policies & social safety net. But what's most important is to STOP adding more children to an already overburdened system.

Coyote said...

"-There should be a reasonable time limit to change your mind. Whether it should extend beyond birth is debatable. Personally I think 9 months of pregnancy should be more than enough time to decide between commitment or abortion."

But why exactly draw the line there if one does not think that personhood should begin until at some point (say 1 month, or 2 months, or half a year, or a year) after birth?

"-I agree with liberal economic policies & social safety net. But what's most important is to STOP adding more children to an already overburdened system."

Aren't you begging the question here by assuming that abortion is morally justifiable, though?

Suba gunawardana said...

No assumption. I know abortion ethically justifiable. (Don't like the word moral as it sounds religious).

Coyote said...

"Personally I would draw the line at birth. Others may disagree, and I may change my mind upon new evidence."

OK, but that is precisely the point that I was trying to make here. If you draw the line at birth and say that it is morally/ethically unjustifiable (they both essentially mean the same thing, and for reference, I myself am an agnostic) to kill someone after birth (even if doing this will result in less unwanted and miserable children), then someone else can likewise draw the line somewhere else, such as at conception/fertilization. (If you think that drawing the line at birth is the best position in regards to this, then that's fine, but that is a separate debate.)

Thus, my overall point here is that focusing *solely* on reducing the number of unwanted and miserable children appears to be a poor move and that rather, there are other factors (such as when personhood should begin and at what point killing someone is morally justifiable) which should also be considered.

And for reference, some/many politically anti-abortion people, including myself (though my views on abortion aren't as clear-cut as those of many other people), support various measures, such as greater contraception availability/accessibility and teaching comprehensive sex ed everywhere, in order to reduce the number of unwanted and miserable children. However, since they draw the line at conception, they cannot (unless they change their mind) support legalized abortion as a tool to achieve this goal.

Hopefully what I wrote here makes sense.

Tullia_Ciceronis said...

Purrtriarchy, killing abortionists and villifying women who have abortions does nothing to save unborn babies. It turns people away from the pro-life movement. Pro-life legislation was not passed because Dr. Tiller was murdered. If he had not been murdered, chances are good that he would have gone to jail for several crimes that he had committed. Murdering him turned him into a pro-choice hero, while if he had lived, he might now be viewed the same as Gosnell.
All of the former pro-choice women that were post-abortive that I know did not experience a change of heart because people yelled at them and called them murderers. They changed because pro-life people loved them even when they were proud of and boasted about their abortions.
If infanticide was legal and common in our nation, i would deal with that problem the exact same way.

Tullia_Ciceronis said...

I did not call you a sociopath. That was another commenter.

Coyote said...

"How many millions of babies will die in that time?"

Semantic issue, but embryos and fetuses, not babies.

"They are looking at the small picture, and trying to save *individual* lives."

If you are talking about individuals which kill abortion doctors here, then I would like to point out that animal rights activists who support terrorism in order to reduce the amount of animal killings and/or of animal abuse appear to have a pretty similar mindset. Frankly, I wonder if the people which kill abortion doctors support doing what these radical animal rights activists are doing.

Coyote said...

I have now read this entire article itself, and overall, I appear to agree with your main point here. It is better to be constructive rather than to be critical and insulting. After all, as you said, being constructive might cause more people to support your side on this issue and/or on other issues.

purrtriarchy said...

Tiller would not have gone to jail because the late term abortions that he performed were on fetuses with fatal deformities. Missing organs, brains, spinal cords etc.

Tullia_Ciceronis said...

Sources please...according the Adoption Encyclopedia, there are waiting lists for adoptive parents wanting to adopt healthy newborn infants. Also, according to the US Department of Health and Human Services, only 24% of all foster children are there because they need to be adopted, the rest are there for temporary placement until they can be returned to their parents. According to them, 21% of those who exit the foster care system are adopted, and since only 24% need to be adopted, that's a pretty good success rate.

Tullia_Ciceronis said...

There were other things that he did, like failure to report statuary rape. Also, he did abortions on fetuses with Down Syndrome and other non-lethal defects, as well as on perfectly healthy fetuses, according to former employees. In the movie After Tiller, his collegues discuss what they do-they say that they frequently abort for non-lethal abnormality and for women who just found out that they were pregnant and don't want to be anymore. Dr. Susan Robinson did an interview about it where she candidly discusses third trimester abortions on healthy fetuses and healthy mothers.

Suba gunawardana said...

I fully agree with all the preventive measures such as comprehensive sex education & unlimited access to contraception.

I completely disagree with drawing the line at conception, because unwanted pregnancy can always happen despite all the preventive measures in the world, then women get stuck with an obligation they didn't ask for. (Besides if some people are irresponsible enough to have unsafe sex despite the availability of all the sex-ed & contraceptives, they are unlikely to be responsible parents to a child.)

As to personhood, EVEN if a zygote were considered a person from conception, no person should have a legal right to inhabit another person's body without their consent.

Tullia_Ciceronis said...

Where did you get that information? Even pro-choice sources deny that. After Tiller clearly shows that many of these third trimester abortions are on healthy mothers and healthy fetuses.

Tullia_Ciceronis said...

What about conjoined twins? They inhabit each others bodies and both have to consent for separation surgery, even if one is somewhat unequally dependent on the other. This requirement exists unless the parasitic twin is incapable of ever having a conscious existence or if it threatens the life of the dominant twin.

Coyote said...

"I fully agree with all the preventive measures such as comprehensive sex education & unlimited access to contraception."

Good. :)

"I completely disagree with drawing the line at conception, because unwanted pregnancy can always happen despite all the preventive measures in the world, then women get stuck with an obligation they didn't ask for."

Your description of this situation here is accurate, but not much different from the current reality in regards to males and child support. Despite all of the precautions that a male takes, unwanted pregnancy can happen and he can be forced to pay child support for 18+ years afterwards.

"(Besides if some people are irresponsible enough to have unsafe sex despite the availability of all the sex-ed & contraceptives, they are unlikely to be responsible parents to a child.)"

Perhaps, but if one considers abortion to be morally unjustifiable, then it would be better to have these kids be in such a situation than to have these kids be aborted (just like people who oppose infanticide, such as yourself, would prefer kids to be in such a situation than to have these kids be killed back when they were infants).

"As to personhood, EVEN if a zygote were considered a person from conception, no person should have a legal right to inhabit another person's body without their consent."

I might disagree with you in regards to this. Frankly, if anything, I think that the right to bodily autonomy nowadays might be too broad, whereas the right not to be killed nowadays might not be broad enough.

