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   601 – 763 of 763
Jennifer Starr said...

Why do you want people to tell you this?

Jennifer Starr said...

I know people who have severed relationships with parents over things like that


You know some pretty lousy people.

myintx said...

Sorry for her loss. The life of a human being is cut short in a miscarriage. It's sad. I'm sure your sister was sad. Or did you try to comfort her and say it wasn't a 'kid' yet?

myintx said...

So, now there is concern for the other human being involved in a pregnancy? Sure, the woman kill her unborn child up until she is in labor and about to get a c-section - then you have concern? Or is it when the skin of the baby first sees light of day that you have concern?

fiona64 said...

That little girl has issues, that's for sure.

lady_black said...

Where do you get these bizarre ideas?

lady_black said...

I felt sorry for HER. But no, we don't have tampon funerals.

fiona64 said...

That angry little girl definitely needs to learn to associate with purpose and not hang out with such individuals.

fiona64 said...

Why should some given individual be forced to gestate an unwanted pregnancy just to satisfy you? I'm curious.

fiona64 said...

Or so she thinks.

fiona64 said...

I know, right?

Of course, AngryLittleGirl(TM) has gone running back to LAN to whine about the big mean pro-choicers who are not impressed with her arguments ...

lady_black said...

A "contract" to abort any pregnancy would never be enforced. You seem to believe that people can just make any contract they want to, and a court will uphold it. That's CRAP, Rainbow Walker. Contracts are overturned all the time for being unconscionable, or contrary to public policy. I think you better ask your "law professor" to clarify that for you. As for Jason Patric, that is the exact same situation I'm talking about. If she sued him for child support, she would get it, regardless of any "contract" to the contrary. And once again YES, child support IS the right of the child. The child isn't the payee because the child isn't legally responsible for the payment of necessaries. Sort of like Social Security survivor benefits are the right of the minor child, but the guardian is the payee. I don't know if you're aware of this or not, but a third party raising a minor child, such as a grandparent, can bring a suit for support against either or BOTH parents. It isn't limited to being collected by one of the parents from the other.

fiona64 said...

Do you prefer a circle jerk instead?

Sounds like LAN to me ...

fiona64 said...

Wow, Nancy Drew! Maybe you can get in your little blue roadster and meet Ned at the malt shop now that you've figured out the mystery in the old clock tower.

fiona64 said...

What's "defination," exactly?

fiona64 said...

According to all the neurologists that I have talked to

"... in my imagination."

There. I finished the sentence for you.

fiona64 said...

You know, you really should provide the citations of the things you post in this fashion. Otherwise, you're just a plagiarist.

fiona64 said...

Congratulations on your ability to use Webster's. Medical dictionaries make it very clear that a child is a born entity.

lady_black said...

This may come as a surprise to you, but women are not required to run the idea past a man before giving birth. I'm not quite sure why you think it shouldn't be that way. Men do not own women's bodies.

Jennifer Starr said...

I notice that none of them seem to be running over here to give her a hand, though.

myintx said...

Did you try to comfort her by telling her not to have a tampon funeral? Your compassion is outstanding - not.

myintx said...

It's not 'her body' killed in an abortion.

dudebro said...

Precisely. It is the mindless body of an unwanted organism.

myintx said...

It's the body of a human being.

someone45 said...

It the the "body" of a zef that has no conscious thoughts or self awareness...

lady_black said...

Actually, I was living in another state at the time, and the miscarriages were very early. I realized she was heartbroken because she wanted a baby. But let's face facts here. The loss she experienced was a loss of potential only. Had she not been actively trying to conceive, she might have easily passed these off as late, heavy periods. Especially since she had never been very regular in her cycles.( She was later diagnosed with PCOS.) This scenario happens countless times every day to women who are trying to conceive. Trying to make a huge deal out of it is really not warranted. It falls into the category of minor to moderate disappointment, not wailing and gnashing of teeth. I was far more concerned for her when our younger brother died. Now THAT was a major loss for both of us.

dudebro said...

Baseless assertion.

Jennifer Starr said...

While it's true that women can seek reimbursement for prenatal and childcare expenses in many states, it's only after paternity is established. Which is usually after birth, not before.

myintx said...

What ideas? That you care for anybody other than women?

myintx said...

Did you joke about tampon funerals with your sister? I'll bet your sister didn't think her unborn child was 'potential'. An unborn child is a human being worth protecting.

lady_black said...

That a woman can abort right up until she goes into labor. That's the dumbest thing I have ever heard. And YES, I do care more about women than fetuses. Most people do.

lady_black said...

An abortion ends a pregnancy. It has nothing to do with "baby-killing." There is no baby. There is unviable human tissue that resembles a baby more as time goes by. If it were a baby, it wouldn't die when removed from the uterus.

