Pages

Wednesday, July 23, 2014

Planned Parenthood abortion quotas


And Then There Were None. from Abe Films on Vimeo.

We interrupt our regularly scheduled blogging to urge you to watch the above video from And Then There Were None.

We do not use the term "pro-abortion" lightly. We realize that some people truly are pro-choice. But with apologies to Jeff Foxworthy: If you plan an annual budget with 1,135 surgical "terminations" at $313.29 a pop, you might be pro-abortion!

763 comments:

1 – 200 of 763   Newer›   Newest»
Drew Hymer said...

pro-choice is just a propagandistic way of saying pro-abortion.

vulgarism said...

And pro life is just a propagandistic way of saying forced birth.

Drew Hymer said...

i noticed that you lied about me on another website. you have no class.

vulgarism said...

You said that chimeras are created in a process similar to one person eating another.

Dumbest thing ever.

Drew Hymer said...

"forced birth" is a pro-abort's propaganda way of saying:

"the law should require parents to live up to their obligations as parents"

Drew Hymer said...

except i never said that. You're a liar.

vulgarism said...

Drew Hymer


22 days ago

When conception successfully completes, an individual human being
comes into existence. Not two, not three. That individual human being
may through asexual reproduction create another human being. We call that twinning.

i've heard of the possibility that embryos could merge. it's a form cannabalism. But if i eat you that doesn't mean you didn't exist before i served you up.

http://www.personhoodusa.com/blog/unborn-babies-inherent-capacity-means-theyre-persons/#comment-1463375810

vulgarism said...

Which is why you won't force men to donate their bodies (blood/bone marrow tissue) to save the life of their 'unborn baby' because ONLY WOMEN WERE MADE FOR PREGNANCY


Such a misogynist.

Drew Hymer said...

and nowhere in that statement did i say anything about chimeras.

So you need retract your statement and apologize.

fiona64 said...

Or you need to learn what chimerism is ...

vulgarism said...

Yes you did. It's right there. You said:

i've heard of the possibility that embryos could merge. it's a form cannabalism.


And now I find out that you've banned me from posting at Personhood USA.


lulz

vulgarism said...

Sure looks like he said that chimerism is a form of cannibalism, doesn't it?

Drew Hymer said...

You are a misogynist but that's not the issue here.

Both women and men have equal and independent obligation to care for their children. The fact that the father cannot directly fulfill his obligation doesn't undermine the mother's obligation.

Drew Hymer said...

Pro-choice = pro-abortion because "choice" is merely an abstraction that is meaningless without mentioning what is being chosen. Abortion is the issue and instead of confronting that issue, pro-aborts hide behind euphemism such as "choice".

vulgarism said...

Yes he can. Through the miracle of technology.


We override biology all the time to save lives. So what is preventing fathers from being legally obligated to donate their bodies to save their young?

Drew Hymer said...

i wasn't talking about chimerism. I was thinking of two twins who recombine. They are genetically indistinguishable.

Drew Hymer said...

You lied about me so i banned you. Don't like it, you can retract your statement.

I wasn't making any point regarding chimerism but i was using an analogy
to show that simply because one organism combines with another that
doesn't mean that there weren't two organisms before the combining.

You want to ride an analogy in order to make me look foolish. Well, that makes you a liar. A banned liar.

Drew Hymer said...

Fathers should be "legally obligated to donate their bodies to save their young" when the foreseeable consequence of their actions causes the child to need that assistance.

fiona64 said...

It is so easy to be an anti-choice male, isn't it, Drew? You can just flap your piehole about how much medical risk some woman you've never even met should have to face, knowing full well that you will never be affected by your fiats.

My wanted pregnancy nearly killed me 28 years ago. Frankly, I have reached the point of wishing that every anti-choice male I encounter, whether on the internet or IRL, would experience just *two hours* of the hyperemesis gravidarum that I experienced for 40 weeks. Then maybe you'd stop imagining that pregnancy is all fairy farts and chocolate ice cream.

I have a 28-year-old son and a 21-year-old tubal ligation. Should said tubal ligation fail, there will be an abortion so fast that your misogynistic head will spin right off. I will not risk my life for pregnancy again.

I support the full spectrum of reproductive choices: contraception or not, gestation or termination, adoption or rearing alone or with one's partner of choice.

Let me put it another way: I think the Duggars are lunatics, but you don't see me out there trying to legislate against their right to make their own reproductive decisions via overbreeding.

PS: I was once an anti-choice dimwit like you. I used every page out of your playbook. Then, I got out of high school and into the real world, where things are not as black-and-white as people like you believe they are.

fiona64 said...

http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=8905

Quote from article: Human chimeras were first discovered with the advent of blood typing
when it was found that some people had more than one blood type. Most of
them proved to be "blood chimeras" -- non-identical twins who shared a
blood supply in the uterus. Those who were not twins are thought to have blood cells from a twin that died early in gestation. Twin embryos often share a blood supply in the placenta, allowing blood stem cells to pass from one and settle in the bone marrow of the other. About 8% of non-identical twin pairs are chimeras.

fiona64 said...

Yep. I've provided him the definition.

vulgarism said...

1) Chimeras ARE twins who have combined. Twins are two zygotes from one pregnancy. 2) Most twins are dizygotic, and thus are easily distinguishable.

Let's see how you will backpedal now.

Drew Hymer said...

Was there an argument in there?



It seems that your rant amounts to nothing more than "men who oppose baby-killing" should just shut up. Don't you see how lame that is?

vulgarism said...

Yeah? You wrote:

"..embryos could merge. Its a form of cannibalism"

Is not an analogy.

vulgarism said...

That would be sexual intercourse.

