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:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 400 of 763   Newer›   Newest»
vulgarism said...

She can feel emotional pain from torture. Embryos have no self.

vulgarism said...

In the majority of abortions the embryo is expelled whole, still inside an intact amniotic sac.

JoAnna Wahlund said...

So rape is natural, but pregnancy is unnatural. Got it. I think we're done here.



Again, please seek help.

JoAnna Wahlund said...

I didn't ask if it was okay to torture her. I asked if it was okay to kill her. What if her parents get tired of dealing with her condition? Can they kill her, as long as they do it humanely? After all, she can't feel pain so by your criteria she isn't a person.

Suba gunawardana said...

Out of revenge against whom?
To the zef itself, it wouldn't MATTER why it was aborted, since it doesn't know or feel anything.

If it was revenge against the zef's father, she should owe him financial compensation for emotional damage. That is, if she had promised to carry

then broke the contract.


A fetus will have FAS, but won't SUFFER due to it until born, or at least until conscious pain perception is functional close to birth.

JoAnna Wahlund said...

Evidence to back that up? In D&C a the unborn child is quite literally ripped to pieces by a curette. Then a cannula is used to suck out the remaining tissue (any free floating baby parts that remained behind, along with any placental tissue that the curette didn't get).

vulgarism said...

Stop moving the goalposts.

Suba gunawardana said...

What is rape? Another individual invading/occupying/using your body without your consent.

What is pregnancy? Another individual invading/occupying/using your body without your consent.

So what's the difference, if any?

JoAnna Wahlund said...

Revenge toward the father of the child (see my earlier hypothetical situation of a woman who found out her partner was cheating).

A woman doesn't currently owe anything to the father. She can get an abortion without his consent, and any emotional damage he incurs as a result is ignored regardless of any contract.

So it's okay to torture an unborn child as long as you plan to kill him/her at some point?

vulgarism said...

The majority of abortions are prior to 9 weeks and ru-486 expels the embryo from the uterus.

JoAnna Wahlund said...

I'm doing no such thing. I'm following your logic to its natural conclusion.

vulgarism said...

Quote where I stated that pregnancy was unnatural. I will wait.

Suba gunawardana said...

You keep missing the point. Torture or suffering requires SENTIENCE, ability to feel pain.

It is IMPOSSIBLE to torture a non-sentient individual.

JoAnna Wahlund said...

If you engage in sex, knowing full well that pregnancy could result (given that no birth control method has a perfect use rate of 100%), that is de facto consent to pregnancy. You are engaging in a natural biological process with foreseeable consequences, and in doing so you are accepting the risk that those consequences may occur, even if you do not desire them and take measures to prevent them.

It is impossible, however, to invite, encourage, or consent to rape. Period. No ifs, ands, or buts.

vulgarism said...

If you engage in sex, knowing that your partner could rape you, you have consented to rape.

Yes?

JoAnna Wahlund said...

right here, http://blog.secularprolife.org/2014/07/planned-parenthood-abortion-quotas.html#comment-1502233259

Unborn children do not "invade" the mother's body. They are created within her body as part of a natural biological process. If you believe otherwise, you are stating that pregnancy is unnatural.

JoAnna Wahlund said...

Again, cite some sources for that assertion?

Suba gunawardana said...

Non-sentience per se is not a reason to kill, neither is sentience alone is a reason NOT to kill. Whether to kill or not are determined based on other reasons. Once killing is justified, the METHOD of killing should be determined based on sentience.

For animals or living humans, it is important to choose a quick & PAINLESS method of death, whereas for zefs who are non-sentient, the method of death is irrelevant.

JoAnna Wahlund said...

Sex and rape are not the same thing. (again, it is TRAGIC that you don't already know this.) That's like asking if you engage in sex knowing your partner could murder you mid-coitus, you have consented to murder. If the thing you consented to (sex) becomes something else (rape) then the consent doesn't apply because you only consented to the sex (as well as all of the natural foreseeable consequences that accompany sex, such as pregnancy), not the rape.

If you call this number, they can help explain to you the difference between sex and rape: https://www.rainn.org/get-help/national-sexual-assault-hotline

vulgarism said...

You are comparing apples and oranges. You brought up fetal torture. We debunked your claims. You are now trying to move the goalposts by lying about how we want to kill zefs primarily because they can't feel pain.

Suba gunawardana said...

As I said in the other post, the method of death is totally irrelevant for NON-SENTIENT individuals.

JoAnna Wahlund said...

The thing is, an unborn child is a living human. It is an organism of the species homo sapiens. So your position is that non-sentient living humans can be killed by any method, including violent dismemberment.

Do you think newborns are sentient?

JoAnna Wahlund said...