Jennifer Starr said...

Since when do you need permission?

lady_black said...

In my state, the bills for prenatal care and lying-in costs are the woman's responsibility (or her spouse, if married). The responsibility for a child begins at birth, and I would imagine most states are that way. In any case, those are NOT child support expenses. Tullia is simply full of it.

lady_black said...

If your mother had developed eclampsia, the end of the pregnancy would have happened. If it had been before you're viable, that's an abortion. The alternative is both mother and fetus perishing. I don't think saying I am unwilling to die for any fetus makes me a lousy parent. It makes me a person of common sense. ESPECIALLY where a woman already has other children who need her.

lady_black said...

You are very correct about that, at least where the parents take responsibility for a newborn. Which of course, they don't need to do. A mother can relinquish her newborn and never even take it home from the hospital. Of in the case where she delivers without medical supervision, by abandoning the newborn at any safe haven location (generally public facilities where trained medical personnel are present.) Hospitals, EMS offices, fire stations and police stations are commonly designated safe havens. So it's not as simple as you make it out to be. We do not force people to parent against their will.

lady_black said...

There are many women who consider abortion, only to decide not to go through with it. I was one of them. When I found out I was pregnant with my youngest, I had just escaped an abusive marriage, and been accepted to nursing school, I also had other children to think about, and had survived one life-threatening pregnancy already, so frankly I was terribly apprehensive of going through that again. Ambivalence about the pregnancy is a common emotion, even in a planned and wanted pregnancy. It is CERTAINLY not an indication of being unfit for parenthood, and I resent the implication that it is. It's a completely normal and common experience to consider ALL of one's options and make the best decision out of a group where none of the options are particularly great options.

lady_black said...

Were it true that children would disown their parents upon finding out that the parents gave serious consideration to not keeping the pregnancy, there would be an awful lot of children disowning their parents. What really counts is not what you thought about before giving birth, but how you care for your child AFTER birth. There are no thought crimes, Tullia.

lady_black said...

I'm quote sure you raised your son better than that, and didn't raise a spoiled brat who thinks the world revolves around him. I think much higher of you than that.

lady_black said...

Then you must know a whole bunch of spoiled rotten kids who think much more highly of themselves than they should. My mother had an abortion when I was ten. I didn't resent her for having the abortion, but I damn sure would have been angry and resentful had she chosen not to. I still needed my mother and this pregnancy was killing her. Resentment? None whatsoever. I was delighted she was going to live and grateful for the additional 35 years I had with her.

fiona64 said...

Like I said, he's thoughtful, generous and kind. He has also given thought as to whether he wants children (so few people do that, sad to say) and has concluded that he would like to have two kids someday, with the right lady. He's also in no big hurry.

And yes, he's pro-choice.

Mitzi said...

Anti choice? The only choice pro lifers are against is abortion. So you mean anti abortion?

Mitzi said...

I like how this pro abort quotes"human life" as if it's allegedly human life. I'm so sorry for you guys your site is infested with some if our old trolls :(

Mitzi said...

If she didn't she wouldn't have to abort it now would she? It's not like making a mistake with a pencil Nd simply erasing it. Maybe to you it is.

Mitzi said...

Wow. Self aborted? You mean miscarriage? Not everything is abortion

myintx said...

They should go back to RHRC...

someone45 said...

So if you do not support every choice there is you are anti-choice.


You have no say in what I do with my body and life. It is my choice to make and you need to just get over it.

myintx said...

What if they are both women. You're advocating 'forcing' a woman to do something against her will (gasp!)

myintx said...

So, you are advocating for telling women what they can and cannot do with 'their body' (as you call it).

dudebro said...

Disagreement is not trolling. I know that you want to live in an echo chamber but some of us enjoy a lively debate.

Come to RHRC and debate us.

myintx said...

"Disagreement is not trolling" - yea, tell that to RHRC.

dudebro said...

Sadly the old mods had an itchy trigger finger.

Suba gunawardana said...

Would you like to have a real debate? I'd be happy to engage, here or on RHRC.

Mitzi said...

I disagree with what you've decide defines "choice" I'm all for choices. Bath or a shower? Water or tea? As long as the "choice" doesn't kill someone (yes I said someone) then by all means celebrate your right to choose. Am I pro abortion? No. Call me anti abortion choice if you want.

dudebro said...

So no killing, ever? Not even to defend yourself?

Drew Hymer said...

As a general rule, no one should be able to take anything from you unless you owe it to them.

Drew Hymer said...

i am on the bone marrow donor list. but that's quite irrelevant.

I don't owe anybody bone marrow because i didn't cause anyone to need bone marrow.

Drew Hymer said...