Here are two videos about this (one of these videos is a constitution of the other one):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bv_GZuhY_9c

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=di09C7BTRpo

Basically, he responds to Judith Jarvis Thomson's Violinist scenario, but what he says here could be applied in a general sense as well. He also makes his argument from a rights-based perspective (by advocating in favor of reducing the scope of bodily autonomy and in favor of extending the scope of the right not to be killed).

Interestingly enough, even if I was pro-choice, I might still support making the right to bodily autonomy less broad than it currently is.

AmyE said...

Hmm, so it is ethical to force a women to give birth as long as a home awaits the child?

Coyote said...

Conjoined twins are a different case because both of these twins had an equal claim on their shared organs (since, as far as I know, both of them already existed before their shared organs were completely created).

AmyE said...

Ugh, I think I know a few of these people even with the names taken out. I know hate speech all sounds the same, but there's a few familiar phrases in there.

Guest said...

Probably. Much like shooting abortionists to the pro-life cause.

Coyote said...

Exactly.

Guest said...

Well, in that case a defender of the bodily rights argument would need to hold that a woman who is born pregnant doesn't have the right to an abortion, but a woman who becomes pregnant later in life does.

(it's weird and impossible of course, but so is the violinist analogy)

Coyote said...

"Well, in that case a defender of the bodily rights argument would need to hold that a woman who is born pregnant doesn't have the right to an abortion, but a woman who becomes pregnant later in life does."

Perhaps, unless of course such a pregnancy would threaten this female's life and one has to pick between saving this female and saving no one.

Interestingly enough, something which *might* be close to what you are talking about are parasitic twins and what is called a fetus-is-fetu or something like that.

Guest said...

Nah, I was more going for a hypothetical case where the fetus slowly grows into a mature person (just like in a typical pregnancy), not one where they're braindead.

There was a parallel case with conjoined twins, where lethal separation was allowed to be carried out. The judges made it clear however that it was only permitted because both would have died otherwise (so the choice was either letting both die or saving the stronger one).

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2002/feb/05/sarahboseley

Suba gunawardana said...

I disagree with mandatory child support laws. If a woman chooses to have a baby against the father's will, he should NOT be held responsible for child support at all.

The existence of one bad law doesn't justify creating another similar bad law. Instead the first one should be repealed.

Haven't watched the videos yet. Will do so & comment later.

Tullia_Ciceronis said...

Not necessarily. What about Anastasia Dogaru? She is joined at the head to her sister Tatiana. Anastasia has no kidneys, and so depends on her sister Tatiana for kidney filtration.

Tullia_Ciceronis said...

But what if that wasn't the case? Also, Anastasia can have a kidney transplant or dialysis, while it sounds like Tatiana will always need her sister's circulatory system.

M said...

Yup... that was really helpful in outlawing abortion and helping women to choose life for their little ones. Outstanding.

M said...

"We can change this. Bringing positivity to the abortion dialogue does a lot. Firstly, it decreases the amount of totally unnecessary stress to someone who is facing an unwanted pregnancy or has just lost a child. In any circumstance that’s difficult and nobody needs to be called a whore when their lives are going to be changed forever. Secondly, if a woman has had or is seeking an abortion, do you think this sort of trash talking will convince her to choose life? I don’t think so. Lastly, it’s just the kind thing to do. That factor is enough for me to use only productive language in any circumstance. (...)

I truly believe that with some hard work, the pro-life movement will ultimately triumph over abortion. It’s a firm conviction of mine. For this to occur, we have to stay productive and open. We can let our anger drive us to action, but we can’t let it consume us. Overall, I believe that we can change hearts and minds, but hatred only hurts our cause."



Nothing to add: 100% of agreement here!

Suba gunawardana said...

No. Forcing pregnancy (or abortion) is always unethical.
I said you MAY (not will) have an ethical argument if those circumstances ever occurred.

AmyE said...

May suggests possibility though. How can you suggest the pro-life group may have an ethical argument if they still advocate forced birth?

Suba gunawardana said...

I didn't say they should advocate forced surrogacy. Anything forced is never ethical.

AmyE said...

But you chose to concentrate on the life of the child in your argument on the possibility of an ethical pro-life argument. No mention of the woman carrying the fetus...

Coyote said...

"I disagree with mandatory child support laws. If a woman chooses to have a baby against the father's will, he should NOT be held responsible for child support at all."

I strongly admire your position on this issue.

"The existence of one bad law doesn't justify creating another similar bad law. Instead the first one should be repealed."

Yes and No. Ideally, you might be correct on this. In practice, however, since the odds of having the current child support laws changed, at least during the next several decades, are extremely low, it might be better to seek logical consistency by changing the law in another direction (in other words, by seeking to repeal Roe v. Wade and to implement a ban on most abortions).

If changing the current child support laws ever becomes a very real possibility, and if legalizing elective late-term abortions everywhere likewise becomes a very real possibility, then I (if I will still be alive at that point in time) *might* join your side on this issue.

"Haven't watched the videos yet. Will do so & comment later."

Thank you. Yeah, personally, I might consider his arguments in regards to this pretty convincing, regardless of whether I was politically anti-abortion or pro-choice.

Suba gunawardana said...

Regarding the argument in the video: Killing an already existing independent person (or letting them die) is quite different from preventing a brand new person from ever being born.
In the former case you are robbing a person of their established life, causing a loss to that person and extended repercussions such as emotional & financial distress to his family. Latter case, the fetus doesn’t have an established life to be robbed.



Killing a fetus only takes away the POTENTIAL for an established life, and in case of an unwanted fetus, their potential life being a good one is very slim.

If you are unable/unwilling to ensure a good life complete with all resources & love, you are knowingly condemning a future child to suffering. That in my opinion is far worse than killing a non-sentient being right now.

In a practical sense, if abortion were banned there will be far more children needing support, and mandatory child support
laws would never be repealed.

Furthermore if a woman can be forced to bear a child she doesn’t want, why shouldn’t a man be forced to support a child he doesn’t want? BOTH those concepts are unfair, and two wrongs don’t make a
right.

MarcusFenix said...

I would point out that suba here makes a statement about there being an ethical argument, but uses an unethical (and immoral) point to justify it. :)

MarcusFenix said...

You and I actually agree on something. I'm almost shocked.

Suba gunawardana said...

Unlike you I believe in fairness and NO double standards.

MarcusFenix said...

See, you can't even take a genuine compliment without acting like a jackass. The next time you ask "why is he spanking me all over the message boards?", you'll have an answer.

I absolutely believe in fairness, and abhor double standards. I', unlike you, however...understand how they interact and don't pretend that the world is coming down around my ears.

Suba gunawardana said...

Your agreement is a compliment? Talk about an ego!