No, I'm asking if torturing and/or killing human beings is acceptable as long as they can't feel it.

JoAnna Wahlund said...

are newborns sentient?

Suba gunawardana said...

According to your logic:
If you walk outside, knowing that no neighborhood is 100% safe, that is de facto consent to rape. You are engaging in a social activity with foreseeable consequences, and in doing so you are accepting the risk that those consequences may
occur, even if you do not desire them and take measures to prevent them.
If you knowingly walk in a dangerous neighborhood, that is absolute consent to rape, (just like unprotected sex is to pregnancy).

So once you get foreseeably raped, do you have no right to protect yourself because you should have known it was possible? Are you obligated to allow the rape to go on because "you should have known better than to walk outside"?

Suba gunawardana said...

If you eat unwashed food and get internal parasites as a result, do you have no right to take drugs to kill them because "you invited them by eating unwashed food", and many of them were "created inside your body".

Suba gunawardana said...

Once again, non-sentience is not a REASON to kill. However if the individual being killed is non-sentient, then the method of death doesn't matter.

Why do you think the method of death matters to a non-sentient individual just because they are human? They still can't feel it can they? So why should it matter?

While newborns don't have the same awareness as older humans, they do have the capacity to feel pain & distress. So if you decide to kill a newborn, you have to do it with much greater care than a zef.

JoAnna Wahlund said...

Rape is not a foreseeable consequence of a natural biological process. The primary purpose of intercourse is reproduction via conception/implantation/gestation. The primary purpose of eating is providing nutrition via digestion. The natural biological consequence of walking outside is not rape. The natural biological consequence of walking outside would be getting a callous on your foot, or maybe a muscle strain.

vulgarism said...

Embryos are by nature invasive, and pregnancy is an intimate bodily violation IF THE PREGNANT PERSON DOES NOT WANT HER BODY OCCUPIED.

Yes, pregnancy is natural. That neither makes it healthy nor wanted.

vulgarism said...

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

JoAnna Wahlund said...

Are intestinal parasites are not meant to be in the human body. The female body contains a pair of fallopian tubes and a uterus for the express purpose of facilitating human reproduction, thus it should not be an unforseeable consequence when reproduction occurs, as intercourse is the natural biological mechanism for human reproduction.

Parasites are a consequence, but not one that is natural or biological. The biological mechanism for nutrition is not ingestion of parasites.

Suba gunawardana said...

We don't live in a "natural biological world", thanks to overpopulation. In our society, rape is a very real possibility, a FORESEEABLE consequence, whenever you are out in public, (or even in your own home).

If you are bound by the foreseeable consequences of one action, why shouldn't you be bound by the foreseeable consequences of another action?

"The primary purpose of intercourse is reproduction via conception/implantation/gestation."

That's your subjective opinion. Many would say pleasure/bonding is the primary purpose while reproduction is an undesirable side effect. (Why else would they use contraception? duh!) Similarly, while nutrition is the primary purpose of food, parasites are an undesirable side effect.

If you can get rid of the undesirable side effects of one action, why not another?

Suba gunawardana said...

Nature designed the vagina for the express purpose of receiving a penis. Does that mean women have to shut up and accept every penis that gets stuck there regardless of her consent?

vulgarism said...

Intestinal parasites evolved right alongside humans. In fact, some species evolved primarily to live in our gut, and may even offer a health benefit regarding overactive immune systems. One reason Africans don't suffer from auto immune diseases like we do in the west is because of these various parasites.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1618732/

lady_black said...

That NEVER HAPPENS. People who binge drink (pregnant or not) have a substance abuse problem. So do people who can't abstain from harmful drugs. I repeat, it is NOT possible to "torture" in utero. The fetus is anesthetized both naturally by hypoxia and by whatever anesthesia is administered to the pregnant woman. I certainly wouldn't tolerate being denied needed surgery because I was pregnant. That's PREPOSTEROUS.

lady_black said...

I made a choice. I gave birth three times because I chose to. Then I chose to be sterilized. But don't be deceived, Drew. Neither you, nor Jesus Christ and a crowbar, be able to force me to carry a pregnancy I didn't want to term. Whether it was the product of rape, was endangering my health, or doomed for fetal reasons, if I want it out of there... It's OUT OF THERE.

Suba gunawardana said...

Yes just as Vulgarism mentioned, nature designed parasites for the express purpose of living in other organisms. Certain parasites HAVE to live inside humans to complete their life cycle. So if you have to accept pregnancy because nature dictates it, why not parasites?

lady_black said...

Then you should probably never have an abortion.

Suba gunawardana said...

Once again:
It is IMPOSSIBLE to torture someone who cannot feel.