I'm not god, but i appreciate your confusion.

Drew Hymer said...

Right. It's a stupid game of men-who-disagree-with-me should shut up. Completely immature.

Drew Hymer said...

There you go with your misogyny again. Calling abortion a "medical procedure" only shows that you think women are defective.

Drew Hymer said...

Your filthiness shows you have no class.

dudebro said...

Your rebuttal is invalid.


Tone trolling is the first resort of a dim bulb.

Suba gunawardana said...

True. And you don't owe anything to a rapist, or a zef. Accommodating either invader is entirely VOLUNTARY.


You cannot legal force a person to submit to rape, OR to forced pregnancy.

Drew Hymer said...

And pro-lifers support adoption and keeping the child. So, they must be pro-choice too.

Suba gunawardana said...

OK so what do you call vasectomy?

Suba gunawardana said...

Any rebuttal to the point?

Suba gunawardana said...

When you actively try to BAN a choice for other people, that's called anti-choice.

Drew Hymer said...

Denial also soothes your conscience.

someone45 said...

Just stop with your ridiculous scenarios. If a woman is carrying to term she WANTS it. She is not going to do something to damage it.

someone45 said...

Nope you only support choice YOU agree with and that is anti-choice.

myintx said...

If the choice is killing an unborn child because he or she is inconvenient or unwanted, I'm proud to be anti-choice.
Are you for the choice of a woman to take a drug that will intentionally harm her unborn child? If a woman is in labor and the only way to save the baby is a C-section, are you for a woman 'choosing' not to have a C-section and letting her unborn child die because a vaginal delivery will kill the baby?

myintx said...

Mallory Loyola did....

fiona64 said...

You're absurd.

fiona64 said...

You sure as hell like to play god, knowing that you will never be impacted by the things you support. You're sickening.

fiona64 said...

Drop dead.

fiona64 said...

Denial also soothes your conscience.

I'm sure that it soothes your conscience every single day. You are a misogynistic POS who is incomplete denial about the realities of gestation.

fiona64 said...

And yet you want to pretend that you aren't about controlling others, with your constant tone policing, pearl-clutching bullshit.

fiona64 said...

I'm sorry you're so fucking stupid, Drew. Maybe you should address that problem with your parents.

fiona64 said...

Hint, sweetie: a miscarriage is indeed an abortion.

Mitzi said...

To answer you and dudebro no I'm not against all killing. For example defending myself or others that are put in harms way by someone intentionally and the only way out is self defense hat may result in killing that person then yes I would hurt or kill of that was the situation. An unborn baby is not a perpetrator. Women don't need to have their unborn (babies or fetuses whichever makes you squirm less) killed because believe it or not they are not parasites dangerous or horrible time sucking monsters like your dear marcotte likes to refer to them. They are children. They are innocent. Defenseless human beings. The only thing pro aborts are good at is dehumanizing the unborn to try and justify abortion. So you may do that now.

dudebro said...

Then women should not be permitted abortion even if the pregnancy is killing them - bleeding out, eclampsia etc.

No abortion for any reason EVER

Mitzi said...

No as I said before the only choice I font support is abortion. Therefore I am anti abortion. I support adoption. I support parenting. Why? Because the unborn human being is not dismembered and allowed to live. Wait let me fix that. Allowed to continue to live.

Mitzi said...

Dont*

dudebro said...

And what if it is expelled whole?

someone45 said...

It does not have a right to life until it can survive without a host.

Mitzi said...

Same as above.

dudebro said...

Then why mention dismemberment?

Mitzi said...

Why not? Should I have mentioned every type of abortion?

dudebro said...

No, why? You spend a lot if time thinking about fetal body parts?

Mitzi said...

About as much as you seeing as your an abortion fanatic. Fanatic? Yeah since your on a pro life site babbling abortion nonsense. Typical pro abort.

dudebro said...

Pot, meet kettle.

Mitzi said...

Yeah how so?

Suba gunawardana said...

The "innocence" or lack of culpability of an invader does not negate your right to protect your body from them.

No individual, however innocent or defenseless, has the automatic right to use another person's body without their consent.

Many people VOLUNTEER to accommodate such innocent invaders at the expense of their own body. That doesn't mean everyone should be FORCED to do so.

Suba gunawardana said...

If a man expressly stated he doesn't want children, and a woman agreed, how is that not a contract like any other?



If the woman then intentionally

got pregnant behind his back, how is that not dishonest, and not a breach of contract?

lady_black said...

Because it is not a proper subject for a contract.

Plum Dumpling said...

Jehovah is a proabort. I am made in God's image. Abortion is a sacrament.


This is God speaking:
Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up. - Hosea 13:16

Plum Dumpling said...

