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   401 – 600 of 763   Newer›   Newest»
someone45 said...

Myintx.. how I have missed your wonderful comments. Its been too long....

Anti-choice IS a bad thing. Why can you not just let people make their own choice about their own life? Why do you feel the need to try to control the life of people you don't know?

I am for a woman making her own choice when it comes to pregnancy or abortion. BTW a zef is not a person.

myintx said...

A woman can make a choice as to whether or not to become pregnant. She shouldn't be able to make a choice that ends another human beings life simply because that human being is inconvenient or unwanted.

fiona64 said...

Abortion is a medical procedure that terminates a pregnancy, regardless of any fairy tales you like to tell yourself in order to justify your desire to control the sex lives of women.

And don't you frigging *dare* tell me it's not about controlling the sex lives of women, Drew ... because you've already informed us that women who do not want to be pregnant should be celibate.

someone45 said...

See but you don't get to decide for other women what is or is not another human life and you do not get to decide for other women if they carry the "human life" to term. It is her body and it is her choice.

dudebro said...

Being a member of our species is sufficient to have a right to life.



Then that means no abortions of hydatidiform moles - they are a member of our species. 100% fully human too.

dudebro said...

Of course not. Drew would *never* inconvenience himself.

dudebro said...

The 'condition' of having teeth can't kill and maim you. Simply having teeth is not a dangerous condition that requires a visit to the doctor. Having teeth doesn't involve having to drink extra water, eat extra food, or avoid lifting heavy objects.

If pregnancy were the *default* condition of women as you suggest, it would not hinder them in any way. Just like having teeth doesn't hinder you in any way.

But just to kill.

Just to kill eh? No other reason? So, you are suggesting that women have abortions because they are all Jeffrey Dahmer wannabes? is that it? The millions of women who have aborted = sadistic killers, is that it Drew?

dudebro said...

Oh gee, will you look at this:

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/hamilton-woman-barred-boarding-cruise-214639636.html

Hamilton woman barred from boarding cruise ship because she was pregnant

Ligori said the clerk told her that she would not be able to board the boat — the Oasis of the Seas, one of the largest cruise ships in the world — if she didn’t have a note from a doctor stating that she was fit to travel.

The clerk contacted a supervisor, who told Ligori to obtain physician’s note. It was a Saturday, and she wasn’t able to get in contact with her family doctor, who didn’t know at the time that Ligori was pregnant.

Other major cruise lines, including Florida-based Carnival and California-based Princess, have similar policies posted to their websites. Both travel providers say they don’t carry women who are more than 24 weeks’ pregnant, and both require doctors’ notes from pregnant passengers who are less than 5.5 months’ pregnant.

In a statement on its website, Carnival explains the rationale for its pregnancy policy: “While at sea or in port, the availability of medical care may be limited or delayed. Prenatal and early infant care in particular may require specialized diagnostic facilities and/or treatment that are not obtainable during the cruise on board the ship or ashore in ports of call.”


--


OH man. Can you believe that Drew? Now switch 'pregnant' with 'teeth'


They denied her passage because 'having teeth was potentially dangerous, and without the diagnostic facilities/and or treatment that are not obtainable during the cruise on board the ship or ashore in ports of call"


I mean, I suppose that since pregnancy is no different from being born with teeth, that cruise ships should be worried about the health of passengers who have teeth, yes, in case something goes wrong?



You dumbfuck.

dudebro said...

Drew is amazing. He knows more about reproductive health than you, a nurse with an extensive education in the subject, and this is the really impressive part - he is an expert in tort law . He stated that Unicorn Farm, whose practice IS tort law, didn't know what she was talking about, and that Drew Hymer had a more extensive knowledge of the law. The thing is though, he couldn't explain to me HOW the tort lawyer was wrong about tort law, just that she was.


Drew is some sort of pro-life Renaissance man, isn't he?

fiona64 said...

And don't forget his vast medical experience!

fiona64 said...

Ditto. In mid-1964 (I was about six months old), my mother contracted rubella. She was about 8 weeks pregnant. Her obstetrician explained, quite correctly, that the fetus had a 99 percent chance of being blind, deaf, and developmentally disabled. He told her that he was letting her know those things so that she could think about not only what was fair to the fetus, but what would be fair to the infant she already had. He also told her that he would find someone to help her if she and my dad decided not to carry the pregnancy to term. And he did just that.

My parents were not willing to risk the quality of life of the entire family on the outside possibility that the fetus would be fine. It was not about "killing."

fiona64 said...

He's just pissed that he can't control women. But he's not a misogynist, LOL.

fiona64 said...

You haven't used any analogies, Drew. Analogies need to be between things that are ::wait for it:: analogous. You have put up nothing but straw men.

Tullia_Ciceronis said...

Fascinating....should a conjoined twin be able to force a sibling into separation surgery against his/her will?

Tullia_Ciceronis said...

Fascinating....do you think that a conjoined twin should be able to force his/her sibling to undergo a lethal separation surgery against his/her will? Keep in mind that not all conjoined twins shared organs....craniopagous conjoined twins simply have skulls which are fused together.

Tullia_Ciceronis said...

Dudebro, forcing organ donation is more akin to forcing a woman to become pregnant.Requiring a woman who is already pregnant to carry to term is more akin to saying that if your organ has been stolen from you and attached to someone else's body, you don't have the right to demand it back, because that would violate the organ recipiant's human rights.

Tullia_Ciceronis said...

Lady Black, forced organ donation is more akin to forcibly impregnating someone. Requiring that someone who is already pregnant carry to term is more akin to saying that if your organ has been stolen from you and attached to someone else's body, you don't have the right to demand that organ back, because doing so would violate the organ recipiant's human rights.

Tullia_Ciceronis said...