-Killing is acceptable for various reasons. Non-sentience per se is not one of them. Presence or absence of sentience matters only in determining the METHOD of death.

Suba gunawardana said...

While newborns don't have the same awareness as older humans, they do
have the capacity to feel pain & distress. i.e. They have some degree of sentience. So if you decide to kill a
newborn, you have to do it with much greater care than a zef.

fiona64 said...

One day, an anti-choicer will present an actual argument instead of an asinine straw man. On that occasion, I shall alert the media.

fiona64 said...

JoAnna's another one with no knowledge of human anatomy or biology, from what I can see ...

fiona64 said...

Is Ashlyn Blocker stlil connected to someone by an umbilicus?

fiona64 said...

Sing it to the tune of the "Star Wars" theme, friends: Straw men, nothing but straw men ...

fiona64 said...

You do realize that the majority of abortions take place during the embryonic phase?

No woman is lying there in active labor asking for an abortion ... except in the masturbatory fantasies of the antichoice. And fetal pain is physically impossible until so late in pregnancy that abortion on demand is a moot point anyway. At that point, we're talking about wanted pregnancies gone drastically wrong. Furthermore, when the woman is anesthetized for the procedure, so is the fetus; anesthesia is systemic.

fiona64 said...

heh. She clearly thinks response to noxious stimuli means something. One day, she'll take high school biology and discover that pithed frogs respond to noxious stimuli even though they can't feel a thing.

fiona64 said...

The anti-choice have very disturbing fantasy lives.

fiona64 said...

Oh, here we go with the "foreseeable consequence" bullshit again. Is this the latest anti-choice bingo buzzword?

A foreseeable consequence of an unwanted pregnancy is an abortion.

fiona64 said...

Cancer is natural, too. Should we leave tumors in situ?

Suba gunawardana said...

Thalamocortical projections necessary for conscious pain perception don't form until the very late stages of gestation.


Anyway, even when potential fetal pain is a concern, the answer is anesthesia, NOT banning abortion. Childbirth involves a lot of pain, so do all surgical procedures. Should all these things be banned due to pain?

fiona64 said...

If you engage in driving an automobile, given that no street is 100 percent safe, that is de facto consent to being in an accident. You are engaging in a natural part of driving with foreseeable consequences, and in doing so you are accepting the risk that those consequences may occur, even if you do not desire them and take measures to prevent them.

You, therefore, may not seek medical treatment for injuries sustained in an automobile accident. After all, you asked for it.

fiona64 said...

The majority of abortions take place during the embryonic phase. There is nothing to "rip to pieces"; the end product of such terminations is indistinguishable from menses.

I am beginning to think that some of you anti-choicers treat this stuff like pornography.

vulgarism said...

A beating heart cadaver can respond to noxious stimuli as long as the brainstem and spinal cord are functional. Its called an involuntary reflex and has nothing to do with pain *perception*

Noxious stimuli= poking your heel with a pin.

fiona64 said...

I'm looking for anywhere that I said "driving recklessly." I didn't.

You're moving the goalposts because you know your position is asinine.

myintx said...

Killing an unborn child because he or she is disabled is horrible too.

vulgarism said...

Joanna is up there with drew. She stated that humans are intrinsically valuable because nature deems it so, and then linked to the UN Declaration on Human Rights as proof.

vulgarism said...

Actually I am talking about how you would force an 8 year old rape victim to give birth even if it put her in a wheelchair for life.

myintx said...

Sure selfish slave owners used to tell people that were against slavery to never own a slave and hope they would go away.

vulgarism said...

And slavers were forced birth..just like you.

myintx said...

Change the excuse to justify the killing.

Jennifer Starr said...

Slaves weren't gestating inside another person's body. And as a matter of fact, female slaves who were forcibly impregnated often did end their own pregnancies. Do you think they were wrong in doing so?

Jennifer Starr said...

Pregnancy is not a disease, but it is a medical condition.

Jennifer Starr said...

No, it isn't.

dudebro said...

I am disappointed in Drew. He never once stated that pregnancy is like breathing:(

dudebro said...

You've inspired me. 'vulgarism' was rude:P


I like dudebro. I can totes bond with BB now!

Jennifer Starr said...

So if I get pregnant, I don't need to go to the doctor, right? Is that what you're telling me, Drew?

Jennifer Starr said...

Fetal surgery is carried out to fix an issue with the fetus. Not to torture. And women who binge drink or take drugs are doing it because they're psychologically and often physically addicted, not because they want to hurt the fetus.

Jennifer Starr said...

Despite your dismemberment fantasies, most abortions take place during the first trimester where that isn't even an issue.

Jennifer Starr said...

You don't know this? 90% of abortions happen during the first trimester. This is common knowledge.

wahwahwah said...