Curious to know how I acted like a jackass. I am known for my courtesy even in the face of the worst insults.

The world doesn't have to be coming down in order to get rid of double standards or act with compassion. Those weaker than us are ALWAYS suffering. Don't need a special reason to extend a helping hand.

Coyote said...

"Regarding the argument in the video: Killing an already existing independent person (or letting them die) is quite different from preventing a brand new person from ever being born. In the former case you are robbing a person of their established life, causing a loss to that person and extended repercussions such as emotional & financial distress to his family. Latter case, the fetus doesn’t have an established life to be robbed."

Yes, you are correct that abortion would still be morally justifiable even if one accepted the premises in this video if one does not consider embryos and fetuses to be persons.

However, your point here does not address the needs of actual persons to use someone else's body part(s). For instance, if an adult human (whom you obviously consider to be a person) got stabbed in the kidney by another adult human, should he have a claim to this other individual's kidney if there is currently a shortage of available kidneys?

I will respond to the rest of your points here in a little while.

MarcusFenix said...

"Your agreement is a compliment? Talk about an ego!"

If i let ego get in the way, i'd have trolled you again, rather than say we agree on something. Clearly, your idea of "ego" needs a tweak. In this case, us agreeing is, in fact, a compliment...since it's nice to see you pull your head out of your rotund ass and see things clearly for once.

See how fast I flipped the script there?

"Curious to know how I acted like a jackass."

Um, by acting..like a jackass? I say we agree, and you get snotty about it. Always the simple things that you seem to miss.

"The world doesn't have to be coming down in order to get rid of double
standards or act with compassion. Those weaker than us are ALWAYS
suffering. Don't need a special reason to extend a helping hand."

You're absolutely right..and i'll both compliment you AND agree (see, its easier to just say it all out, rather than imply it!)

I also don't have to pretend that it IS falling down to lend a sense of urgency to the matter.

You're welcome. :)

MarcusFenix said...

"UNLIKE you, I don't advocate double standards."

Is this more of your debate style, where you make a claim, and then cite the thing you're claming as the reason for it? Bit circular, don't you agree?

What double standard am I perpetrating here? You've yet to point that out.

"Mandatory child support is a no-brainer, just like forced-birth. Both are unethical."

But forced death -is- ethical? Please, enlighten us on the ethics of this.

"Again, anyone who cares about those suffering, doesn't NEED any ball of fire to do something about it."
You're absolutely right. But while the rest of us accept that, you make claims that every child unwanted at the time of conception is doomed to a life of suffering, failure, pain, and horrors (that you've claimed to see firsthand, remember?).

So no, some of us (and by "us", i mean anyone other than you) don't need to work under that premise...but you'll pimp it out as a reason for your unethical and immoral decision making process anyway.

Chandler Klebs said...

It is very hard to convince people that pro-life advocates are not anti-woman when there are such hateful comments toward women by people who claim to be pro-life.

And death wishes are also not something that comes from a pro-life person.

Suba gunawardana said...

“It depends on how one defines "life" here. In regards to fetuses, it is
worth noting that they are some cases where a male wants to raise and take care of this fetus (after this fetus is born, obviously) but a female does not and
thus gets an abortion instead. Thus, your point here doesn't apply to these
fetuses.”

True, such fetuses do have a better chance at a good life. Such situations are not
that common though, and the fact remains that the fetus is not being robbed of
an established life.

In situations where the future child can be GUARANTEED a good life, it becomes a purely a matter of bodily autonomy. In my opinion the woman’s rights should still come first because she is sentient and has an established life.

“Well, it is worth noting that these offspring/children should be able to end their
own lives if they will genuinely be that dissatisfied with their lives.”

Unfortunately suicide is not a legal option in our society. Children born into bad situations get raped & tortured for years before some commit or attempt suicide, others get scarred for life & become addicts or otherwise unproductive people, and others go on to repeat the cycle of abuse.

“I am saying that I prefer logical consistency when it comes to the law and that
if my preferred way of achieving logical consistency is unlikely to be achieved (at least right now), then I will support other ways in order to achieve greater logical consistency in regards to the law.”

I like logical consistency too, but it’s important that the laws be ethical.

Suba gunawardana said...

When a person harms another person's body UNINTENTIONALLY, forcing them to sacrifice their body as payback is unethical. I'm sure our law agrees with this. The law does not force anyone to give up a body part for any reason.



Even when people hurt others deliberately with forethought and malice, they are still never required to pay with body parts, and any kind of mutilation is considered cruel & unusual punishment. Now personally I disagree with this concept in cases of truly heinous criminals who commit child abuse, serial rape, prolonged torture etc. I think people give up their bodily autonomy when they DELIBERATELY harm others with malicious intent. But not if the harm was done accidentally or without intent.

Suba gunawardana said...

“What double standard am I perpetrating here? You've yet to point that out.”

Isn’t it obvious? Forcing women to carry children they don’t want, while opposing men having to support children they don’t want. In your ideal world, women will be saddled with so many children that they have to support all alone, men having no responsibility at all.

“But forced death -is- ethical? Please,enlighten us on the ethics of this.”

Who’s FORCING death? All I am advocating is CHOICE, to carry or terminate as the pregnant woman sees fit, and it’s nobody else’s business. Forced death would be forcing abortion AGAINST her will as they do in China. Very similar to forced birth. They both take women’s rights away.

“You're absolutely right. But while the rest of us accept that, you make claims
that every child unwanted at the time of conception is doomed to a life of suffering
, failure, pain, and horrors (that you've claimed to see firsthand, remember?).”

Unlike a wanted welcomed & loved child, an UNWANTED child has the odds stacked against them from the very beginning.
(Again, a no brainer). If they somehow manage to have a successful life, it is against great odds, and the exception rather than the norm.

“but you'll pimp it out as a reason for your unethical and immoral decision making process anyway.”

Again it’s not MY decision but that of the pregnant woman’s, whose rights you seek to take away.

More importantly, you have provided zero reasoning why abortion is unethical except that “It takes a life!” Boo hoo cry me a river! THAT argument would be believable if you weren’t simultaneously advocating the killing of those YOU see fit.

Coyote said...

"When a person harms another person's body UNINTENTIONALLY, forcing them to sacrifice their body as payback is unethical. I'm sure our law agrees with this. The law does not force anyone to give up a body part for any reason."

So you think that intent *should* be the main factor in determining whether or not someone has a claim to someone else's body?

"Even when people hurt others deliberately with forethought and malice, they are still never required to pay with body parts, and any kind of mutilation is considered cruel & unusual punishment. Now personally I disagree with this concept in cases of truly heinous criminals who commit child abuse, serial rape, prolonged torture etc. I think people give up their bodily autonomy when they DELIBERATELY harm others with malicious intent. But not if the harm was done accidentally or without intent."