Drew Hymer said...

I gladly admit that i learned something. And i stick by my original point that when two embryos combine, it's a form of cannibalism. But that doesn't mean that it's the exactly same as one eating the other for lunch. But it's similar in one respect, there were two organisms and now there is only one.

But rather than accept the analogy as intended, you blow it up into something it isn't. That makes you a liar.

Drew Hymer said...

Sure. They caused their child to need to be in the womb. They didn't cause their child to need a kidney transplant.

Drew Hymer said...

it is a form of cannibolism. But it's not exactly the same as eating one another. You should say that i call it "a form of cannabilism" rather than saying that i think it's equivalent to one eating the other.

vulgarism said...

If the woman puts life and health at risk so should the man. Thanks to technology, he can also donate his tissue to preserve fetal life.

Don't you care about fetal life Drew? Apparently not enough to inconvenience men. Eh?

vulgarism said...

So you make a nonsensical statement, and upon being called on it, you 1) backpedal furiously, 2) claim it was an analogy (fyi: that's not an analogy), and 3) cry about how you're being victimized by an evil liar. You know, alternatively, you could have just said something like "Wow, yeah, that really DID sound moronic. No idea what I was thinking, but I should rephrase that!".

vulgarism said...

http://i.word.com/idictionary/cannibalismcannibalism

Main Entry: can·ni·bal·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈka-nə-bə-ˌli-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1796
1 : the usually ritualistic eating of human flesh by a human being 2 : the eating of the flesh of an animal by another animal of the same kind 3 : an act of cannibalizing something
— can·ni·bal·is·tic \ˌka-nə-bə-ˈlis-tik\ adjective

Drew Hymer said...

But now that i've explained my position, i'm sure you have the maturity to retract your statement, right?

Drew Hymer said...

Since the combining of embryos has nothing to do with one chewing the other up and putting it through the digestive track, this obvious fact would make you realize that i wasn't saying anything like that. Why would you make such an unwarranted accusation? Except that you're a liar?

Google "Cannibalize". The first definition has nothing to do with eating.

"use (a machine) as a source of spare parts for another, similar machine."



You could have been reasonable and recognized that i meant something like that. But no, you had to be a jerk and a liar.

lady_black said...

What she said was that no person should decide how much risk another person should have to undergo. Especially when they know nothing about it, and never will.

Drew Hymer said...

Inconvenience men? This has nothing to with inconveniencing anybody. It has to do with principle that should undergird the law.

The law should uphold debt. Debt can be incurred when you cause others to be in need. "cause" has to do with the reasonable foreseeable consequence of your action.

vulgarism said...

Yep. And men can repay that debt to their child or fetus by donating tissue.

Easy peasy thanks to technology.

Drew Hymer said...

RIght. If the man caused the child to need the tissue, he should be required to provide the tissue.

vulgarism said...

You explained your position by backpedaling and inventing alternate definitions. Life tip: Other people are not "liars" when they mock you for making a stupid statement. Nor are they "liars" for dismissing your lame attempts at justifying that statement.

vulgarism said...

Yep. The man created an existential dependency by ejaculating. He owes his body just as much as the woman.

Drew Hymer said...

I think we have some common ground here. I agree that "no person should decide how much risk another person should have to undergo". Yes! Absolutely.

No one should force an unborn baby to undergo a procedure (abortion) that is 99.99999% likely to end up with her dead. That's just too much risk to force on an unborn baby.

This is especially true since neither lady_black nor fiona64 "know nothing about" getting ripped limb from limb.

Drew Hymer said...

This discussion shows that you don't have the maturity to recognize that you were wrong and to apologize. i guess that's that.

lady_black said...

Not a person, Drew.

Drew Hymer said...

like slaves

lady_black said...

No Drew. Slaves are people. Women are people. Women are not slaves to fertilized ovum.

lady_black said...

A parent's obligation begins at birth, Drew. A parent owes nothing to a zef.

lady_black said...

They aren't. And they never will be. And neither will mothers. That isn't American law, Drew.

lady_black said...

There IS no "debt."

Drew Hymer said...

Women aren't slaves to anyone. But pregnant mothers have an obligation to care for their babies. Obligation and slavery are two very different things.

Drew Hymer said...

Actually, parents owe their children care because they cause their children to be in need. They cause this need about 9 months before birth. That's why parental obligations begins about 9 months before birth.

BelligerentBruncher said...

That's true. And "pro-life" is a euphemism for "pro-abortion."


It's pretty stupid really. We all know what this is about and that is ABORTION.



So, from now on I'm going to refer to myself as "anti-abortionist" and to former-pro-lifers as "pro-abortionist."

lady_black said...

Actually, no they do not. They can eject the zef. There is no obligation.

fiona64 said...

You don't read very well, do you? My point, which you have deliberately overlooked, is that you (and every other anti-choice male) are demanding that women assume risks that you will never have to assume. And that makes your position pretty damned convenient, from where I sit.

Oh, and Drew? Everyone opposes baby-killing. Infanticide is a crime. If you know of anyone killing babies, call your local law enforcement agency.

fiona64 said...

Wow, so many histrionics and so little content.

An embryo is not a person. A woman, however, *is.* And I notice that you keep erasing the pregnant woman from the picture in your effort to enslave her to the contents of her uterus. Why is that, Drew?

fiona64 said...

Obligation and slavery are two very different things.

When you force someone to remain pregnant against her will, you are indeed enslaving her.

Not that you care, right? Because you will never be affected by the things you support.

fiona64 said...

Digestive *tract.*

You need to stop trying to practice medicine without a license, Drew.

fiona64 said...