Is it violence to kill a temporarily comatose patient? After all, that patient is non-sentient.

Tullia_Ciceronis said...

Fascinating....how do you feel about mandatory child support? Women who consent to sex consent to nothing but sex, while men who consent to sex consent to 18+ years of mandatory child support. If mandatory gestation turns women into incubators, I'm guessing that mandatory child support turns men into walking, talking bank accounts.

Tullia_Ciceronis said...

You need to check your born privilege, pro-choicer.

dudebro said...

So you believe that fetal life is not valuable enough to force a biological father to donate a little bit of bone marrow or blood?

dudebro said...

Coma patients are sentient. They are temporarily not using the ability.

Prenate have never been sentient and may never be. You have been schooled in this already.

Tullia_Ciceronis said...

Did you tell your child that you might have aborted him/her if they were too inconvienent to you? How did they take it? My mother has preeclampsia throughout the second half of her pregnancy with me, and under no circumstances would have gotten an abortion. If she was like you, I would have disowned her long ago. Parents who aren't willing to risk health and comfort for their children aren't worthy of being parents and don't deserve the love and affection of their children.

Jennifer Starr said...

Born privilege?

Jennifer Starr said...

If she was like you, I would have disowned her long ago. Parents who aren't willing to risk health and comfort for their children aren't worthy of being parents and don't deserve the love and affection of their children.


What a selfish and self-centered person you are.

dudebro said...

I'd rather be a choice than be forced on my mother. However, I am not a narcissist like some people.

Do you believe that Fiona is not worthy of being a parent because she is pro choice? That she is selfish and just wants to kill. Be honest now.

dudebro said...

Tullia is a very special snowflake.

Tullia_Ciceronis said...

Forced organ donation is more akin to forcing someone to become pregnant rather than requiring someone carry to term who is already pregnant. The latter is more akin to saying that if an organ is stolen from you and attached to someone else's body, you don't have the right to demand it back, because doing so would violate the organ recipiant's human rights.

Tullia_Ciceronis said...

Saying that is like saying that you have no right to support abortion unless you have survived being aborted as a fetus.

Jennifer Starr said...

She's a very special something, all right. That was possibly one of the most obnoxious statements I've ever read.

Tullia_Ciceronis said...

Forced organ donation is more akin to forcing someone to become pregnant than requiring that a woman carry to term. The latter is more akin to saying that if one of your organs has been stolen from you and attached to someone else's body, you don't have the right to demand that organ back, because doing so would violate the organ recipiant's human rights.

Tullia_Ciceronis said...

Neither would you...another bro-choicer who support abortion just because he wants to get out of paying child support, but cloaks his selfish desires with fake concern for women's rights.

dudebro said...

Yes. And if she can't persuade you to join the pro life side with her superior reasoning, she will accuse you of being defensive because you are guilt ridden over the many abortions that you have had.

Tullia_Ciceronis said...

Really? Apparently the US government has a different opinion, when it comes to men. Consent to sex equals consent to 18+ years of mandatory child support for them.

Jennifer Starr said...

And I take it that you would've disowned your father as well if he didn't shell out the bucks fast enough.

Tullia_Ciceronis said...

Dude, you don't get it. Forced organ donation is more akin to forced impregnation.Requiring a pregnant woman to carry to term is more akin to saying that if an organ is stolen from you, and attached to someone else's body, then you don't have a right to demand that organ back, because doing so would violate the organ recipiant's human rights.

dudebro said...

Yes. You got me. I just want to get into Jennifer Starr's pants. Perhaps if lucky I can have a fivesome with Jennifer, Fiona, Suba and Lady Black.

A dudebro can dream, can't he?

Oh, and you should probably inform the women in my fivesome that they are only pro choice out of guilt for the many abortions that they have had .

Jennifer Starr said...

So far all that she's doing is making me want to apologize to my family for ever sounding like that when I was a 'pro-life' youth.

Suba gunawardana said...

As I stated elsewhere on this thread:

Non-sentience per se is not a reason to kill, neither is sentience alone a reason NOT to kill. Whether to kill or not is 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 or brain-dead people who are non-sentient, the method of death is irrelevant. Comatose people MAY feel some things, and are not completely non-sentient.

lady_black said...

Child support is neither gestation, nor parenthood.

lady_black said...

Um, what are you babbling about?

Tullia_Ciceronis said...

Damage to the coma patient's brain means that they do not have this ability. A coma patient cannot just become conscious again..they need to recover. A coma patient is not sentient and does not have the current ability to be sentient, just like the ZEF.

Tullia_Ciceronis said...

Deep coma patients don't feel anything, patients in a lighter coma may feel something.

Tullia_Ciceronis said...

If my father refused to feed and cloth me as a child, and abandoned me, he would not be my father. I dare say if your father treated you that way, then you would not regard him as your father either.

Tullia_Ciceronis said...

Any parent who doesn't love their children unconditionally doesn't deserve to be a parent.

Suba gunawardana said...

The point is not whether coma patients feel or not, but whether "violence" matters for those who cannot feel.

For any individuals who can feel, even a little (including coma patients) killing should be done with great care, whereas for those who cannot feel, such care is not necessary.

lady_black said...

When women have abortions, there is no child support. I would hope that any woman would take into consideration whether her partner is willing to parent or not when deciding whether or not to bring a pregnancy to term. If she doesn't, she's setting up a very hard row to hoe. However, that has nothing to do with the right of the child to be supported by both parents, once born. The child did not ASK to be born. There is no child support for zygotes, embryos or fetuses. If there were such a thing, you might have a point. Supporting a child is what parents are legally bound to do for their children. That responsibility begins at birth, and can be transferred to another party by relinquishing for adoption, or by leaving a baby at a safe haven. Courts cannot force people to parent. HOWEVER, they can force people to support their offspring, and that doesn't apply only to men, either. The man can always take custody himself and raise the child himself. The mother will have to pay him support.