I want to clarify that I am *not* advocating physically removing people's body parts in such cases, but simply to punish them (more) if they refuse to do this. The choice would still be theirs--there would simply be consequences if they refuse. As for cruel & unusual punishment, I am not sure that I would consider this a punishment as much as an attempt/effort to protect someone else's right not to be killed.

Coyote said...

One more thing--while I myself am tempted to *oppose* the draft in all cases, I want to point out that the fact that we previously had a draft (and also, I think that we still have Selective Service) indicates that there appears to be a legal precedent for forcing people to risk their lives and well-being for the sake of others (and in the case of the draft, these people who are forced to make these risks are not responsible in any way, either international or unintentional, for the fact that a war is going on at that point in time).

lady_black said...

No. It's never ethical to force a woman to give birth.

Coyote said...

Except when the fetus is already viable, right?

Suba gunawardana said...

As I mentioned before, such a possible ethical argument wouldn't matter, because it cannot supersede the LEGAL (and ethical) rights of the existing person, the woman.

lady_black said...

Is she being forced? NO. That's willing.

lady_black said...

Where did forced surrogacy enter the discussion?

lady_black said...

Oh, I see. Arguing by misquotation. Tacky.

AmyE said...

Forced surrogacy is what happens before forced birth. Nine months carrying a fetus you don't want? That's what I call forced surrogacy. He only mentioned the ethical side of pro-life regarding the fetus, but left the woman out of the argument.

AmyE said...

Then why did he leave the woman out of his argument? His whole argument on ethics concentrates only on the fetus, not the host

AmyE said...

Arguing by misquotation? When did I quote him? All I said is that there are two parts of the ethical argument. The fetus and the woman. He nailed the fetus part of the argument but left out the woman part of it.

AmyE said...

Oh, okay sorry. I misunderstood I thought we were just arguing about the fetus. I tend to be a little too jumpy when the woman is left out of the argument.

Coyote said...

Wouldn't this be forced if she wants to get an elective late-term abortion instead, though?

Suba gunawardana said...

For the record I am a she :)

AmyE said...

Sorry, call it s3xist. I don't know so I try to switch up he and she when I don't know people. I usually end up getting it wrong. Is your user name your name or is there a different meaning behind it?

Suba gunawardana said...

Its my name, I am originally from another country.

AmyE said...

Not meaning to be stalkerish, but I googled your name to try to see what ethnicity it is and I came upon a care2 page. Do you have one of those?

Suba gunawardana said...

Yes

AmyE said...

Is that a good site? Like do they really donate money or whatever with those butterfly rewards? Because I've been looking for a type of charity portal if that makes sense.

Suba gunawardana said...

Yes they have lots of petitions & action alerts. You earn butterfly rewards for posting & signing petitions etc. & can redeem them for donations to various charities.
It's easier to navigate than discus, but way too many annoying ads :)

Suba gunawardana said...

I am not against child support in all cases, only in those situations where a woman had a baby AGAINST the father's will.

Just like a woman shouldn't be forced to carry a child she doesn't want, a man shouldn't be forced to support a child he doesn't want (Provided that he makes his wishes known with ample time for her to get an abortion).

lady_black said...

So in essence, he has a say over what happens in her body. He can coerce her into an abortion with economic threats. Besides the obvious he said/she said issues. If a man doesn't want a child, then he needs to do something about it before someone is pregnant. A man (unlike a woman) is 100% in charge of where his gametes wind up.

Suba gunawardana said...

Just like with a woman, condoms are not 100% effective in preventing pregnancy. Just like pregnancy should not automatically force a woman into parenthood against here will, it should not force a man to parenthood against his will. Both man & woman should have a right refuse parenthood after pregnancy & before birth.

Now if the man claimed he WANTS a child, then changed his mind after she gets pregnant, that's a different story.

My objection is to forcing a man to pay for a child he NEVER wanted, and expressly stated so.

Coyote said...

I know all of this. I was simply asking about cases where a female wants to get an elective late-term abortion *and* where the fetus is viable and alive *even though* she can simply give birth instead.

Coyote said...

Actually, I think that her position on this issue might be more sensible than your position on this issue is.

Your position on this issue might be an example of pro-choicers wanting to both "have their cake and to eat it too".

Coyote said...

"So in essence, he has a say over what happens in her body. He can coerce her into an abortion with economic threats."

I don't think that this will apply if a legal contract is signed beforehand. If a female wants to a male to pay child support, then she shouldn't sign such a legal contract beforehand.

"Besides the obvious he said/she said issues."

This can probably be dealt with by having both parties sign a legal contract in front of a lawyer and/or a notary beforehand.

"If a man doesn't want a child, then he needs to do something about it before someone is pregnant."

The thing is that no contraception is 100% effective/efficient. Thus, the only options for such a male are either permanent abstinence, gay sex, sex with a trans-woman, or perhaps castration (which you consider to be unethical; of course, I don't appear to buy your arguments in this regard).

And for the record, everything which you said in regards to males here could similarly be said for females--if a female does not want to risk her partner being a "deadbeat dad", then she should not have sex with him in the first place, not sign such a legal contract with him, use the best contraception available, get an abortion if contraception fails, give her offspring up for adoption, and/or et cetera.

"A man (unlike a woman) is 100% in charge of where his gametes wind up."

What exactly do you mean by the "unlike a woman" part?

Linddykal said...

Pingback: http://tangledsynthesismusingsofageekfeminist.wordpress.com/2014/05/09/emily-letts-feminist-hero-or-narcissist/

Suba gunawardana said...

True but I completely disagree with using this law (or any excuse) to ban or restrict abortions.

The existence of one unethical law does not justify creating another unethical law.

The goal of being fair is to make life BETTER for everyone, not worse. And banning abortions will make life worse for all, particularly children.

lady_black said...

Yeah? That's only going to happen IN YOUR DREAMS. And such a contract would never hold up in court. It's not a legal contract. ROFLMAO.

lady_black said...

P.S. If I have to explain female reproductive biology to you, you really don't belong in this conversation.

lady_black said...

You might think so, in fact I'm sure you do. You have never studied family law. Ask an attorney why it doesn't work this way.

lady_black said...

HUH????

lady_black said...

Yeah that makes no sense. You just contradicted yourself. If a man doesn't want a child, I suggest he not stick his penis in a vagina. There *are* other ways, you know.

Suba gunawardana said...

Forced-birthers say the exact same thing about women, i.e. if a woman doesn't want a child she shouldn't have sex. Do you agree with that? I don't. Why should men be held to a different standard?