This discussion shows that you don't have the maturity to recognize that you were wrong

You must have been looking in a mirror when you wrote that.

Purple Slurpy said...

Not everyone agrees a pregnant woman has a baby, which implies a fully sentient human being. Yes, the fetus is alive and yes, it has human DNA, but some of us just don't can't make the leap of calling it a person. I care about animals, love children, teach my kid not to crush ants for fun, recycle and try to leave the world a better place for future humans and animals. I visit my parents and grandparents, love them to pieces. BUT I have no general emotional attachments to a fetus. When MY kid was a fetus? Sure I loved him. But I know not all pregnancies are wanted. That's just a fact of life, and as long as the parents are okay with it, an abortion is a victimless. A fetus is neither innocent nor guilty, its just a ZERO.

Ann said...

Thank you for giving me permission to smoke while I am pregnant. I have been dying for a cigarette

someone45 said...

No pro-choice means supporting ALL choices.
I don't care if a woman wants to have 15 kids. I might think she is a little crazy but it is still her choice. So please allow me the same freedom to make my own choice regarding my decision to NOT have kids.

lady_black said...

Smoking is legal. You never needed my permission.

Suba gunawardana said...

Agreed that abortion is certainly one of the CHOICES we advocate.

Birth being the ONLY choice you advocate, do you admit "pro-life" is a propagandistic way of saying "Forced-Birth"?

Suba gunawardana said...

You assume that life is good by default, and death is bad by default. This is a false assumption. When the available life is a substandard one of misery/neglect/abuse, death IS a better option.

Furthermore, the method of death irrelevant when the individual being killed is non-sentient.

Suba gunawardana said...

It IS slavery to force women to give birth against their will.

lady_black said...

Sorry, Drew. But now you're just lying. Choice doesn't always mean abortion. It doesn't even mean abortion most of the time. Most of the time, the choice is to carry to term.

myintx said...

A fetus is a human being, an unborn child. Killing a fetus has the exact same main result as killing a newborn 1 second old - a human being is denied a chance at a full and productive life.

Plum Dumpling said...

Nuh uh.

Drew Hymer said...

The debate is about abortion. So, when pro-aborts say "choice" they're really talking about abortion. It soothes their consciences to coat their baby-killing with a euphemism.

Drew Hymer said...

When a couple has sex, they volunteer to be parents -- that is, to take on the obligation to care for another human. They're not being forced. The "forced birth" nonsense is just propaganda.

Drew Hymer said...

Pro-life is really just a short hand way of saying pro-right-to-life. This is obvious from the names of a lot of pro-life groups, Colorado Right to Life, National Right to Life Committee...

Pro-lifers have no problem being called "anti-abortion" because we are. Abortion is the issue, so using it the terminology of the opposing sides is appropriate.

Drew Hymer said...

>>It IS slavery to force women to give birth against their will.

Only in the case of rape is the woman forced to give birth against her will. In all other cases, she volunteered for the job.

Drew Hymer said...

Sentience is a lame standard because rats have sentience. What separates us from animals is our capacity for reason, morality and so forth.

Unborn babies and newborn babies don't have that immediate capacity. But they do have the inherent capacity. That's why both groups are persons.

Drew Hymer said...

fiona64, you support baby-killing. You just pretend it is isn't baby-killing. People always pretend away the humanity of the victims to support human rights atrocities.

i didn't overlook your argument. i just pointed out that it was stupid. Your argument is "go away and shut up". That's really bringing it! Disagreement should quashed.

>>assume risks that you will never have to assume.

Virtually all pro-lifers, men and women, support life-saving medical treatment even when that treatment results in the death and removal of the unborn child. So, your nonsense about "risk" is just nonsense.

fiona64 said...

Drew, you are being deliberately obtuse.

Not that I'm surprised.

YOU will never be pregnant. YOU are demanding that women risk life and health to gestate (pregnancy is not a state of wellness). Risks that YOU will never have to assume.

YOU need to stop taking away the humanity of women.

fiona64 said...

Consent to sex is not consent to gestation. But thanks for demonstrating that you view pregnancy as punishment for sex.

fiona64 said...

Personhood, and its attendant rights, comes with *birth.* Says so right in the US Constitution.

fiona64 said...

You've never needed anyone's permission to smoke, pregnant or not.

Drew Hymer said...

i just explained that no one is demanding that women risk their lives to carry a baby. So, your statement is pointless.

>>taking away the humanity of women


You're confused. Recognizing that mothers have a responsibility to care for their children doesn't take away their humanity. Rather, it's a recognition of their humanity.

vulgarism said...

Drew won't even entertain the thought that fathers should be legally obligated to donate blood or bone marrow to a sick fetus or child.

Too much of an *inconvenience* for the man.

Drew Hymer said...

If you believe that, you're a fool. The "right" to kill an unborn baby was invented by the Supreme Court, not the Constitution.

vulgarism said...

Death from pregnancy cannot be accurately predicted. The woman can bleed to death from post partum hemorrhage. So yes, you are forcing women to risk their lives - when you won't even inconvenience a man by forcing him to donate a teaspoon of blood to his child.

Drew Hymer said...

>>as punishment
Thank you showing that you don't understand the difference between punishment and reasonable foreseeable consequences.

When you engage is an activity that has the reasonable foreseeable consequence of causing someone to be in need and the consequence happens, you become responsible to care for that person's need that you caused.

fiona64 said...

i just explained that no one is demanding that women risk their lives to carry a baby.

Life and *health* is what I said, Drew. Which you know.

You reduce women to nothing more than walking, talking incubators with your position, Drew. *That* is how you are taking away our humanity.