I'm talking about the choice to parent, the choice for adoption, or the choice to abort. I'm clearly referring to three choices. I'm obviously not supporting only one of those choices.

wahwahwah said...

Nah, had a vasectomy and wife had a tubal. Nary a baby invitation was ever proffered.

wahwahwah said...

Are women who sloughed off zygotes that failed to implant (which is most women, whether they have kids or not) 'mothers?' Even if they've never had a successful pregnancy? The childfree women I know probably have purged a few zygotes, but they certainly aren't anyone's 'mother.'

myintx said...

If her life was endangered doctors would do a c-section.


Even if an exception was made, how does this exception justify abortions just because the unborn child is unwanted?

myintx said...

Selfish slave owners treated their slaves like property that they could discard if they became inconvenient or unwanted.

dudebro said...

But if her life isn't endangered and it's just a wheelchair for the rest of her life, you find that totes acceptable?

dudebro said...

Oh, this is a good one. You thought Rita was ignorant? Or PLM?

hahaha well...

Get a load of this:


Arthur Machado

So a woman doesn't know she had unprotected sex during her ovulation period, and she can't feel the egg implantation?





Gotta love ignorance of pro-lifers on parade, eh?

Jennifer Starr said...

Sure, as long as she isn't affected. 'Pro-lifer's' love sacrifice, as long as it's someone else's.

Jennifer Starr said...

Feel the egg implantation? That has got to be the most bizarre and idiotic thing I have never heard. I'm going to go and bang my head on something now.

Jennifer Starr said...

Slave women often aborted their own pregnancies. Do you think they were selfish?

dudebro said...

Actually no. A slave was worth more alive than dead. And slaveowners couldn't kill slaves willy nilly.



Slaves were cash cows, literally, why is why slavers raped female slaves and forced them to give birth. Which is just what turns you on.

dudebro said...

Arthur Machado






dudebro








4 minutes ago

















Sorry, answered below, the woman knew she had sex during ovulation,
she knows she is at risk, she can take a pregnancy test. And quite
frankly the vast majority of woman feel egg implantation.

Jennifer Starr said...

No, they don't.. Ask him where he's getting this bullshit from because you do not feel the egg implanting.

dudebro said...

I asked him for a citation. He also claims that fetuses are sentient at 8 weeks because they can 'respond to stimuli' and that since women can feel the egg implant and ALWAYS know when they are ovulating, that abortion should be ez pz before a 7 week cutoff.


He dismissed all of my 8+ citations on fetal awareness and Plan B, because ONE study may have been biased, and then immediately linked a pro-life study that said Plan B was a baby killer:P

Jennifer Starr said...

This guy is a complete idiot--do you have a link?

dudebro said...

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/07/watch-abortion-access-melt-away-texas#comment-1502653836

dudebro said...

He's like myintx. He makes shit up. People like him can't be reasoned with.



I have a unicorn Jennifer. The unicorn is living in my pubic hairs.


PROVE ME WRONG


HAHA YOU CAN'T

lady_black said...

Being pregnant is not owning a slave, and neither is having an abortion. And you cannot enslave women to a zef, either. Not upon any basis, and ESPECIALLY not upon "duties" invented out of whole cloth whereby having sex while female and fertile is a de facto negligent act whereby the female is always held responsible under a doctrine of strict liability. Strict liability is a legal principle whereby a particular act is so dangerous on it's face, that the actor is presumed liable (although this is a rebuttable presumption). An example of some acts where strict liability attaches are 1) harboring a trained attack dog, or a wild animal known to be dangerous, such as a lion or tiger, and 2) the use of high explosives such as dynamite. Strict liability NEVER applies to sexual congress.

lady_black said...

Consent to sex is not consent to gestation or parenthood.

dudebro said...

1) harboring a trained attack dog or a wild animal known to be dangerous, such as a lion or tiger

So that's what you call your vajayjay!


I knew it! No wonder you are 'pro-abortion'!

myintx said...

Even if an exception was made, how does this exception justify abortions just because the unborn child is unwanted?

dudebro said...

But if her life isn't endangered and it's just a wheelchair for the rest of her life, you find that totes acceptable??

lady_black said...

No, the reason is NOT that a "baby" could boil alive in the amniotic fluid. That is PATENTLY ABSURD, mostly because hot tubs aren't all that hot. If they were, getting into one would kill anyone who got into one. I kept mine at about 102-104 degrees F. That is hardly boiling temperature. And I wouldn't hesitate to use one while pregnant either. The hypothesis (and nothing has been proven) is that the use of a hot tub can temporarily raise body temperature. In any case, using a hot tub, or taking a hot shower is NOT "torturing a baby." It's good for pain, and often done during labor to relax the mother. So it can't be all that damned torturous. You're an idiot, which is why I was hesitant to entertain your nonsense to begin with.

lady_black said...