A woman should have the right to have sex even if she doesn't want children. She shouldn't have to abstain or get a tubal ligation just because she doesn't want children right now. Why shouldn't a man have the same right?

MarcusFenix said...

We likely got it at the same place. Seems your certification is up for renewal though!

Rainbow Walker said...

I understand what you are both saying. And you are both right.

If a woman invites him into her vagina with an express understanding beforehand it doesn’t give her the right
to change the conditions of those operands just because she wants to afterward.
It is a two way street.

When a person is in a relationship they should have a trust and if one violates that trust its wrong no matter
what. If both confer and agree, no children, then she changes her mind and he
still doesn’t want to, that shouldn’t give her carte blanch to use him as a
stud against his will. That’s actually a contract and she violated it.

While it is her body and she can do with it as she pleases it doesn’t give her the right to use others for her purposes. In this instance if he doesn’t want to participate [monetarily or emotionally]
in the child’s life, he should have that option not to.

On the other hand there are many men who don’t care, use women how they like, drop babies everywhere and don’t pay a dime in child support. Those are the ones we should be going after, not
those who were trying to be responsible beforehand.

MarcusFenix said...

Notice that the double standard you accuse me of is really not. They are totally independent issues. The fact you have no ability to make a distinction between the two is telling, obvious, and idiotic on your part.

I'm also not "forcing birth"...so even the premise is incorrect from the start. Sorry, you lose again.

"Who’s FORCING death?"

Um, you do know that abortion is the termination (a long word for death, i KNOW you hate lots of syllables) of a living being. It's not complicated. The fact you actively campaign for it as some idiotic "choice", to make it sound more pleasant, doesn't change the process or act. Why do you not understand this very simple idea?

The China comment, btw...incorrect/ambiguous application. "Force" there is actual force, as in by members of a police state...versus the idea of "force", an in the woman is exerting her ability to force the issue. If you were being intellectually honest, you'd see that the intended recipient of the procedure, in both cases, is having something done without their ability to consent or avoid the consequence. You're fine with one, and not with the other. That's what is known as being a hypocrite.

"Unlike a wanted welcomed & loved child, an UNWANTED child has the odds stacked against them from the very beginning."

Only in a world where you believe that "unwanted" status is permanent and unable to change, that there's zero chance -anyone- wants the child, or that there's just suffering attached with no reason. You're asking for people to accept justifications for things you can't predict, can't know, and trying to pass it off as inevitable. It's massively incorrect.

" If they somehow manage to have a successful life, it is against great odds, and the exception rather than the norm."

Notice the stretching language. "Great odds". Woman doesn't want to get pregnant and finds herself that way...your idea is that she'll never, ever ever ever want the kid. That the kid will suffer it's entire life and be miserable and life is horrible.

Sorry, it's just not that easy or predictable, no matter how much you wish it were to justify your oddly held position.

"Again it’s not MY decision but that of the pregnant woman’s, whose rights you seek to take away.

Quick recap...i mention two very specific terms...immoral and unethical. Your response...oh, it's not MINE. You had ZERO response to that phrase, other than to shift the argument back to me. Total fail.

"More importantly, you have provided zero reasoning why abortion is unethical except that “It takes a life!” "

So, taking the life of an innocent doesn't fall into the "unethical" realm? Oddly enough, you'd be hard pressed to find anyone with 2 firing neurons who believes that killing innocents is ethical under your sets of circumstances. Allow me also to short circuit your inevitable response of "mentally challenged person raping you"....that's not a case of innocence, is a lack of understanding with regards to right and wrong during the commission of a crime. That's a horribly flawed analogy.

Any number of philosophers can be cited for the argument i'm making. Feel free to read a few centuries of it to catch up to what most other people already know.

"Boo hoo cry me a river! "

Seems like all that empathy you talk about having goes right out the window as a matter of convenience. Perfect.

"THAT argument would be believable if you weren’t simultaneously advocating the killing of those YOU see fit."

Except i haven't advocated such a thing at all. I have said nothing about killing innocent human life because *I* say so. Clearly, you are mixing up arguments.

Basset_Hound said...

"Unlike a wanted welcomed & loved child, an UNWANTED child has the odds stacked against them from the very beginning. (Again, a no brainer). If they somehow manage to have a successful life, it is against great odds, and the exception rather than the norm."


Sweetie, I WAS an "UNWANTED (IN GREAT BIG SHRIEKING CAPITAL LETTERS, NO LESS) child born to a bona fide narcissist 40 year old mother. She told me that she went to the family doctor for an abortion. When he refused to do it, she was too afraid to trust a stranger. I struggled with self-esteem issues throughout my teens and twenties. However one day, I woke up and discovered that the way Mom felt about me did NOT define who I was. I decided to ditch the huge self-pitying chip I had on my shoulder and to stop blaming Mommy because my life still sucked. I got therapy and turned my life around. I have a loving husband, a family and uncountable positive experiences that I would not have had if someone would have had the liberty to "spare" me a "lifetime" of suffering by killing me before birth, and thus denying me of the choice of making something of my OWN life. So look into MY eyes and tell me that I'd be better off dead!


To hell with your lethal "compassion"! I am NOT an "exception".

Basset_Hound said...

BINGO MARCUS!!!!


Excellent post. I've often asked the "poor unwanted child" types what they would do if the parents didn't want to care for a toddler..a difficult teenager and all I hear are excuses....

MarcusFenix said...

Well, if we use their method and process, we'd have to march them out back and shoot them in the head twice. It would be the humane, Eugenics thing to do.

Also, be careful.

This idiot with double accounts already thinks that Adam, PJ, Calvin, me and Ingrid (at least) are all me, so....i don't want you to get lumped into the pile as being me #6 (or more, depending on which profile our friend here is using at any given moment).

Suba gunawardana said...

You just proved my point that unwanted children are MORE likely to be neglected/abused than wanted children.



You had a bad childhood for the specific reason that you were unwanted. Some have worse childhoods than you for that same reason, and end up harming/killing themselves, addiction, low self esteem, & go onto unproductive lives.



The fact that some beat the odds is NOT a reason to knowingly condemn many to this same fate.


More importantly, EVEN IF such neglect/abuse was not an issue, a woman still should have a right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, no questions asked.

Suba gunawardana said...

Isn't it funny that YOU are the one who keeps bringing up this unfounded allegation, yet fails to provide an ounce of proof, huh Calvin?

Rainbow Walker said...

“Also, be careful.”

See, you’re afraid Calvin. But the truth is out and OZ is in flames. Man you are one frightened little boy.