Thanks for continuing to prove how easy it is to be an anti-choice male, though.

fiona64 said...

You are being deliberately obtuse *again.*

You can go re-read the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, which quite clearly states that rights are conferred up on the *born.*

BTW, abortion was only illegal in this country for about 70 years. Why? Because male physicians decided they didn't like the female midwives being paid to terminate unwanted pregnancies.

Abortion has been going on since before recorded history, and will continue to go on whether it's legal or not.

Please feel free, Drew, to gestate any pregnancy that happens inside your body. You do not get to make medical decisions for others.

fiona64 said...

A foreseeable consequence of driving a car is being in an automobile accident. You are saying that one should not seek medical treatment in such cases because, well, you *were* driving a car ...

vulgarism said...

FYI, Drew knows more about tort law than Unicorn Farm - whose practice is tort law. He said that she was wrong about "foreseeable consequences" but declined to explain how so in detail.

Thank gawd we have Drew to lecture us cretins on law, embryology and obstetrics.

Suba gunawardana said...

If you walk in a dangerous neighborhood, do you volunteer to getting mugged/assaulted/raped? Are you OBLIGATED to let such attacks go on without protecting yourself because "you should have known better than to walk there in the first place"?

Purple Slurpy said...

There are facts, like fetuses have a full chromosome, that they have a heart beat etc which are indisputable. However when it comes to being a "person", this term is not fully defined. For me, its the fact that fetuses lack sentience and are still inside the mother's body, which makes me categorize them as "not a person". Its not an easy or trivial classification, and the fact that so many well meaning people who love and care about the living and the world do not necessarily see it your way, to me suggests that there is no universal moral standard here. The policy is to let the person who is most closest to the fetus, the mother, decide whether to keep or abort.

Suba gunawardana said...

Once again, taking a action doesn't bind you to its consequences.

If you leave your door unlocked, are you VOLUNTEERING for squatters to come in take up residence in your home? If they do come in, are you obligated to let them stay because "you invited them by opening the door"?

Purple Slurpy said...

As I replied to Drew, the classification of a fetus as a "person" is a murky one. Unlike observational facts, like its got a full set of chromosomes etc., how one could use a whole different set of criteria to define "person". My criteria is that fetuses are not self aware and still attached to the mother. You obviously have a different criteria. The fact that we can't all come to anything near a consensus as in a question like "it is okay to steal" to me says its not such a cut and dry issue that one answer is best for all. I think its a complex issue that the woman considering an abortion alone is qualified to make.

Suba gunawardana said...

A mother/parent is one who loves, protects and cares for children, and always puts them first, VOLUNTARILY.
NOT because some asshole forced them to. Parental responsibility can never be forced. When forcing is attempted, it's always the children who end up suffering.

Spitting out a baby doesn't make a mother. Loving & raising a child does, whether the child is biological or not.

Whether any woman wants to be a mother is her business, NOT yours.

Drew Hymer said...

i have entertained and i've thoroughly explained to you the difference. But truth and reason don't matter to you. You'd rather repeat your nonsense.

Drew Hymer said...

When there's no indication of risk then there's no justification for acting like there is such a risk. That's rational.

>>women can bleed to death
Sure. We should take reasonable precautions to make sure that doesn't happen.

vulgarism said...

Why is fetal life not valuable enough to you to force men to even give blood to preserve fetal life? Especially as you have no problem forcing women to risk and life and health to give birth.

Giving blood = minor inconvenience. Why does male convenience trump fetal right to live?

vulgarism said...

Then why do women still die from pregnancy? I thought it was always preventable, according to you?

Drew Hymer said...

fiona64, you are a sexist bigot. My sex is completely irrelevant to the argument. You somehow think i should shut up because i'm a man. Well, that's just idiotic. Your view: SHUT UP. Wow.

*health*, in this context, is a weasel word. In Doe v. Bolton the Supremes defined *health* to mean anything you want it to mean -- just kill your baby for any reason. So, no *health* isn't justification for removing the baby. Life is.

Drew Hymer said...

Fiona64, you think if women are not allowed to kill their babies that makes women walking incubators. That's misogyny.


My position is that woman are responsible moral agents. This means that they are not morons but responsible for the reasonable foreseeable consequence of their actions. They incur a debt to their children by creating those children in a dependent state. That's treating women with respect.

Drew Hymer said...

You have a sloppy interpretation of the 14th amendment. It makes citizenship dependent on birth. The 2nd half of section 1 is not dependent on birth but applies to all persons (such as unborn babies and illegal aliens). So, the constitution does not say you can murder unborn babies. The Supremes just made it up.

Drew Hymer said...

>>medical decisions


To call abortion a "medical decision" is very misogynist because it assumes that pregnancy is a pathology. Since women's bodies are designed for pregnancy, your view assumes women are defective.

Drew Hymer said...

>>has been going on since before recorded history,

Other types of murder have also been going on since before recorded history. So, by your "reasoning" all murders should be legal.

vulgarism said...

"Who" or "what" designed women's bodies?

Tell us more about how natural = good and healthy.

Drew Hymer said...

>>decided they didn't like the female midwives

No. Abortion was made illegal way more than 70 years ago. When it could be proven that the unborn was alive, abortion was illegal. In the early to mid 1800s, it was discovered that life begins at conception so physicians moved to make abortion illegal from conception.

Drew Hymer said...

>>driving a car

Fiona64, that's stupid. The Reasonable Foreseeable Consequence of driving recklessly is an "accident". And yes, you're responsible.

Drew Hymer said...

if you're pregnant, you're already a mother.

Drew Hymer said...