Yes, a woman should be able to abort a pregnancy out of "revenge" or any other reason she wishes. In fact, she owes nobody any explanation, and need not justify her decision to you or anyone else. I seriously doubt whether women actually DO "abort out of revenge" as opposed to not wanting to birth the child of a particular man, and wanting no ties to him. If you wish to call that "revenge" knock yourself out. You can put a top hat on a penguin and call it Fred Astaire if you wish. That doesn't make it so.

myintx said...

How about women who kill for 15 minutes of fame, or because they want a girl instead of a boy - are they selfish?

Jennifer Starr said...

You first, sunshine. Were slave women selfish?

lady_black said...

No, Suba. There is no "contract to carry" and she has a right to change her mind and decide NOT to carry, and she hasn't "damaged" the zef's father in any way. Sometimes you have some pretty scary ideas. This is one of them.

lady_black said...

I think a woman is allowed to abort for any reason, and a cheating spouse is as good a reason as any. Perhaps she plans to divorce him and doesn't need the additional complication. Additionally (and this is only my opinion), breeding with an adulterous spouse doesn't seem like a particularly bright idea to me.

lady_black said...

I already told her that her scenarios are impossible. She keeps wanting to play out her sick fantasies.

wahwahwah said...

It has become fetishized.

myintx said...

If the slave was old, they weren't worth much. In North Carolina, before 1774 slave owners could kill slaves without repercussion. It took years for slaves, and then black people, to get the rights they deserve. Unborn children deserve rights too - a basic right to life. They should not be killed simply because they are inconvenient or unwanted.

lady_black said...

Tell Artie that NO, we do NOT feel implantation, and we are unaware of either ovulation or fertilization. There is no flashing light that goes off when any of those things occurs, and that's why we actually need a pregnancy test. I wouldn't have believed such ignorance was even possible.

dudebro said...

Oh cumon. Your tiger doesn't even growl? Pfft.

Anyways, yes, I told him, and he replied that I am wrong and that he knows this with certainty. Cuz reasons.

lady_black said...

No, the vast majority of woman have no idea when the egg implants, and I have never even HEARD of a case where a woman has known that. There are ZERO sensory nerves in the endometrium. That is a layer of tissue that builds up every month, and when there is no pregnancy, progesterone levels fall, and the tissue painlessly breaks down and is expelled as the menses. The menses itself can be painful because of contractions of the myometrium (which does have sensory nerves).

lady_black said...

No, myintx, they do not. I'm pretty sure YOU are a person, not with a "basic right to life", but with a right not to be deprived of life without due process. There actually IS no "right to life" and certainly no right to life inside the sovereign body of another person. YOU don't have that right. I certainly don't have that right. Zygotes, embryos and fetuses are not "super persons" with rights my born children don't have. That's known as a fallacy of special pleadings.

lady_black said...

A C-section is even MORE risky. You keep making these silly claims. "Do a C-section, no problem!" Only it IS a problem. It's riskier to the maternal organism and the neonate. So that isn't much of an answer, is it.

dudebro said...

He is probably thinking of this
http://implantationspotting.net/signs-of-implantation-what-to-look-out-for/

Which doesn't really support his assertion.

wahwahwah said...

Some pro-lifers insist that pregnancy isn't a medical condition. I've asked them if they or their wives sought any prenatal care at all during their pregnancies. Not one of them has ever answered that question. They don't even bother to fan-wank a squirmy answer, just completely ignore it. I rather think they all probably did, but don't want to explain to me 'why' they did or why they think others would NOT 'need' to.

fiona64 said...

"Feel the egg implantation?" WTF?

fiona64 said...

He's been told that repeatedly, but it messes up his pretty set of "talking points" if you inject any facts into them.

someone45 said...

I am starting to think that is how all of these anti-choice people are.

dudebro said...

Textbook example, really, of the ignorant male who thinks that he can make medical decisions for uterus owners

Drew Hymer said...

there you go lying again by misrepresenting my position.

Drew Hymer said...

where are the getting the bit about torture?

you want make it about immediate capability and i'm telling you it's about inherent capability. Someone under general anesthesia can't feel pain or reason, yet we recognize that he's a person.

dudebro said...

Then why did you say that fathers dont owe their fetuses bodily compensation because only women were designed for that job?

Drew Hymer said...

Being a member of our species is sufficient to have a right to life. Any other standard involves the powerful trampling on the weak because it's the powerful who get to decide who counts and who doesn't.

As a species, we have the inherent capacity for rational and moral thought.

i don't need to have a "solution" to see that killing people because they're unwanted is grotesque.