Tullia_Ciceronis said...

New in pro-choice logic---wanting the right to live now consider naracissitic. Come on, tell me that I should have been aborted. I know that you want to.

Tullia_Ciceronis said...

Should a conjoined twin have the right to forced lethal seperation surgery on their sibling? Keep in mind, not all conjoined twins share organs...some just have bones that are fused together.

lady_black said...

I didn't say "organ donation." I said BODILY DONATION. A gestating woman is donating her entire body. That must be done willingly, and NOBODY has a "right" to the use of another's body.

dudebro said...

Uhm, if a coma patient has lost the capacity for sentience then how can they possibly ever regain it again?

No. When a coma patient is non sentient this means that they are now brain dead and won't be recovering. If the brain damage is so severe that they have LOST the capacity for sentience this means that they are merely not temporarily failing to use the ability. It means that the ability is gone.

In the majority of comas the sentient areas of the brain are intact, and the patient is temporarily not accessing this ability. If a soccer player stubs his toe that doesn't mean that he ceases to be a soccer player- it just means that he is temporarily prevented from kicking the ball. Now if his entire foot or leg were removed (ie brain dead/fetal brain) it would be safe to say that he is no longer a soccer player.

Tullia_Ciceronis said...

New in pro-choice logic---wanting the right to life is now considering naracisstic, along with wanting the support of your parents when you were a minor child and could not care for yourself.
Go ahead, tell me that my mother should have aborted me--I know that you want to

dudebro said...

Get down off that cross before you get a splinter.

Jennifer Starr said...

Go ahead, tell me that my mother should have aborted me--I know that you want to

I want to do no such thing. Do you want me to?

Tullia_Ciceronis said...

Should a conjoined twin have the right to force his/her sibling into a lethal separation surgery? Keep in mind that not all conjoined twins share organs, some just have bones that are fused together, and some are unequally dependant on each other for survival, like Anastasia Dogaru, who depends on her sister Tatiana's kidneys for survival.

dudebro said...

Conjoined twins are one entity. Also, both are sapient persons.

A more apt analogy to pregnancy would be to that of a parasitic twin that is draining the resources of the sapient twin.

lady_black said...

Decisions are made all the time to sacrifice one conjoined twin to save the other. Regardless, conjoined twins are born that way. An organ might be shared, but one twin isn't parasitic upon the other. Parasitic twins do exist, but they are often removed, because they are not people. A parasitic twin is a partially developed twin that didn't completely separate and develop properly.

lady_black said...

Yes.

Jennifer Starr said...

So if your mom confessed to you today that she had even considered ending her pregnancy, you would disown her?

Tullia_Ciceronis said...

So what about Anastasia Dogaru? Should her sister Tatiana have the right to force her to undergo a lethal separation surgery because Anastasia is living off Tatiana's body? They are conjoined twins and Anastasia is dependant on Tatiana's kidneys for survival.

dudebro said...

You think that forcing women to give birth will make them good parents?

Lulz

Tullia_Ciceronis said...

In some states, such as Michigan, the responsibility begins before birth...men forced to pay for prenatal care.

Jennifer Starr said...

So you think those men should be able to force a woman to have an abortion if they don't want to pay for prenatal care?

Suba gunawardana said...

Wanting the "right to life" for yourself, if you want to live, is totally different from FORCING other people into lives of misery without their consent.

Jennifer Starr said...

In the real world, things aren't that black and white.

Tullia_Ciceronis said...

Sentience is the ability to feel, perceive, or to experience subjectivity. Eighteenth-century philosophers used the concept to distinguish the ability to think (reason) from the ability to feel (sentience). In modern Western philosophy, sentience is the ability to experience sensations (known in philosophy of mind as "qualia"). In Eastern philosophy, sentience is a metaphysical quality of all things that requires respect and care. The concept is central to the philosophy of animal rights, because sentience is necessary for the ability to suffer, and thus is held to confer certain rights.

In medicine, a coma (from the Greek κῶμα koma, meaning "deep sleep") is a state of unconsciousness lasting more than six hours, in which a person: cannot be awakened; fails to respond normally to painful stimuli, light, or sound; lacks a normal sleep-wake cycle; and, does not initiate voluntary actions.[1] A person in a state of coma is described as being comatose.

A comatose person exhibits a complete absence of wakefulness and is unable to consciously feel, speak, hear, or move.[2]

Suba gunawardana said...

Parents certainly should risk health and comfort for children to whom they have made a VOLUNTARY commitment.



No person should be FORCED to risk anything (let alone life & health) for a zef they never wanted to begin with.

Tullia_Ciceronis said...

Sure sounds like a coma patient is nonsentient to me.
BtW dudebro, your new disguise is not very convincing. I still recognize Purrtriarchy. Deny it all you want, your arguments are the same and so are the things that you say to rile me up. Did you get banned and have to come up with a new profile? Or do you just like have multiple accounts to say the same thing?

fiona64 said...

Nope, sorry. I do not have to donate my uterus to an embryo.

Your position affords a born, sapient, sentient woman with fewer rights to bodily autonomy than a *corpse.* One cannot just go around harvesting organs from dead people, regardless of who is in need.

fiona64 said...

I'm sorry that you aren't bright enough to understand the point.

Drew is opining on who should be forced to assume medical risks *that will never affect him.*

lady_black said...

Does child support apply only to men? Oh well, the things you learn from those who have no idea what they're talking about are astounding.

Tullia_Ciceronis said...

Nope, just pointing out that men are assumed to have certain responsibilities towards children that they contract with sex, while women aren't.

Tullia_Ciceronis said...