That's bad reasoning. If it's true that there's no way to determine who is right, you have to look at the consequences of being wrong and avoid the worst consequence. The death of an innocent baby is a worse consequence than the mother carrying the baby for 9 months.

Drew Hymer said...

Squatters taking over your house isn't a consequence of leaving your door unlocked.
But creating a new human being is an reasonable foreseeable consequence of sex.

Suba gunawardana said...

Any idiot can conceive and spit out a baby. Doesn't make her a mother.



It takes a real parent to RAISE a child, and that responsibility cannot be forced.

Suba gunawardana said...

"Squatters taking over your house isn't a consequence of leaving your door unlocked."

Of course it is. If you are bound by the consequences of one action, you should be bound by consequences of other actions too.

lady_black said...

No.

Drew Hymer said...

If you caused the mugger to need your wallet (i'm trying to picture this), you are responsible to supply him with your wallet. Walking through a dangerous neighborhood in no way causes the mugger to need your wallet.

>>Taking an action doesn't automatically bind you to all of it's CONSEQUENCES


You may have a point here but I'm not making such a global claim. My claim is more limited. If you cause someone to be in need -- like hitting with your car (assuming you're at fault) -- then you're responsible to care for that need.

Drew Hymer said...

Pregnancy isn't usually forced it's voluntary.



We're not talking about being a good parent. We're talking about obligation and how causing someone to be in need incurs that obligation.

vulgarism said...

So if something is natural, it can't also possibly be 'medical', is that what you are saying?

vulgarism said...

Yes, you did answer it. By proclaiming that biology = destiny. Which is not an answer, seeing as how we override biology ALL THE TIME.

So why can biology not be overriden to save fetal life?

vulgarism said...

So every single medical complication can be 100% predicted, is that what you're saying? And people ONLY die because someone made a mistake?

Suba gunawardana said...

What's the point of spitting out a baby if you cannot be a good parent? Aren't you intentionally making a bad situation WORSE?

Drew Hymer said...

If you caused the squatters to need to be in your house, then you owe them the use of your house.

Leaving the door unlocked doesn't cause squatters to enter your house. They have will that they exercised in a bad way that was not caused by your action. Furthermore, leaving the door unlocked in no way causes squatters to need to be in your house. But if did (which is absurd, since there appears to be no reasonable cause and effect), then yes you would be obligated to provide them with your house.

Drew Hymer said...

There's no point in talking about rape unless you're convinced that i'm correct about the non-rape case.

Suba gunawardana said...

Once again, you assume the zef NEEDS to continue its life. Wrong assumption.

Every living being ever conceived is NOT designed to live. Only those faced with favorable conditions get to live. Otherwise this planet would be hell-hole with no standing room & everyone eating each other.

Drew Hymer said...

Strike the phrase "while female" and change "severe injury and possibly death" to "causing someone to be in need".

The two activities are similar in that they both may cause someone to be in need. When you cause that need, you incur obligation to care for that need.

vulgarism said...

Yes, there is a point. It is entirely relevant since you are basing your entire argument around female responsibility.

Drew Hymer said...

i'm making no such assumption. Someone's right to life isn't based on immediate capacities or immediate desires.

It seems that you are judging someone's life as not worth living. And the penalty for that is death, in your view.

The solution for "unwanted" children is not to kill them. One's right to life isn't based on whether or not you're wanted.

vulgarism said...

Should a person be forced to give up body parts if they cause someone to be in need as a result of safe, ordinary driving?

Drew Hymer said...

when we talk about "medical decisions", we're typically talking about confronting a disease or other defect. Getting a nose-job (unless for some abnormality), for example, is not a medical decision.

Drew Hymer said...

There you go lying again. i never said biology=destiny.

Biology can be overridden to save fetal life. I'd gladly give my blood to save an unborn baby... or a born person.. maybe even you

Drew Hymer said...

Killing the baby is making a bad situation worse. It's sick to suggest violence as a solution to a social problem.

Drew Hymer said...

There's no fault so there's responsibility for the outcome.

Suba gunawardana said...

Once again "violence" matters only if the individual being killed is sentient. It's irrelevant for a zef that's non-sentient.

You never answered the question. Why spit out a baby if you cannot care for them?

Suba gunawardana said...

OK, on what is someone's "right to life" based?

What is YOUR solution for unwanted children?

vulgarism said...

So, having sex while female = reckless endangerment?

vulgarism said...

So pregnancy is a state of health and wellness, is that what you are saying?


Then why do women still die from it and are maimed and injured?

Suba gunawardana said...

Are you claiming it's fine to torture rats (or any other animals) DESPITE their capacity to feel pain,
but not OK to kill zefs despite their LACK of sentience or reasoning?

Can you explain the logic behind that?

vulgarism said...

Saying that women were 'designed for pregnancy' and that therefore, they must gestate, and that since men were *not* designed to gestate, that men should *not* be forced to donate their bodies to preserve fetal life is in fact a roundabout way of saying 'biology = destiny" yes.

Purple Slurpy said...

In case you haven't noticed, the world is full of shades of grey. There are many instances where there IS NO WAY to determine who is right and who is wrong. Circumstance plays a big part in things. To me, ending a pregnancy while it is a clump of cells with a still non-functioning central nervous system would be preferable to giving birth if I were a woman on welfare or a student pursuing her degree in a highly demanding field. Terminate while the fetus doesn't even know its being terminated. There is no winner but no loser either. If you were in the same situation and wanted to prioritize your fetus, by all means that is your choice.

JoAnna Wahlund said...

So it's okay with you if a mother chooses to hire an unethical doctor to torture her unborn child in utero? (Say, if she was mad at the bio father and wanted to screw with him.) That's perfectly kosher, in your book?

Purple Slurpy said...