Rainbow Walker said...

Suba, the little boy isn’t getting it. Calvin’s got one hand typing and the other is pleasuring him to sock
puppets porn.

I need to hit the hay.

Coyote said...

"Yeah?"

Yeah.

"That's only going to happen IN YOUR DREAMS."

Do you have a crystal ball? I didn't think so.

"And such a contract would never hold up in court. It's not a legal contract."

Depends on what the law and the U.S. Constitution will say at that point in time, as well as how the judges at that point in time will interpret it.

"ROFLMAO."

Right back at you.

Coyote said...

I know female reproductive biology. However, these facts do not appear to strengthen your position on this issue. If you fail to realize this, then you really don't belong in this conversation.

Basset_Hound said...

HOT DAMN!!!! I FINALLY got some of your Lucy Van Pelt Psychiatric Help for a Nickel analysis!


I can go to bed happy now!!!!!

Coyote said...

Bravo! Some pro-choicers, such as lady_black, love telling males this despite the fact that anti-abortion people could likewise tell the same thing to females.

Suba gunawardana said...

LOL! He is even more idiotic than that Pat whatsisname on Care2. Do you remember, the one who claimed to be "totally secular" then all of a sudden erupted into religious meltdown?

Rainbow Walker said...

You’re welcome. And you need some sleep, caring that chip must get tiring.

Coyote said...

"If a man doesn't want a child, I suggest he not stick his penis in a vagina. There *are* other ways, you know."

Let me re-phrase this:

If a woman doesn't want a child, I suggest that she not let a fertile man stick his penis into her vagina. There *are* other ways, you know.

MarcusFenix said...

Suba, your own account patting you on the back doesn't get it.

-Insert Calvin repeat-

You also clearly are unfamiliar with the term "sock puppet", though you're guilty enough of it. If you're going to make an insult, at least make it a good one.

Do you wish i was a little boy...because i KNOW how much you "love" those.

See, i made sick grandpa joke there. You're welcome for the lesson.

Don't forget your fiber pills and heart meds in the morning. Mondays suck when your poop isn't right, and grunting hard might cause extra strain on your ticker!

Coyote said...

Actually, I already appear to have established to you that the law is ultimately based on someone's morality and that the law can be unchanged.

Thus, your point here does not appear to have much merit if we are talking about what the ideal law should be.

Rainbow Walker said...

I remember. The same mentality, only I think this boy’s stupider.

MarcusFenix said...

Because your health is important.

http://www.schizophrenia.com/earlysigns.htm

Talking to yourself is a bad sign. Might want to give yourself a checkup, with your psych degree and all.

Coyote said...

You can read, right? If so, then you are welcome to re-read this post of mine.

MarcusFenix said...

Don't count on that fact.......

Coyote said...

Are you talking to me here?

MarcusFenix said...

Isnt it funny that you doth protest too much, but whine if someone says "no" to your allegations 20+ times?

Isn't it past your bedtime? You just say you needed to hit the hay.

Oddly enough, no one has told me if you've gone back to LAN to post to the real Calvin, to get proof, in the last few days.

It's like you're scared. :)

JDC said...

Well, he did post his comment as a reply to you.

MarcusFenix said...

Yes, as a response to "You can read, right?".

Woudn't count on her for it. :)

Rainbow Walker said...

He’s supposedly the mod of LAN [aka OZ]. I and Suba were banned from there for starting a debate. Calvin claimed
I and Suba are one. Which we are not. After being baned I created two accounts to challenge Calvin the coward to prove his allegations and he never did. Instead this this joker, Fenix comes instead speaking for and defending Calvin. He is actually Calvin.

Coyote said...

"True but I completely disagree with using this law (or any excuse) to ban or restrict abortions."

You are more than welcome to have this view. Personally, at least in this case, I am tempted to disagree with you.

"The existence of one unethical law does not justify creating another unethical law."

To be fair, though I don't think that I would consider either this law or abortion bans to be unethical if I would argue that personhood should begin at conception/fertilization. Frankly, ideally, I don't know when personhood should begin, but if drawing the line either at some point after birth or at birth (and by this, I mean legalizing all elective late-term abortions as well, in addition to not prosecuting people who kill embryos and fetuses without a pregnant woman's consent for either murder or manslaughter) is not an option, then the next best place to draw this line might be at conception/fertilization.

"The goal of being fair is to make life BETTER for everyone, not worse. And banning abortions will make life worse for all, particularly children."

Actually, I'd argue that the goal of being fair should be determining which rights who should get and then protecting these rights, in addition to what you are talking about.

Also, banning most abortions will not make life worse for everyone. The lives of some males might be better, as well as the lives of some embryos and fetuses.

In addition, though, I would like to point out that legalizing painless elective infanticide in the event of a shortage of adoptive parents might also make life better for some individuals, but you and most people don't support this because you consider infants to be persons and infanticide to be morally unjustifiable. This is similar to how politically anti-abortion people view embryos/fetuses and abortion.

JDC said...

Well, he's the moderator there and he said that Rainbow Walker and Suba Gunawardana were posting from the same IP address. This lead to Rainbow Walker suggesting that Calvin and Marcus were in fact the same person. They've been talking about this non-stop for a few days now.

Coyote said...

LAN stands for Live Action News, right?

Suba gunawardana said...

“FTR...you have *yet* to know when that's even the case, hence why it has to be spelled out for you repeatedly.
Now you know.”

Wrong. As I already stated, you claiming something doesn’t make it so, and your opinion is not worth much.

“Also, it points that I've rejected your arguments and talking points”

Again, your “rejection” doesn’t
invalidate the arguments. Only shows that you have no rebuttal.

As I said before, two things don’t have to be identical (or in the exact same category) to be comparable. If you
cannot grasp the comparison the problem is with you. And this applies to EVERY point you keep avoiding citing the same reason.

“Actually, that's not what i'm
advocating. We went over that.”

Banning abortion is to FORCE women to carry unwanted pregnancy. No two ways about it.

You throw around words without knowing their meaning. Eugenics is to reduce certain populations based on WHAT they are, i.e. genetic traits they have no control over. I prefer to
assign value based on people’s CHOICE to be compassionate or cruel. There’s no name for that, but huge difference from Eugenics.

“so then why the hypocracy when it comes to men not wanting to be involved either?”

I specifically said men should NOT be forced to support children they didn’t want from the beginning.

“You and a tiger might be alive, but you're nothing alike. “

Neither are a woman and a fetus.

“Second, i'll point to your postings from a few days ago making the argument that killing an innocent, in those
terms, was wrong. Your Care2 page confirms your position.”