Must be a slow day at RH Reality Check...or maybe you all just are spoiling for a fight...but what exactly do you think that you are accomplishing here? SPL blog has a much lower readership compared to other blogs...I'm guessing because most of you all are banned from Live Action News that you come over here.

fiona64 said...

So much ignorance in so little space. You seem to have missed the point that this was a wanted pregnancy ... and are clearly ignorant about what constitutes hyperemesis gravidarum, which is far from being a mere "inconvenience."

My son has been told of how bad my pregnancy was. He understands completely why I will not go through it again should my tubal ligation fail (they can, and do). I will not risk my life to gestate what would most assuredly be an unwanted second pregnancy.

Parents who aren't willing to risk health and comfort for their children
aren't worthy of being parents and don't deserve the love and affection
of their children.


It wasn't just risk to health and comfort, sweetie; it was risk to *my life.* And you don't get to make those calls for anyone but yourself. Thanks for proving once again how the anti-choice expect *others* to sacrifice, but never themselves.

I'll tell you what; I'm glad that my son is one helluva lot smarter than you.

Suba gunawardana said...

Then why do you make it your business to FORCE parenthood on women who obviously don't want children? Isn't that the whole purpose of the forced-birth movement?

Tullia_Ciceronis said...

The coma patient's brain is damaged, so that sentience is not possible, either permenantly or temporarily.

dudebro said...

This is a discussion board.

Do you oppose discussion and debate?

Do you prefer a circle jerk instead?

lady_black said...

I sure do understand that. My son calls my husband "Dad" and his biological father by his first name, when he bothers to call him at all. He did pay support, but I had to fight tooth and nail for it, and he never did shit else. Not a card, not a phone call, nothing. And he wanted this child.

Jennifer Starr said...

Oh, I don't know--it beats parcheesi.

Suba gunawardana said...

Being banned from LAN is an honor, it shows the LAN-clan's FEAR of logic.

Also have you noticed, people banned from LAN are not banned from ANY other site? :)

Tullia_Ciceronis said...

One entity? I think that most conjoined twins would disagree with you. What about Anastasia Dogaru? She has no working kidneys, so she relies on her sister Tatiana's instead. Should Tatiana have the right to force her to undergo that lethal separation surgery because Anastasia is draining her resources? Would it be okay for Tatiana to assume consent for the surgery if Anastasia became temporarily comatose?

Suba gunawardana said...

Again, the point is not whether coma patients are sentient, but whether "violence" matters to a non-sentient individual being killed. It doesn't. Pain matters only to those who can feel it.

Tullia_Ciceronis said...

So if your kidney was stolen from you and given to someone else, you would demand that kidney back? Because that would be considered a violation of the organ recipiant's civil rights, forcing them to undergo harmful surgery.

Tullia_Ciceronis said...

Really, and you are supporting killing a class of human organisms without ever experiencing what it was like to be killed while in that state of development. Same point.

fiona64 said...

I know, right? WTF does that even mean?

fiona64 said...

There is something seriously wrong with that girl.

Tullia_Ciceronis said...

Also, you must be really bored, slow day over at RH Reality Check or did troll account get banned on FB? Funny that you should pick this blog because it has low readership compared to others, my guess is that you are banned from the more popular ones.

Jennifer Starr said...

I suspect a variation of the old 'what if your mom had aborted you' schtick. Hard to tell, though.

fiona64 said...

Um, sweetie? I've been using this handle on Disqus for years.

My guess is that you need psychiatric help for your delusions. You might want to look into that.

fiona64 said...

Could someone parse this for me? My anti-choice-nutter-to-English decoder ring seems to be broken.

fiona64 said...

Oh ... more silly existential angst. Got it.

dudebro said...

If you care to torture yourself by reading past blog posts here, you will notice that SPL likes to fashion itself as the *progressive* face of the pro-life movement. This involves comparing abortion to FGM (both are misogynist) and referencing 'check your privilege' in the above case.

fiona64 said...

I am pretty sure you could come up with a more asinine straw man with just a little effort. C'mon, Tullia. Don't be such a slacker.

Tullia_Ciceronis said...

What about Anastasia Dogaru? Her kidneys failed, so she is dependant upon her sister Tatiana's kidneys for survival. Should Tatiana have the right to force Anastasia to undergo a lethal separation surgery?

fiona64 said...

And you think I don't love my son unconditionally *why,* exactly? Because I told him that my pregnancy sucked instead of telling lies about it being all sunshine and fairy farts?

Suba gunawardana said...

The recipient already has an established life independent from you, and doesn't live inside your body.

The recipient did not violate your body, the organ thieves did.

The zef on the other had, IS violating your body, and you have a right to get rid if them to protect your body.

Tullia_Ciceronis said...

She already has...I forgave her. The difference is that she is sorry that she even considered it. She doesn't go around saying that she should have had the right to end my life in utero. If she did believe that, then yes I would, because then should wouldn't be loving me unconditionally.

dudebro said...

I have already schooled you on this. Multiple times. What a shock you can't actually read for comprehension.

The main point is that you and your ilk frequently use “capacity” as a way of avoiding the word “potential”, but that doesn’t work, since capacity is actually about something that exists right now. Prenates do NOT have the “inherent capacity for personhood” that you and your ilk talk about, because if the prenate did, they could exhibit the characteristics of persons right now. Thus they ONLY have “potential”.



The abilities associated with personhood (sentience and sapience) continue to exist during coma; they simply are not being accessed. But the prenate simply does not have those abilities, so the word “access” simply doesn’t apply, for the unborn. They STILL only have “potential” to both acquire the abilities associated with personhood, and to access those abilities.

fiona64 said...

That's ... bizarre.

Tullia_Ciceronis said...

No because you believe that your children are disposable to you before they are born, and that their existence should depend on whether or not you wanted them when you were pregnant or not.

dudebro said...