If people don't want to obligate themselves to caring for someone, they shouldn't engage in the behavior that leads to that obligation.

Drew Hymer said...

Pro-lifers are not opposed to you making your own choices regarding having a kid.

if you're pregnant, you already have a kid. Killing the kid is a grotesquely immoral way to avoid your obligation as a parent. Such violence should be illegal.

Drew Hymer said...

You like to pretend away the fact that the unborn is a valuable human being. Pretending away the human of victim is typical for those who promote human right atrocities.

Drew Hymer said...

Once you're pregnant, it's a bit late to decide that you don't want to care for the baby. You created that kid with needs and therefore, you're obligated to fulfill those needs.

Drew Hymer said...

You show amazing ignorance about the natural function of women's reproductive system.



It's really difficult lady_black to take you seriously. Your comments are just so stupid.

dudebro said...

Says the self proclaimed reproductive "expert" who claims that women were *designed* to be pregnant.

Who or what designed women for gestation, drew? You never did answer that. And why did this designer do such a crappy job, seeing as how pregnancy has and continues to maim, kill and injure millions of women.

Drew Hymer said...

Just so you know, i won't be responding to a lot of your comments because the stupidity is so glaring, it doesn't merit a response.

Drew Hymer said...

Killing the innocent with the intent to kill the innocent? i am against that absolutely. But perhaps someone might be able to come up with a scenario and i'd consider it.

Drew Hymer said...

In your dreams, lady_black.

Drew Hymer said...

The man does have the responsibility to care for the baby. But his inability to directly fulfill his obligation doesn't undermine the woman's responsibility to fulfill her obligation.

Your lame statement amounts to "unless men can get pregnant, women should be able to kill their babies". Dumb.

Drew Hymer said...

If i caused you to need the blood, yes.

Drew Hymer said...

we often use analogies that aren't real situations such as Vulcan's coming to earth.


why don't you answer her question? dodging it is so weak.

Drew Hymer said...

Yes, the physicians were male which is completely irrelevant except to a stupid sexist like you.

dudebro said...

By ejaculating you caused the innocent unborn human to be in a state of existential dependency.

So yes, you should be legally obligated to donate tissue to preserve fetal life.

Drew Hymer said...

All i see is stupid from you, fiona64.

Since killing Jews in Nazi Germany was legal, it wasn't murder? That what your argument means. See how dumb you are?

Abortion
should be considered murdered because unborn babies like newborns have
the inherent capacity for rational and moral thought.

Drew Hymer said...

If a person recognizes a biological fact, it means he thinks "women are nothing but incubators"? See how stupid you are?

Drew Hymer said...

You double down on your misogyny. Not a surprise.

If you think abortion is medical then you think pregnancy is a defect and you think women are defective.

Jennifer Starr said...

So if I get pregnant, you're telling me I don't need to go to the doctor.

dudebro said...

If pregnancy is not a medical condition, then please explain why the WHO wants to monitor the health of pregnant women and take steps to lessen or prevent complications
http://apps.who.int/rhl/pregnancy_childbirth/medical/en/

Tell us drew, is pregnancy as natural as breathing?

Drew Hymer said...

Not only are you stupid but your language shows that you're filthy and without class.

The first half of 14th Sec 1 discusses what it takes to be a citizen:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens

The second half of Sec 1, discusses how persons (not citizens) should be protected under law:

nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


Stop spouting your ignorance, you keep embarrassing yourself.

Drew Hymer said...

In Roe, baby-killer Blackmum actually couldn't make up his mind which amendment included the right to kill babies. He did think that privacy included the right to rip a baby arms off, crush her skull or poison her to death. Of course, none of that is supported by the Constitution.

dudebro said...

Appeal to emotion fallacy.

And this = the majority of abortions
http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ls6w7phG8f1qi68z9.jpg

Drew Hymer said...

Once again, you show yourself to be foul and without class.

None of what you said, rebutted my statement.

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

Saying you can murder your baby simply because "there might be a problem even though there's no indication whatsoever for it" is completely irrational.

Jennifer Starr said...

Still doesn't negate the fact that you don't get to decide how much risk a woman should assume with her pregnancy.

dudebro said...

Well if no sharks are spotted them you can safely be thrown into shark infested waters because there is currently no indication of risk.

We can also force you to skydive, since, up in the plane, I see no indication that your parachute might fail.

lady_black said...

We are NOT defined by our reproductive systems, Drew. Nor are we bound by "nature." I am more educated about the female reproductive system than you'll EVER be, on your best day. That's why I find your notions so IRRITATING. You want to run the show, and you have no idea what you're talking about.

lady_black said...

Right. It doesn't support his assertion. Not every woman has this.

Drew Hymer said...