>> When you engage is an activity that has the reasonable foreseeable
consequence of causing someone to be in need and the consequence
happens, you become responsible to care for that person's need that you
caused.

I agree with this statement. But I also agree that abortion (of a potential person who has not yet developed fear, regret or any emotions) is a responsible choice a woman can make.

lady_black said...

What are you babbling about, exactly?

lady_black said...

So, if she will merely be crippled for life, that's ok with you? You need to check your privilege, white boy.

lady_black said...

So is having an abortion.

lady_black said...

Many, MANY people are in automobile accidents who were not driving recklessly. By driving a car, you assume the risk that you may be in an accident. That accident may or may not be your fault. But you don't have to live with the results of your actions merely because you choose to drive.

lady_black said...

Nice re-write of actual history.

JoAnna Wahlund said...

I'm taking your logic to its natural conclusion. If a parent "owes nothing" to a human being who is in the z/e/f stage of development, then it must be okay to torture that child in utero, right? Do you think that's acceptable for a parent to do?

lady_black said...

"Designed for pregnancy" ROFLMAO! No, Drew. An Easy Bake Oven is designed to bake tiny cakes. Women are not "designed" for anything in particular, other than to be human beings.

lady_black said...

Actually no it is NOT "misogynist." By your "logic" a woman who is incapable of pregnancy is "defective" or if she seeks sterilization surgery to keep herself from becoming pregnant, she is a misogynist. Neither one is true. Childbirth is not to be interpreted by ignorant males as a raison d'etre for females.

lady_black said...

Bullshit, Drew.

lady_black said...

LOL. You're very funny. Never took a logic class, did you? You have to look at the consequences of being wrong and avoid the worst consequence? LOL. Congratulations. You just put us back in the Stone Age. Every human advancement and innovation has had a distinct possibility of being wrong, and resulting in bad consequences. Let's just start with medicine and move on from there.

lady_black said...

I don't deal in discussing the impossible, lady. You picked the wrong rube to have this illogical conversation with.

lady_black said...

The zef doesn't need to be in a womb, either.

JoAnna Wahlund said...

It's a hypothetical scenario. I suspect you refuse to answer because you can't do so without exposing the flaws in your position.

Suba gunawardana said...

You keep talking about "need" while avoiding my question.

You assume that the zef NEEDS a crappy life as an unwanted child. On what do you base this assumption?

lady_black said...

No, it's an IMPOSSIBLE scenario. I don't even know where you dreamed up this "in utero torturing" nonsense, and frankly, I don't want to know. But it's not possible to torture in utero. And YES, nothing is "owed" to a zef.

lady_black said...

Having sex while female is not a fault situation. EVER.

Suba gunawardana said...

Are you absolutely against the intentional killing of the innocent, under any circumstances?

lady_black said...

Yes, you pretty much DID say that biology was destiny, and having sex while female is a de facto fault situation, and a few other wholly unappealing inferences that can be drawn from that smarmy, misogynistic algorithm.

lady_black said...

If you wish to babble about "causing need" then the male is just as responsible for the need. If he cannot be forced to gestate, neither can she.

vulgarism said...

Should you be legally obligated to donate that blood?

JoAnna Wahlund said...

I disagree. Fetal surgery is not unheard of. One could torture by deliberately ingesting harmful substances. Etc.

If nothing is owed to an unborn child, then you support the choice of a parent to binge drink/smoke/take hard drugs during pregnancy?

Suba gunawardana said...

Let's assume it's somehow possible to torture a zef in utero.


First, why would anyone want to torture a zef? (Other than being plain bat-shit crazy)



Let's say you provided a plausible motive. (I doubt it, there's NEVER an acceptable motive for torturing anything).



Practically: Considering the zef is non-sentient through the major part of gestation, and the woman is always more sentient than the zef, such a procedure is bound to cause more physical pain to her than the zef. Now why would anyone choose to go through that? It will be far more practical to give birth first & torture the child, as many forced-birthers tend to do. :)

Suba gunawardana said...

There's a huge difference between "nothing is owed" and "have a right to actively intentionally torture".



I owe nothing to a homeless guy. That doesn't mean I have a right to torture him or beat him up.

lady_black said...

Fetal surgery has nothing to do with what you asked. Now you are asking me if I believe women who *choose* to carry to term should be drinking, smoking or taking "hard drugs." Drinking is legal over age 21 and smoking is legal over age 18. Binge drinking and smoking aren't healthy for anyone, but they are legal adult activities. I'm generally suspicious of laws that purport to make a "special class" of any type of person (in this case a pregnant person) in order to strip them of rights. Yes, pregnant women have as much right to drink and smoke as anyone else. And they ALSO have the right to any lawfully obtained and needed drugs as anyone else. While pregnant with my daughter, I had an atrocious sinus infection to the point where I was in so much pain I could literally not function. I had to fight with my obstetrician for antibiotics. THAT'S TORTURE OF ME, for an entire month, with no reasonable explanation other than being pregnant. Frankly I was in so much pain I didn't care. I just wanted the pain gone. No, I do not think drugs ought to be denied to women because they are pregnant. Nor am I entirely sold on the harm of smoking and light to moderate drinking while pregnant. I believe it to be overblown. If you choose to carry a pregnancy, I believe you should look after your health. That doesn't extend to personal suffering for the sake of a fetus. Generations were just fine with the "moderation in all things" type of common sense that prevailed when our mothers were carrying us. Nothing has changed my mind.

JoAnna Wahlund said...

Re: motive. Perhaps the woman (who is bat-shit crazy) found out her husband cheated on her and wants some form of twisted revenge. Perhaps she is mentally ill and thinks the child inside of her needs to be punished for some reason. Etc., etc.