Conjoined twins were born that way, yes, whereas the uterus owner was there before the zygote attached itself to her body.

fiona64 said...

Tullia seems to be a very angry little girl, doesn't she?

Tullia_Ciceronis said...

Lovely..ableism. Got anything better?

fiona64 said...

I'll PM you my phone number. ;-)

Tullia, like many other anti-choicers, seems to have a vivid fantasy life.

Tullia_Ciceronis said...

So it is not wrong to kill temporary coma patients?

Tullia_Ciceronis said...

In medicine, a coma (from the Greek κῶμα koma, meaning "deep sleep") is a state of unconsciousness lasting more than six hours, in which a person: cannot be awakened; fails to respond normally to painful stimuli, light, or sound; lacks a normal sleep-wake cycle; and, does not initiate voluntary actions.[1] A person in a state of coma is described as being comatose.

A comatose person exhibits a complete absence of wakefulness and is unable to consciously feel, speak, hear, or move.[2]

Suba gunawardana said...

If abortion were illegal, how would you (or anyone) ever know if their mothers really wanted them, or were FORCED to have them?



Today we all have the luxury of knowing we were WANTED. Aren't you trying to take that away from future generations?

Tullia_Ciceronis said...

Sentience is the ability to feel, perceive, or to experience subjectivity. Eighteenth-century philosophers used the concept to distinguish the ability to think (reason) from the ability to feel (sentience). In modern Western philosophy, sentience is the ability to experience sensations (known in philosophy of mind as "qualia"). In Eastern philosophy, sentience is a metaphysical quality of all things that requires respect and care. The concept is central to the philosophy of animal rights, because sentience is necessary for the ability to suffer, and thus is held to confer certain rights.

fiona64 said...

Citation needed.

Tullia_Ciceronis said...

So from the defination of sentience and the defination of coma, it sure seems like coma patients are non-sentient to me.

Tullia_Ciceronis said...

You are Purrtriarchy, most definately.

dudebro said...

Yeah, and mindless embryos with a barely functioning cortex and thalamus, missing trillions of neurons + the NECESSARY connections that give rise to sentience are not in fact, sentient.



Duh.

dudebro said...

And you're motherfucking Sherlock Holmes.

Tullia_Ciceronis said...

You were banned because you ran two different accounts, pretending to be two different people, and when proven by IP address, you refused to confess. That's enough to get you banned from most any site.

Jennifer Starr said...

When I think of my mom who spent years taking care of me, cooking for me, sitting up nights with me when I was sick and everything else--it speaks for itself. I wouldn't think that there would be anything to forgive.

dudebro said...

I have told my mom numerous times that I would rather she aborted me than be forced to give birth against her will.



My mom is not a slave. And I am not more important than her right not to suffer.


Why do you think that you are so special that others must suffer for you?


PS my mom also had eclampsia

fiona64 said...

WTF does this even *mean*?

I was once an anti-choice dimwit, too ... which means I know every page of the playbook. But then, I got out of high school and into RealityLand.

However, I digress. You don't have any point whatsoever, beyond your apparent existential angst over other people's medical decisions.

fiona64 said...

Your generosity toward your mother is duly noted. /snark

The fact that I would terminate another pregnancy so fast that your stupid head would spin right off does not somehow negate my relationship with my son.

Tullia_Ciceronis said...

Maybe because I hold the radical idea that children deserve certain things from their parents, whether it be food, shelter, or medical care, regardless of what the parents think. Funny thing is, US government hold that idea as well.

Suba gunawardana said...

Which was a LIE. I openly challenged Calvin the Coward to show proof of that. He never answered, and to this day remains a coward.

BTW if that outlandish claim were true how come neither I nor Rainbow has ever been banned from any other site?

fiona64 said...

I know, right? Somebody needs the wood.

fiona64 said...

Oh, so she's one of *those* looney-tunes. Vivid imagination that lot has ...

fiona64 said...

You and me both, sister ...

fiona64 said...

Funny thing ... all children are *born.*

Suba gunawardana said...

Yes CHILDREN certainly do. NOT unwanted zefs.

dudebro said...

If the coma patient lost the capacity for sentience ze would never wake up. Like Terri Schiavo. The fact that coma patients can wake up shows that they have not lost the capacity for sentience.

Whereas an embryo doesn't have the capacity for sentience, because the brain, with the trillions of neurons, and special wiring between the thalamus and cortex, does not yet exist in a functional state. Heck, it doesn't fucking exist.

I still recognize Purrtriarchy. Deny it all you want, your arguments
are the same and so are the things that you say to rile me up


I hate to inform you of this, but the world doesn't revolve around you. Here it is, your narcissism is showing once again. I think that you're a joke. I could care less what you think or whether or not you get 'riled up'. LULZ.

And I have been on SPL for close to a year and I change my nym regularly because it's entertaining. FYI, I post on dozens of forums with my ever changing nym, so, just as an update, the world does not 1) revolve around you 2) revolve around SPL

Tullia_Ciceronis said...

What if your son finds out and resents you? I know people who have severed relationships with parents over things like that. Would you still love him if he grew up to be "anti-choice" like me? What if he grew up to protest outside of abortion clinics or to be a politician, pushing anti-abortion policies? Would you regret giving birth to him?

dudebro said...

Tullia is an intellectual, treat her with some respect, fiona.

Jennifer Starr said...

No kidding--you think?

Tullia_Ciceronis said...

Dudebro, your existence causes others to suffer. Maybe we should make it legal to kill inconvienent people. Also, why the new profile? Did you get banned? IP addresses are tracible, you know.

Jennifer Starr said...

An intellectual what?

Suba gunawardana said...