Then not being pregnant is a medical condition.

Neither are medical conditions but an ordinary part of life. A medical condition indicates a problem or defect.

Jennifer Starr said...

So, I don't need to go to the doctor if I'm pregnant.

dudebro said...

Is pregnancy as natural as breathing, in your learned medical oponion?

Drew Hymer said...

You don't need to go to a doctor though you should to make sure everything is fine.

lady_black said...

My sister lost multiple pregnancies in her youth. I'm pretty sure she didn't have any KIDS before finally carrying to term at age 39.

Jennifer Starr said...

Why should I go to the doctor if it's not a medical condition?

dudebro said...

Do you randomly go to a doctor to see if everything is fine? If pregnancy is a state of normalcy, then no doctors visit is required to make sure that your health is fine.

lady_black said...

Valuable how and to whom? Maybe to the woman who carries it, depending upon whether or not she actually wants to have a baby. And stop with that "she already has a baby" nonsense. She doesn't.

Drew Hymer said...

Except that everybody support the first two choices you mention. So the real issue the third one, abortion. Pro-choice really means pro-abortion, which is short for pro-legalized-abortion.

lady_black said...

Oh WHO CARES what you "support." Stop pretending you have any stake in a stranger's pregnancy.

fiona64 said...

There is no inherent value in a diploid cell, Drew. You are pretending away the humanity of *women* with your assertions that amount to us being the biological equivalent of EasyBake Ovens. In your mind, our soul purpose is to pop out infants.

Thanks for proving once again the inherent misogyny of your position, and how easy it is to be an anti-choice male.

fiona64 said...

Hint: all children, everywhere, have been born.

Drew Hymer said...

Yes it is, if the sex results in the creation of a new human being. Because when you cause someone to be in need, you become responsible to care for that person's needs.

fiona64 said...

Way to miss the point, as usual.

I ask you this in all sincerity: were you homeschooled? Because you seem to have some serious inabilities to read for comprehension.

lady_black said...

There is no "someone" and even if there were, I don't have to submit to bodily donation. You want to give a zef rights that I don't have, you don't have and my born children don't have.

Jennifer Starr said...

I might also mention that I have moderate to severe reactive hypoglycemia, which is a medical condition that I manage with special diet and exercise. I have actually fainted a few times because of it. But since you've told me that pregnancy isn't at all medical, I'm sure I don't need to go to a doctor or change anything about my daily habits. Gosh,am I relieved.

Suba gunawardana said...

What matters is not popularity, but what causes least suffering for all involved.

lady_black said...

So you don't have a solution. We always knew that. You also don't have a say. Remember that.

fiona64 said...

Keep on keepin' on, Drew. You're just proving the inherent misogyny of your position with every single post.

Do enlighten us: exactly how many life-threatening pregnancies have you gestated, Drew?

dudebro said...

Misogynist.

fiona64 said...

Abortion is a medical procedure. Pregnancy is a medical condition.

Really, Drew, it is no one's fault but your own that you are too stupid to understand this.

Suba gunawardana said...

You have STILL not addressed my question.

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

fiona64 said...

Stop spouting your ignorance, you keep embarrassing yourself.

This is an excellent piece of advice that YOU need to take.

I'm sorry you are unable to understand civics, biology, or plain English. I really am beginning to believe that you were homeschooled by imbeciles.

Drew Hymer said...

That diploid cell is a human being with the inherent capacity for reason. That makes her a person with a right to life. You've yet to present a counter argument because you don't have one.

Recognizing a woman's responsibility to care for her offspring doesn't make her a nonperson. It's pretty misogynist to suggest that it does.

lady_black said...

Yes you have. You answered with a fallacy of special pleadings. Here it is: "No a parent doesn't have any obligation to bodily donation for a child's benefit. But that doesn't apply to a fetus." That's a fallacy of special pleadings. Guess what that makes your idea? ILLOGICAL.

dudebro said...

Explain how and why a zygote has the inherent capacity to reason.

fiona64 said...

I'm sorry, Drew. There weren't nearly enough histrionics in there. Could you thrown in a few extra exclamation points and some bad poetry allegedly written by a fetus? You really are not trying very hard.

lady_black said...

A single cell NEVER has "an inherent capacity for reason." It's just a single cell.

fiona64 said...

And exactly how many pregnancies have you gestated, again?

And what is your medical expertise, again?

Oh, none?

Yeah, that's about what I thought.

Suba gunawardana said...

You are contradicting yourself. If all humans have to live, that's at the expense of all non-humans, i.e. the "powerful trampling on the weak". Which you just claimed to oppose.

fiona64 said...

That diploid cell is a human being with the inherent capacity for reason.



BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Oh. My. God.