NEVER said that, here or on Care2.My consistent argument was that if you can kill SOME innocent individuals you have no right to stop others from killing OTHER innocent individuals.

As to your “example” self-defense is not the only reason animals are killed. Far from it. Stop pretending to not get the point. If it’s fine for you, or HUMANKIND, to kill animals for necessity, convenience or sheer pleasure, the same should go for fetuses.

Coyote said...

Thanks for explaining this part to me.

JDC said...

No problem. I can see why some of what's going on here may be confusing to people who did not see the comments in question.

MarcusFenix said...

That's the long and short of it.

In some cases, it's just circular reasoning. It's legal because it's ok, and it's ok because it's legal. Any attempt to look outside of that circle is met with her acting like a complete harpy.

Something I've noticed too..she'll make the case about life, when it starts, the whole nine. She'll then make the case it's ok because of choice and/or bodily autonomy. She then barely skips by with taking positive premises and making a negative conclusion, all by virtue of her lovely circles.

When that fails, she gets angry and goes haywire.

I asked her once, or maybe someone like her (hard to tell sometimes!) a long time ago, that if the law were the determining factor, why enact Roe anyway? The answer i got was nothing more than "because I don't like it" as an answer.

Rainbow Walker said...

That’s a whole lot of inference. I never said that.

There are two reasons for suicide. One is genetics the other is logical reaction to environment. What I mean by the latter is, when something IS bad suicide can be a logical alternative. Prisoners, POWS, the ill and others who see an unsurmountable problem in their life. This is not a pathology. A pathology is where there is none of these factors and they still want to kill themselves.

And yes far more unwanted children attempt suicide then wanted.

“and killing "unwanted"
children before birth would just automatically make depression, child abuse and suicide just go away.”



If a child doesn’t exist, how can
they experience any of these? And it’s not killing and they aren’t children. It’s
a ZEF

Suba gunawardana said...

Yes. I'd like to add that Fenix knows very well I am a separate individual, has been to my Care2 page etc. & still makes an active effort to keep up the "sock-puppet rumor" for the past 3 days. Now why would he feel such a need unless he isn't the moderator who failed to prove his allegation when challenged?

MarcusFenix said...

Didn't you say it was bedtime? You always lie to others like this? :)

"You will never get it, Calvin."

Not if you don't actually post to Calvin....

"The jig’s up."

Nyaaaa, seeeeee. The caper has done gone bad, boys! We gots ta get outta da city before the boys in blue get here and throws us into da paddywagon!!

Thanks for the chuckle...and you're welcome for another demonstration of funny versus not.

"And I know sock puppets [you’re one]. But you have a fetish, hence the over use of the term."

-Insert repeat phrase-

It's not really overuse..it's just calling it what it is. Sorry if that's not clear for you.


"A sick joke or a peek inside your demented mind? Do you like children younger than you?"

Awwww, the vaunted "rubber and glue" argument. You state repeatedly you work with kids...clearly, i'm just pointing out the obvious in your case. No need to be snide about it otherwise.

I did say that deflection was not rejection..and you didn't actually dismiss it as untrue.

Uh oh. :(

"And the rest is just a child’s
verbal diarrhea."

Now that we've reached the heart of your style, by your own admission, you're free to stop crapping allover the page!

"We can get help for your problems, Calvin."

-Insert repeat phrase-

"But you have to stop playing childish games."

But i'm dealing with someone who presents and acts like a child. Clearly, doing anything else for you would go over your head, and thus...i'm stuck having to dumb it down to Chutes and Ladders for you.

MarcusFenix said...

Hahaha!

Seriously, one day you're going to have to share your secret about the Fastest Upvote in the West. Crazy fast.

MarcusFenix said...

See, childish item mentioned by a childish person. Really, we're not in first grade, and it's ok to not use "rubber and glue" as a rebuttal.

*facepalm*

JDC said...

One day. When the time is right.

MarcusFenix said...

Fair enough. Patience is a virtue, after all. Not one i use often, but..still. :)

Adam Peters said...

"There’s a huge difference between a wanted child and an unwanted one."

That's true, just as there's a huge difference between a male child and female one. Is it acceptable to abort a daughter because your culture favours sons?

http://protectourgirls.com/

Adam Peters said...

"This idiot with double accounts already thinks that Adam, PJ, Calvin, me and Ingrid (at least) are all me, so...."


Well, the game is up--it's finally been exposed that the entire pro-life movement consists of exactly one person.

MarcusFenix said...

I did have EXCELLENT shoulders when i was healthy, for what its worth.

Guess if someone has to do it, I can. Who doesn't love an Atlas impression? :)

Adam Peters said...

I'm not sure that my flow is anything to brag about--I'm no certainly no Brian Williams.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8EKjgU5Lts

MarcusFenix said...

Haha...we ALL wish we were Williams.

Suba gunawardana said...

Wrong as usual. I don’t “reject” arguments. I rebut every one presented. Unlike you I NEVER waste thousands of words making flimsy excuses why I cannot rebut anargument

“I'mnot for total deconstruction of abortion. Legally, I'm perfectly fine withcases of rape, incest, or life of the mother as exceptions...though morally andethically, life of the mother is the only clear winner. I'm against on-demandabortion, and if you even for a split second believe your own rhetoric, you'dagree with me.”

My rhetoric? I’ve ALWAYS argued against the so called “right to life” crap. So no,there’s no reason I would agree with you.

“I would also, by virtue of our conflation idea, put it out there that i'm perfectly fine with preventing unwanted pregnancies across the board to start
with, and no restrictions to birth control and non-abortifacients.”


That’s a no-brainer. What’s your point?


“Being human is a genetic trait. Kind of thought that was obvious. The trait doesn't have to be race, hair color, or other factors..it can simply be that the trait is an undesired human being. The fetus has no control over its species, its original mode of birth, or any other item you can name.”

I never said fetuses should be killed just for being human, According to that
logic YOU are the one advocating eugenics, considering you wish to kill
non-humans just for being non-human

“Eugenics isn't limited to s pecifically genetic
traits, in the frame of mind you wish it. Removing "unwanted suffering" is another mode of thinking, not to mention the "negative
eugenics", which encompasses pretty much every reason on the map one can name as being a "valid" reason.”

Same thing. You advocate eugenics for non-humans. Therefore you cannot whine EVEN IF I advocated eugenics for humans.


“Which is completely arbitrary. *You* assign that value, then based your view on it. It's nothing more than a bare assertion on your part to justify your own points.”


Obviously I am presenting my opinions. I am not a sheep like you, & don’t need validation from authority or the crowd.


The rest of your post is, as usual, a bunch of excuses why you cannot rebut my
points. Not worth my time addressing the repetitions again. If you ever present
anything other than an excuse or insult, I will respond.