It doesn't necessarily have to cause physical pain to her. For example, she could use meth or heroin, both of which might be pleasurable for her but very harmful to the baby. Or she could sit in a hot tub for a lengthy span of time. Again, pleasurable for her, but not so for the baby. (The reason pregnant women can't sit in hot tubs is because a baby could literally boil alive in in the amniotic fluid.)

JoAnna Wahlund said...

You "owe nothing" to a homeless guy, but you don't have the right to kill him, correct? Wouldn't that also follow for an unborn child? You could "owe nothing" to an unborn child, but if s/he is a human being with the right to life, you shouldn't have the right to kill him/her.

vulgarism said...

Can't torture a zef.

The baby could potentially suffer once born, but while in-utero, no.

JoAnna Wahlund said...

Fetal surgery could a method whereby torture is carried out.

I'm asking you if any pregnant woman who knows she is pregnant should be allowed to binge drink or do hard drugs *with the direct intention* of harming her unborn child.

vulgarism said...

If the homeless guy is inside your vagina without your consent, I do believe that you would be within your rights to remove him, even if the ONLY way to escape would lead to his death.

JoAnna Wahlund said...

Are you saying at a 39w6d infant can't feel pain, but once it is born the next day, it can? Again, what is your scientific evidence for that assertion?

Actual evidence shows that fetuses are indeed capable of feeling pain: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/17/health/complex-science-at-issue-in-politics-of-fetal-pain.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

JoAnna Wahlund said...

And what if actions that you consented to directly led to his presence in your vagina (and he was put there without HIS consent)?

vulgarism said...

Yes, but not until late in pregnancy:

http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822%2811%2900885-2

And even then, it is likely that the fetus is indeed sedated and anaesthetized whilst in utero.

Take a look at this, for example:

http://westminsterprego.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/amnioticsac.jpg


A baby born within the amniotic sac. Why isn't it awake and crying? Birth can be pretty traumatic, and getting your head crushed as it is shoved through a tiny opening can't be pleasant. So why is it not up and crying in pain?

vulgarism said...

Well then I guess he has the right to rape you then?


This is what you are advocating, yes?

JoAnna Wahlund said...

The link you posted doesn't discuss pain - see the NYT article I posted, above, for more detailed info about scientific research currently posits that fetuses can feel pain around 24 weeks.

Not sure what your image of an infant in the caul is supposed to prove...?

fiona64 said...

One reasonable foreseeable consequence of an unwanted pregnancy is abortion ... so there you have it.

fiona64 said...

Boy, are you ever stupid. I didn't say it happened 70 years ago, I said it was only illegal for about 70 years. And yes, it was indeed because of the male physicians. Crack a friggin' book, Drew ... http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft967nb5z5&chunk.id=d0e1742&toc.id=d0e1742&brand=ucpress

fiona64 said...

Again, you double down on the stupid.

Murder has a very specific definition: the unlawful (illegal) taking of a person's life with malice aforethought.

Even when abortion was illegal, it was not considered murder ... because :: wait for it:: an embyro is NOT a person.

fiona64 said...

Since women's bodies are designed for pregnancy

Thanks for proving right my assertion that you believe women are nothing but incubators.

Pregnancy is NOT a state of wellness.

No love, a woman who (as I already told you) was almost killed by a wanted pregnancy.

fiona64 said...

Yep, he's another one of the "women are nothing but the meat around an incubator" crowd.

fiona64 said...

Calling a choice about whether or not to gestate a pregnancy a medical decision is factually accurate. What *is* misogynist is your patronizing belief that women are too stupid to know their own circumstances and thus make that call without help from some random internet dude who thinks he knows what is best for strangers ... and who knows full well that he will never have to deal with the consequences of what he advocates.

JoAnna Wahlund said...

If I freely consented to him being placed in my vagina, then by definition it's not rape. (Sad that you don't seem to know what rape is...)

And how would it work for him to rape me without HIS consent? Are people normally forced to rape others in your world? How sad.

myintx said...

And you support killing a human being in the womb that looks like the picture you posted?

myintx said...

Killing an unborn child because it is inconvenient or unwanted is not 'reasonable' - it's horrible.

vulgarism said...

So if you consent to having sex with someone, and you ask them to stop, and they refuse, it isn't rape?

fiona64 said...

Dumbfuck, aside from your nonsense about "murder," the 14th Amendment is very clear that *rights* are afforded to the born. http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv

You are arguing for a law that abridges the rights of *actual* persons (women) by affording them to non-persons.

Roe v. Wade was based on a woman's right to privacy in medical decisions. This right was founded upon the 14th amendment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade#Supreme_Court_decision

You're welcome. Jerk.

vulgarism said...

No. I only want to kill toddlers who wander into traffic! Duh!

vulgarism said...

Is disability a minor inconvenience hun?

Suba gunawardana said...

Any motive that involves "revenge" (or any form of intentional suffering to another individual) is obviously not ethically acceptable. As I said in my other post, intentionally causing harm is entirely different from having no obligation.

Claims about hot tubs have to be false, considering the internal body temperature would NEVER go up-to "boiling". If it did, proteins will denature and the woman would die too, not just the fetus. i.e. No one would be able to sit in a hot tub, not just a pregnant woman.

Drug use while pregnant is not advisable NOT due to "torture of the zef" but due to potential adverse effects on the FUTURE CHILD. The zef in its current state feels little if anything, and cannot be "tortured" by drugs or alcohol.
If the woman plans to have the baby, then she has a duty to avoid things that are potentially harmful to the FUTURE child. If she plans to abort, she may take as many drugs as she wants, as the zef won't feel anything and there's no child to be harmed in the future.

fiona64 said...