If you protect, love and care for your CHILDREN while they are alive, you have NO REASON to live in fear that they would "find out" you considered aborting them while in utero. Parenting begins at birth.

Jennifer Starr said...

Why do I know so many who do resent parents who aborted siblings?


You know a lot of self-centered youngsters just like yourself.

Tullia_Ciceronis said...

Nope, I did not. She wanted the baby and refused her parent's suggestion that she get an abortion.

Suba gunawardana said...

OK let me correct myself. Parenting begins the moment you make a VOLUNTARY commitment to carry a pregnancy instead of abort.

Resenting parents who aborted siblings? Those are the worst kind of selfish brats.

dudebro said...

I can't find the words.

dudebro said...

Yes. I expect them to read LJF and try to apply some lesson about how abortion is just as misogynist as purity culture.

Tullia_Ciceronis said...

Yep he is, future is very uncertain. has developmental delays due to abuse suffered at hands of a father who was angry that he was tricked and forced into becoming a parent. Mother doesn't have custody, still has some rights.

wahwahwah said...

The real issue is that I support three choices, not one. Hence, Pro. Choice.

Suba gunawardana said...

And THAT's the kind of suffering you actively promote.

Tullia_Ciceronis said...

I personally feel that those who had abortions tend to be self-centered, but hey, you can't win over everyone. Calling people selfish brats for wanting the right to live and to their parent's care really doesn't get you anywhere.

Rainbow Walker said...

If a child severs a relationship over that there is an underlying cause. It has nothing to do with the fact
abortion was considered but rather the child is internalizing or evading due to fixed beliefs. Religion often does this. You are a perfect example.

As you said “If she did believe that, then yes I would, because then should wouldn't be loving me unconditionally.” You have a fixed belief that if someone wishes to abort then they cannot love a child unconditionally. Regardless of evidence to the contrary you hold tight to that delusion. Moreover you are using your fixed beliefs
to manipulate those around you. “She already has...I forgave her.”

The fact is a mother can love her child and kill them. I saw women break their children’s necks in Somalia and throw the bodies into mass graves. It wasn’t without feeling. They did it because their child was suffering. That is dedication. I doubt if you could or
would do that. You are far too self-involved.

Tullia_Ciceronis said...

Should we then kill him now, in order to prevent further suffering?

Jennifer Starr said...

Glad he's in care. It's an incredibly bad idea to have children to save a marriage or to get someone to marry you.

Suba gunawardana said...

"Wanting" children for the wrong reasons is just as bad as forcing unwanted children to life against the mothers' will. It's always the children who end up suffering.

dudebro said...

Do you consider rape victims who consider abortion, or who abort, to be selfish brats?

Jennifer Starr said...

You didn't say anything about these 'resentful children' not getting their parents' care.

Suba gunawardana said...

As I always say, by choosing to give birth when abortion was available, the mother made a voluntary commitment to protect and care for the future child, to always put the child first. This commitment should be tantamount to a legal contract. If she breaches the contract, the child should be taken away and she should be held financially liable.

dudebro said...

A friend was telling me about a woman she knows who has had two children just to abandon them. This woman LOVES being pregnant. LOVES the attention. But as soon as the kids are born she ditches them. She would rather pick guys up in bars and play on her 10k. ATV. Her 2 year old son received next to no attention, and spent day after day alone in his crib. He now has severe developmental problems because he didnt' receive any nurturing.

But she's totes pro-life, so I am sure that Tullia would love her.

Tullia_Ciceronis said...

She is not the brightest bulb on the tree but the guy is the worst. She got pregnant on purpose after only knowing him for two months. Made me furious. He was angry because he was tricked into become a parent. We didn't find out that she did it on purpose until after the baby was born and she confessed.

Rainbow Walker said...

“I personally feel that those who had abortions tend to be self-centered, but hey, you can't win over everyone.”

There’s those fixed beliefs.
Getting an abortion for the health of the mother, rape, incest, or being unable
to care for that child is self-centered?

I think it’s selfish to keeping
having kids, brutalizing them and throwing them away instead of aborting or euthanizing them. Then they wouldn’t be drinking drain cleaner to exit this crappy world.

Suba gunawardana said...

True. That's just the kind of suffering they love to advocate in the name of "life".

fiona64 said...

Oh, well. There it is then. ::snort:;

There's more existential angst going on there than at a gathering of beat poets.

Tullia_Ciceronis said...

Some women give birth without knowing that they were pregnant. I don;t think that they made any contract.

Jennifer Starr said...

Looking at her handle, the word 'pretentious' comes immediately to mind.

Suba gunawardana said...

Those are rare and exceptional situations. The vast majority either choose to give birth, or are FORCED to give birth against their will.

dudebro said...

Lol

She is disabled I believe. She asked me once if that made me want to kill her, or something similar.

*facepalm*

wahwahwah said...

Of course it was a lie. Calvin can't *win* unless he cheats, which he does with impunity.

fiona64 said...

What if your son finds out and resents you?

Finds out and resents me for *what*? Planning to terminate an unwanted pregnancy? Considering that he knows I have a tubal ligation, he is fully aware that further pregnancies are unwelcome. He's 28 years old, and has known for a long while that no siblings are going to be forthcoming.

What if he grew up to protest outside of abortion clinics or to be a politician, pushing anti-abortion policies?

Um, he *is* grown up. I've already told you before that he's 28 years old.

Would you regret giving birth to him?

Sorry to disappoint you, but he's an intelligent, thoughtful, kind man of whom I am very proud. That doesn't mean I have to risk my life with another pregnancy.

Tullia_Ciceronis said...

Ah, yes, SG's alter ego. I was wondering when you would show up. Funny how he claims that you aren't the same person.
I would give my life for my child. I don;t believe that death is the solution to life's problems.
Killing your child is easy. Fighting for them is hard.

dudebro said...