I just ... BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

fiona64 said...

Not only is that one of the most asinine assertion I think I've ever seen from an anti-choicer (which is indeed an accomplishment), I love how Drew tries to project his misogyny on others who point it out.

lady_black said...

That's exactly what he said.

fiona64 said...

You don't need to go to a doctor


Actual medical experts say otherwise when it comes to pregnancy.

lady_black said...

Nope.

Suba gunawardana said...

A threat to your bodily autonomy doesn't necessarily have to be a threat to your LIFE. For example, someone can rape you without killing you, and without serious health risk. That doesn't mean you should shut up & take it. It;'s a violation of your body, and you have a full legal right to kill the rapist to get them off your body. The same if someone tried to take your blood/organs without your consent. Doesn't have to be life-threatening.

fiona64 said...

Pregnancy is indeed a medical condition. You seem to think it's the default position for female anatomy, but you're wrong.

lady_black said...

Nope. There is no "kid."

Suba gunawardana said...

When another individual invades/lives in your body, they no longer have rights of their own. If you don't want them in your body you have a full legal right to kill them to get them off your body.

fiona64 said...

I'm sorry that you're too stupid to understand the difference between a zygote and a person, Drew. Really, you should seek remedial education in that area.

Nice Godwin, though. You lose.

lady_black said...

That's NOT going to happen. You can cross that right off your little list.

fiona64 said...

Since you are so big on forcing women to donate organs (their uteri), I must ask: are you on the bone marrow donation list? Live kidney donor list? Any of that?

I'm betting you aren't ... because anti-choicers always want *others* to make the sacrifice.

Drew Hymer said...

Pregnancy is not a medical condition but a normal part of life.

Having teeth isn't a medical condition but it's wise to get them checked occasionally.

Abortion is typically not a medical procedure because it's not done to solve a medical problem. But just to kill.

fiona64 said...

If people don't want to obligate themselves to caring for someone, they
shouldn't engage in the behavior that leads to that obligation.


I knew Drew's real position would come out eventually: "if you don't want to be pregnant, don't have sex."

Tell you what, Drew. You remain celibate. I'll save France. (h/t to Plum Dumpling)

fiona64 said...

Shorter Drew: "I'm hoist on my own petard. Again."

lady_black said...

Calling someone "stupid" doesn't make it so, Drew. Women are not going to stop having sex. Unwanted pregnancy will always be an issue.

fiona64 said...

Oh. My. God. You seriously just implied that it's not big deal if a woman dies due to complications of pregnancy. And you are still trying to pretend that you are NOT misogynistic? Good god.

fiona64 said...

Right! No need for those pesky annual check-ups, etc.

lady_black said...

In YOUR dreams, two people had the sex and now the problem rests solely on the shoulders of one of those people. The one that isn't YOU. You do not now get to dictate the solution. It's not your problem.

lady_black said...

No. My statement amounts to this. Unless men can get pregnant, they have no say in whether gestation proceeds.

Suba gunawardana said...

Let's take some real life examples.

-When Europeans took over America, they displaced (and massacred) the Native Americans, and put them in a permanent state of need. Are they obligated to take care of Native Americans?

-When US wages war with any nation, it results in many people in those countries wounded, displaced, widowed/orphaned. Is the US obligated to take care of all of them?

-When we build houses, roads, factories etc. billions of animals lose their habitats and are put in a state of need. Are we obligated to take care of all those animals?

According to your logic, the answer is YES to all of them. Now why don't I see any policies to fulfill these "obligations" ?

Jennifer Starr said...

Awfully blase about deaths from pregnancy, Drew. But since you're not the one taking the risk you can't be bothered to care, huh?

dudebro said...

Keep talking drew. You make pro lifers look stupid beyond all belief

someone45 said...

Anti-choicers are against me making my own choice when it comes to having kids. They are against me deciding to not have kids.


If you are pregnant you do not have a kid. You have a developing embryo/fetus.




Do you know how many nonviable embryos are self aborted before the woman even knew she was pregnant? Does you consider each of those embryos to be a kid?

lady_black said...

My mother had an abortion and it was for a medical problem. Killing had nothing to do with it.

lady_black said...

Sounds like Rita.

lady_black said...

If she were attached to my bloodstream, then yes.

lady_black said...

Yes. A newborn is sentient.

myintx said...

You say 'anti-choice' like it's a bad thing. Not all choices are good choices. If the 'choice' is to kill an unborn child simply because he or she is inconvenient or unwanted, I'm proud to be 'anti-choice'. I'm proud to be against the senseless killing of unborn children - i.e. anti-abortion. You are for the senseless killing of unborn children. Are you proud to be pro-abortion?

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 400 of 763   Newer› Newest»