The death of an innocent baby is a worse consequence than the mother carrying the baby for 9 months.

As has already been explained to you inexcruciating detail, an embryo is not "an innocent baby." It is an unconscious entity and, as such, it is incapable of either guilt or innocence.

You cheerfully assign medical risk to some random woman, knowing that you will never have to assume in.. Pregnancy is NOT a state of wellness. The US is #50 in maternal mortality, with countries like *Bulgaria* doing better at keeping pregnant women alive than we do.

And that's to say nothing whatsoever of the permanent changes to a woman's physiology that happen with every pregnancy. Each pregnancy creates striations on the pubic symphysis; a forensic anthropologist can look at skeletal remains and tell how many times a woman was pregnant by those marks. With each subsequent pregnancy, the pubic symphysis remains more disconnected than the last. I have a friend who, after having five children, as pubic symphysis diastasis so bad that her gait is affected and she cannot ride a bike.

And that's to say nothing of how gestational diabetes can convert to permanent type II, or how gestational carpal tunnel can become permanent ... or a whole slew of other common risks that come with pregnancy. And you just flap your cakehole about how women are "obligated," by virtue of being life support systems for a uterus, to take these risks (and a host of others) ... knowing you'll never be affected.

As I've already pointed out, that's mighty convenient for you ...

vulgarism said...

I love how he doubles down and accuses *us* of being the misogynists.


I mean, acknowledging that women have the right to self-determination, and are not mere objects to be used for the benefits of a third party is so totes woman-hating!



It's just another dog whistle. Like the southern racists who whine that the REAL racists are the people who try to help minorities, since after all, being owned and forced to pick cotton until you die gave the blacks something to be proud of!

fiona64 said...

Dumbfuck, there is NO WAY to predict what problems a pregnancy will cause. I had hyperemesis gravidarum for 40 weeks and nearly died. There is no way to predict that or test for it. And do you know what causes that? PREGNANCY (you know, that whole gravidarum business).

You do NOT get to decide how much risk a stranger should take.

fiona64 said...

You're right, Drew. Women should just allow themselves to be crippled, have their health damaged, etc., to suit you.

Asshole.

vulgarism said...

The link I posted does discuss pain.

Highlights

The human brain may discriminate touch from pain from 35–37 weeks gestation

Before 35–37 weeks, touch and noxious lance evoke nonspecific neuronal bursts

After 35–37 weeks, touch and noxious lance evoke modality-specific potentials

In other words, prior to 35 weeks gestation, fetuses cannot experience pain - they only react mindlessly, to various stimuli.

We show a transition in brain response following tactile and noxious stimulation from nonspecific, evenly dispersed neuronal bursts to modality-specific, localized, evoked potentials. The results suggest that specific neural circuits necessary for discrimination between touch and nociception emerge from 35–37 weeks gestation in the human brain.

fiona64 said...

I'm sure it comforts you to tell yourself this imbecilic lie ...

vulgarism said...

Not sure what your image of an infant in the caul is supposed to
prove...? The amniotic sac is very strong and serves to protect the
baby, so it's not surprising that s/he was not "traumatized" by the
birth process.



So if I wrap you in bubble wrap and feed you to an anaconda you shouldn't feel a thing?


Give me a break.

Suba gunawardana said...

Prostates are designed to become hyper-plastic or neoplastic with age. Are men obligated to shut up & suffer, and not seek treatment?

JoAnna Wahlund said...

If I freely consent to sex before, during, AND after the act, it's not rape. But rape =/= pregnancy. Are you saying that an unborn child has to ask his/her mother for consent before implanting in the uterus? How would that work, exactly?

vulgarism said...

I think I understand what you are trying to say. That having sex and forcing life on a zef is like raping a homeless man?

JoAnna Wahlund said...

What if a woman aborts her baby out of revenge? Should she be able to do so?

"Boiling" isn't an exact term, obviously, but the danger of hot tubs is that it could raise the body temperature to a point that is dangerous for an unborn child.

So if an unborn child is born with FAS, it means s/he didn't have FAS prior to birth? How does that work, exactly?

JoAnna Wahlund said...

No. I'm not sure how you got any of the above from what I said, which is that pregnancy is not analgous to rape. Pregnancy is a natural biological process. Rape is not. And again, if you are being forced to rape others without your consent, I encourage you to call the authorities.

Suba gunawardana said...

That's why I followed up with the example of an animal whom you DO have a legal right to kill (just like a zef who occupies your body). That still doesn't give you a right to TORTURE.

vulgarism said...

http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-living/pregnancy-week-by-week/expert-answers/pregnancy-and-hot-tubs/faq-20057844

Only very early in pregnancy. And a 4 week embryo can't feel pain, sorry.

JoAnna Wahlund said...

The abortion process violently dismembers an unborn child. Don't you think that would constitute torture?

Suba gunawardana said...

No, because the zef feels no pain.

JoAnna Wahlund said...

Ashlyn Blocker can't feel pain. Is it okay to kill her? http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2012/07/05/the-girl-who-cant-feel-pain/

vulgarism said...

You originally compared abortion to randomly killing a homeless man. *facepalm*

If anything is inside your body without your consent, you have the right to remove it. That includes homeless men, nematode worms and zefs. Even if you initially consented to the use of your body, it becomes a violation when whatever is occupying your body refuses to leave. Consent is always revokable. It is not perpetually ongoing.

And sweetie, rape is all natural. Rape is a long standing reproductive strategy utilized by males of the species to pass along their genes without expending resources on the future child.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 763   Newer› Newest»