Calvin gets paid to act that way.

Wonder if Drew is a paid employee of Personhood USA?

fiona64 said...


Calling people selfish brats for wanting the right to live


What are you, 12 years old? Most people outgrow that kind of existential angst at puberty.

fiona64 said...

Because youngsters like you are always self-centered ... and you know a lot of youngsters.

And pre-natal care is not considered "parenting." It's considered medical care.

Unless, of course, you're Drew ... who maintains that medical care during pregnancy is unnecessary.

Suba gunawardana said...

On what do you base this opinion?
And to spit out kids like a pez dispenser & abandon/neglect/abuse them is UNSELFISH?

Tullia_Ciceronis said...

Nope...just people who are stable and can afford another child and just abort because they don't want to care for someone else.

fiona64 said...

You need to learn the difference between an embryo and an infant.

Suba gunawardana said...

A groundless personal attack with no substance.
A parent should give their life for their CHILD. No one should be forced to give anything for an unwanted zef. You have not yet rebutted this point,

dudebro said...

Why not? Isn't the rape victim acting all self centered by putting her suffering above that of an innocent rape fetus' right to live?

Rainbow Walker said...

Of course you still believe,
Calvin the coward. You were talking over on OZ [aka LAN] about others having “alter
egos”. It seems that’s the only defense Calvin the coward has to logic: ban
everyone who disagrees with him and claim they are making dual profiles.

BTW Suba isn’t a man. See how you can’t get anything right.

You think you would give your life for a child, but when it comes down to it you would probably cut and run. And
you think killing a child is easy? You have more problems than I thought. Of
course you are a fetus worshiper and cannot distinguish between a zef and a real child.

Now run back to OZ and feed everyone’s delusions.

Tullia_Ciceronis said...

You claim that coma patients are sentient. According to all the neurologists that I have talked to, and the Anatomy and Physiology textbooks that I have read, they are not. They have the equipment for sentience, but it is broken, either permanently or temporarily. It's a distinction without a real practical difference, because both ZEF and coma patients are non sentience. In ZEF, it is because the equipment is missing, although it will probably soon be gained, while in coma patients, it is because the equipment is broken. Either way, they are non sentient and lack the characteristics that we associate with sentience patients.

wahwahwah said...

From a male pov, I can tell you that I've always had reproductive choice. Nobody can control where my sperm goes more effectively than I can, so naturally it was my responsibility - and mine alone - to make sure that anyone I had a sexual relationship with was someone who shared my values.

I have an acquaintance who is somewhat of a sad-sack sort of fellow. He's had two different sex partners abort, and he tends to moan a lot about it when he gets his drink on. Here's the thing, though: I called them 'sex partners' because there was never any 'meeting of the minds,' or discussions about values, or conversation about what SHE would do in case of an unplanned pregnancy. And, instead of always wrapping it up, he just trusted whatever they told him about their birth control. Now, however, it's just the women's fault. He's so bewildered, so lost, without any clue as to how HE contributed to these massive failures.

In any case, I fully expect him to continue to blunder through life cluelessly, as always, and he'll end up with another sex partner aborting OR he'll end up paying child support for an unplanned child or children. Because he thinks all of his choices only pop into existence AFTER intercourse has occurred.

He has choices NOW, but since they involve something other than instant gratification, he will blatantly ignore them. So you see, despite the fact that he's been a party to two abortions, he's still the 'real' victim here - at least in his own mind.

wahwahwah said...

Good question.

Suba gunawardana said...

LOL They are doing the EXACT same thing to somebody else right now, talking about banning two posters for "having the same IP address". (I saw it one of the conversations in Tullia's feed.)

Apparently this is their standard practice when faced with opposition from more than one person at a time.

dudebro said...

I don't believe you. You don't have a clue what you are talking about.

Let's go over a couple of points so that we can work on your reading comprehension, ok kiddo?



Lesson #1
.A person who is in a coma (and not clinically brain dead) still shows brain activity in centers of the brain that a fetus under 26-30 months of gestation does not even have! A person that is in a coma still has a functional subconscious that does note and record events that happen while in a coma (that is why events or conversations that happened in front of the coma patient can be recalled by said coma patient when they wake up)” — as opposed to a fetus that has none of these capacities. This can clearly be seen on MRIs where the self-awareness area of the brain can and does light up in coma patients.

Well, if the coma patient was non-sentient as you describe, those areas of the brain would not show up on the MRI or EEG scan. Those areas, btw, do not register for zygotes, embryos or fetuses prior to 25 weeks. A pre-25 week prenate has the brainscan of a corpse. Not so for a coma patient.

Lesson #2:

a coma patient shows activity in the area of the brain that houses self-awareness even while in that coma. This does not mean that the patient is always self-aware, merely that the brain cycles in and out. It is actually very similar to how alpha beta and gamma waves work and how they connect to the different sleep cycles.


Aww...so the coma patient has not lost the capacity for sentience or sapience because those areas of the brain are still WORKING. Whereas they DO NOT EXIST in a prenate.

wahwahwah said...

It probably refers to Raygun Ronnie's quote, "I've noticed that everyone for abortion has already been born." To which my answer is always, "I've noticed that everyone for or against anything has already been born."
Duh.

dudebro said...

Why on earth would LAN need to ban anyone if anti-choice arguments are so superior?

Jennifer Starr said...

True. This is why they always tell friends and family members to talk to the coma patient, and a lot of times it can actually help.

dudebro said...

Pro-liars like to pretend that all coma patients have suffered such severe brain damage that they register with the MRI/EEG of a corpse - that way they can say that embryonic brainwaves are the same as coma brainwaves.

As the neurobiologist explained:

A "coma" patient who's part of the brain has damage in the area that houses sentience to the point that they no longer register as having any activity there would be in fact brain dead, think terri schiavo.