For the hundredth time, I NEVER argued against killing anything. Get off that false premise & present a valid rebuttal for once.

MarcusFenix said...

Actually, i'd state...again....that i don't know that. Someone else, on a different website made the claim that your 2 accounts are from the same IP address.

You were banned for multi-account hijinx. Plain and simple.

I have no way to know, nor have you actually given me a reason to believe, you're 2 different people. Hell, when you use one account to post one message, then continue the argument for 2 hours using the other, without missing a beat, it takes away credibility.

MarcusFenix said...

Glad JDC was able to.

There's also one slight caveat, that i usually don't mention.

If i were the moderator there, I wouldn't have banned myself from the page.

(FTR, I said something that wasn't nice, but one of the mods there took umbrage and i got banned. I did it, don't back away from it and support their right to do exactly as they did.)

MarcusFenix said...

Since apparently, PJ and Ingrid are me, along with a dozen or so other folks....you could have just said so here! *snicker*

MarcusFenix said...

*Carrying*

AmyE said...

Oh... my bad. Thank you. So what do you call forced carrying for nine months? Is that just called forced birth?

lady_black said...

Apparently you enjoy your fantasies. I deal in reality.

lady_black said...

No it doesn't apply both ways. A man's part in reproduction is finished when he ejaculates. A woman has a long way to go to complete her part.

lady_black said...

Then if you know female biology, you realize that women do not control ovulation. Men do control where their ejaculate goes.

lady_black said...

A woman can do all those things now if she doesn't want to risk ending up having a child with a deadbeat dad. But it doesn't always work out that way. "Signing a contract" wouldn't change anything. The contract fails because it's a contract in violation of statute, and because such a statute is a violation of public policy. Now let me explain this to you as simply as possible. No two people (let's call them party A and party B) can form a legal contract that affects the rights of a third person (party C). It simply can't be done. To be bound to a contract, a person must be a party to that contract. And that is what you're talking about.

lady_black said...

People are allowed to change their minds. I agree that this is something that ought to be discussed in advance, and too often it isn't discussed at all. What I'm trying to get Coyote to understand is that two people cannot contract to remove rights from a third person.

lady_black said...

Nice deflecting. I don't speak of morals as anything other than a personal issue. If something is legal, but you believe it to be immoral, you need not participate. They are not the same thing, nor should they be.

lady_black said...

If a woman doesn't want children (or more children), she should probably have a tubal ligation. A man in a similar position would be wise to have a vasectomy. That would be the wise thing to do. Nobody is saying "don't have sex." I'm not talking about abstinence. There are ways to have sex that do not involve the risk of pregnancy. "Wishes" do not do any good. Action is required.

Suba gunawardana said...

I agree. However there are exceptions.

Some people don't want children right now but may want them later, so reluctant to take drastic measures.

Also vasectomies do fail sometimes (as do tubal ligation at a lower rate) & pregnancy can still occur.

Suba gunawardana said...

Why should I prove anything to YOU, Einstein, when you happen to be the coward who banned us in the first place, (knowing very well that we are two different people)?

lady_black said...

And the failure of such could not be construed to relieve the person from a duty to support his/her child once born. By "not wanting children" I am referring to never wanting them. Even so, he could freeze his sperm if there were a future doubt.

Suba gunawardana said...

There's a 9 month window between conception & birth.

That's the time for the woman to get an abortion if SHE doesn't wish to be a parent. Similarly, that's the time for the MAN to speak up if he doesn't wish to be a parent.



If he had used protection and consistently stated that he didn't want children (WELL before birth, not after), but the woman went ahead with the pregnancy fully aware of his intent, then she shouldn't have a right to hold him responsible for child support.

Suba gunawardana said...

Unwanted children are not the only ones who commit suicide, but I am sure they are far more likely to commit suicide or have any number of negative effects in their life (as you demonstrated with your own account).

If there were no more unwanted children, (i.e. EVERY child was wanted welcomed & loved), a HUGE part of that problem would go away. The remaining few suicides, substance abuse etc. would be for different reasons, and easier to deal with.

Suba gunawardana said...

"Frankly, ideally, I don't know when personhood should begin, but if
drawing the line either at some point after birth or at birth (and by
this, I mean legalizing all elective late-term abortions as well, in
addition to not prosecuting people who kill embryos and fetuses without a
pregnant woman's consent for either murder or manslaughter) is not an
option, then the next best place to draw this line might be at
conception/fertilization."

If its a toss-up between the former & the latter, I'll vote for the former hands down.

Drawing the line at conception will force many many unwanted children to birth WITHOUT responsible adults to care for them, magnifying the current problem of child neglect/abuse.

Drawing the line at or after birth will PREVENT a lot of new people from coming into existence. Consequently it will reduce child abuse, reduce population, & make life better overall.

My objection to infanticide is not person-hood. I believe that when abortion is available (as it is now), the 9 months of pregnancy is more than enough time to make up your mind whether you are able/willing to be a parent or not. By choosing NOT to abort, the mother made a commitment to the future child, to always put the child first. Personally I think that should be considered a legal contract, and she shouldn't breach it at whim.

By choosing not to abort, she committed to protect the future child for as long as is necessary, from neglect/abuse from hersefl or anyone else. If she can't care for the child she now has an obligation to find someone who can, due to the aforementioned commitment. .

If abortion were ILLEGAL, on the other hand, I wouldn't blame any woman for committing infanticide. NO person should be forced into parenthood against their will. If abortion were banned, there WILL be a lot more infanticide.

"Also, banning most abortions will not make life worse for everyone. The
lives of some males might be better, as well as the lives of some
embryos and fetuses."

How? Most males will be forced to pay child support against their will, and most embryos/fetuses will become unwanted children.

Suba gunawardana said...

Indeed there are. Many children are wanted for the wrong reasons & end up being abused.

That's why I think parenthood should not be every idiot's right, but rather a PRIVILEGE to be earned. Every responsible profession requires training and a license. Why doesn't parenthood? That's how little our society thinks of children.

However, the fact that wanted children are abused too, is NOT an excuse to force more & more unwanted children into birth against the mothers' wish.

DianaG2 said...

???

DianaG2 said...

Well, you have a nasty case of subject-verb number disagreement here, to say the least.


"You are the one . . . fails . . . "

DianaG2 said...

"Woman matters more than the fetus, because she is sentient and has an established life,"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
They are both human beings. It's not a contest.

The right to continue to live is not based on sentience as a standard.

A fetus has an established life, right from the start. With that standard, old folks should be killing the young because our lives are more "established."

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 299   Newer› Newest»