He is in effect answering his own question by admitting it depends on the type of coma and severity of damage and them merrily continues to
contend that all coma patients are the same (insinuating that they have
the same capacity to sentience and recovery) and therefore non sentient fetus's have the same rights as comas patients who can not possibly recover.

These "coma" patients that he is discussing will never
recover and are in fact no better then beating hearth cadavers. When I have some more time I will post a full response to him.

Rainbow Walker said...

And that’s probably exactly what forced birthers want. She doesn’t want to go to work, she is a forced birthing
breeder so let’s find some “walking, talking bank accounts.”

But that’s not how it works. There’s billions of dollars in back child support owed. And it’s not being paid for three reasons. The woman either didn’t want to abort or couldn’t because of trap
laws. Or the man skips out and works under the table in states that won’t hunt
him down.

The only way a man should be exempt is if he expressly stated he didn’t want children and she got pregnant anyway. That’s breach of contract.

“Women who consent to sex consent to nothing but sex”

For once you’re right. But women who consent to sex don’t consent to carrying his whelp.

wahwahwah said...

Narcissism, I suspect.

wahwahwah said...

So in this age of easily obtainable information, she's just completely unaware she can offer her unwanted child for adoption?

Really?

wahwahwah said...

Sounds like what she 'thought' she wanted was a baby doll. She figured out pretty quickly that a real live baby is another matter altogether, didn't she?

wahwahwah said...

Whenever I think of erasing the pregnant woman, this picture comes to mind.
There are TWO bodies, it exclaims.
Blink, blink. Really? That's funny, one of the 'people' doesn't seem to have any limbs, or even a head. All it seems to have is a . . . uterus.

But SHUT UP, we DON'T think women are just incubators!

dudebro said...

Well of COURSE. Because, didn't you know ,pregnancy is ALWAYS about the selfish slut who spread her legs. And pro-lifers HAVE to even out the playing field that the slut wants to kill for no other reason than to kill cuz she's a psycho!

Suba gunawardana said...

What about married men who support women's choice? What is their ulterior motive?

lady_black said...

That depends. I would say yes, particularly if this arrangement is harming her. She doesn't owe her sister the use of her kidneys. They belong to her.

lady_black said...

LOL. I don't believe ONE WORD of that. Besides, how does he know it's his?

lady_black said...

Yes. How many times are you gonna ask?

dudebro said...

Its her gotcha.

lady_black said...

But I am NOT "pro-abortion." I'm pro minding my own business. And I'm pro woman making the decision for herself and her family.

lady_black said...

No Suba, and I've explained this to you countless times. There is NO "breach of contract." The right of collecting support belongs to the child, and no judge would ever entertain such a contract. The fetus is incapable of bargaining away it's right to support once born. So please, stop repeating this nonsense.

lady_black said...

That is not a responsive answer to either question. Citation STILL needed. Men are not responsible for a woman's medical expenses *unless* he is married to her. Then he's generally responsible and that isn't related to child support.

lady_black said...

Two people can be posting from the same IP address without being the same person. They need only be connected to the same router.

lady_black said...

NOT TRUE. Men and women have the same obligation toward children, that is to support them.

lady_black said...

Only if the coma patient is attached to my bloodstream. At that point, the coma patient is SOL, because I do NOT have to allow that.

lady_black said...

Not exactly. Sentience is best described as a capacity for suffering.

Rainbow Walker said...

I’m not Suba.

First of all there would be a
breech if an agreement was made and yes courts have recognized the contract. Second, “the right of collecting support” doesn’t belong to the child. It belongs to the custodial parent to care for the child. And third this isn’t a fetus, this is a child. You can only get child support for a child that has already been born.

And it’s not nonsense, it’s
grounded in contract law.

lady_black said...

Sorry I called you by the wrong name. But NO, in US law there is no such "contract" and no judge would entertain such a contract, and YES the right of support is the child's not the parent's. I'm not making this up, it's straight out of US case law. A situation where a woman contracted with a male friend for "help" in conceiving a child. The male friend was ordered to pay support, BECAUSE support is the right of the child. The two parents cannot unilaterally contract away the child's right to support from both parents. You may be living in another jurisdiction where laws are different. In the USA you are completely wrong. And OF COURSE only a born child is entitled to support.

Suba gunawardana said...

This is Suba :)



If that's the way the law stands I contend it's wrong and unfair, since a woman can get pregnant and give birth against the expressly stated wishes of a man (or without his knowledge, behind his back) and make him pay for a child he never wanted. In such a situation he SHOULD have the right to opt out of parental responsibility by giving up his parental rights.

Rainbow Walker said...

Wrong.

Let me explain to you the way my law professor explained to us. If a contract is in place before a settlement is reached, it is enforceable by law. For example a prenup is constructed before a
couple weds. In that prenup they BOTH agree they don’t want children. She gets pregnant. The contract [prenup] stipulates she must abort. She has a change of heart and decides to keep the child. She is in breach. If he divorces her he doesn’t have to pay child support because of that agreement. It’s simple contract law.

“YES the right of support is the child's not the parent's.”

No it’s not. A child is not a
juridical person therefore the custodial parent must collect child support for them. See TX Family Code Sec. 154.001 et. seq.

“A situation where a woman
contracted with a male friend for "help" in conceiving a child.”

This is not the same. If one makes a contract to help conceive a child there is no construct not to enforce child
support. It’s like Jason Patric who entered into a contract with his girlfriend to be a sperm doner, but he forfeited his parental rights and doesn’t have to pay child support. Now he wants custody, which won’t happen because of the contract.

I am in TX and the laws vary from state to state. That’s why there are billions of unpaid child support.

«Oldest ‹Older   401 – 600 of 763   Newer› Newest»