I am pro life so naturally I am pro choice.

I am proud to be pro abortion for any woman who wants to abort.


I am proud to be anti abortion for any woman who wants to give birth.

lady_black said...

And I would need to soothe my conscience, why exactly?

lady_black said...

Where did I say that, dummy?

Plum Dumpling said...

There are only two choices:
1. abort
2. gestate to term.

lady_black said...

She is aborting s pregnancy. There is no "baby."

Plum Dumpling said...

I have sex to get an orgasm. I never had sex to get pregnant. Not even once.

Plum Dumpling said...

These are the rules Jesus followed. I will stick with Jesus.

Jewish law not only permits, but in some circumstances requires abortion. Where the mother's life is in jeopardy because of the unborn child, abortion is mandatory.

An unborn child has the status of "potential human life" until the majority of the body has emerged from the mother. Potential human life is valuable, and may not be terminated casually, but it does not have as much value as a life in existence. The Talmud makes no bones about this: it says quite bluntly that if the fetus threatens the life of the mother, you cut it up within her body and remove it limb by limb if necessary, because its life is not as valuable as hers. But once the greater part of the body has emerged, you cannot take its life to save the mother's, because you cannot choose between one human life and another. - Judaism 101.

Drew Hymer said...

Of course, you know nothing to a rapist.

But when you create another human being, you also cause her to be helpless and needy. When you cause someone to be in need to incur an obligation to fulfill that need.

Drew Hymer said...

Unless it's done to address a medical condition, it's not a medical procedure.

The whole point of a vasectomy is stop the proper functioning of the body.

Drew Hymer said...

There was no point worthy of rebuttal. It seems stupid of Hamilton to bar a pregnant mother.

Drew Hymer said...

Like choosing to molest children. Unless you support the legalization of child molestation, you're anti-choice. Doh!

Suba gunawardana said...

You have yet to address my question how the zef NEEDS the crappy life it's destined for as an unwanted child.

If you harm a living person with an established life, you take something AWAY from them, cause a tangible loss. A zef had nothing to begin with, thus you cannot cause them a tangible loss.

Suba gunawardana said...

Molesting children involves the direct causation of pain and suffering to sentient individuals.

Abortion not only doesn't cause suffering to sentient individuals, but actually PREVENTS future suffering.

lady_black said...

Look up "contrary to public policy." No judge would ever uphold such a contract. What two adults promise to each other doesn't negate the right of the child to be supported by both parents. Please Google this matter. It's not rocket science. The child is entitled to support, no matter WHAT his parents "discussed."

lady_black said...

"Miscarriage" is a layman's term for a spontaneous abortion.

lady_black said...

Of course she thought it was potential.

lady_black said...

No, as a matter of fact, she did not.

Suba gunawardana said...

I am not disagreeing with you about the existing law. I am saying the existing law is unfair & unethical in certain circumstances.

A child needs a certain amount of financial support. All that matters is the child gets that full amount, regardless of where or from whom it comes.

The responsibility for any child should be on the person/s who ELECTED to have that child. Who those persons are depend on the situation. Those who CHOOSE to have a child should be ready to carry all associated responsibilities, including the financial part.

That responsibility should not be forced on someone who didn't volunteer for the task (as in forcing a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy, or myintx's perpetual example of toddler in the house where a stragner is allegledly made responsible for a free-running kid) OR on someone who specifically requested to opt out ahead of time (as in the man in my example).
.

Jennifer Starr said...

Why does it seem stupid? If the ship does not have facilities to deal with possible pregnancy emergencies that might arise, requiring a note from a physician would be the prudent thing to do.

Jennifer Starr said...

It is a medical procedure.

Jennifer Starr said...

So pregnant women don't need to go to the doctor at all.

Russell Crawford said...

Pro lifers have a choice, they can save one of the 1.8 born babies, children and adults that are dying each second or they can kill them and save a fetus instead. Pro lifers make the intentional choice to murder innocent babies so they can attempt to save fake babies.
A nation that kills its born babies to save its fetuses cannot stand.

TheBaud said...

By my calculations, it took you over a minute to write the above nonsense. By your own calculations, you just murdered 108 people that could have been saved.

You are a murderer!!!!!!

fiona64 said...

Because she's creepy ... just like the rest of the fetal pr0n fetishists.

lady_black said...

The law is fair to the only person whose rights are at stake. The child. Nobody cares who chose what when there is a child who needs to be supported. Nor should they. The reason women can abort is because they are pregnant. Not because they are women. Biology itself is unfair. Now having a degree as a paralegal, I can tell you that judges are not interested in pissing contests about who said what. It doesn't matter. A man who doesn't want children needs to take his OWN precautions against having children. That's just how it is, and that will never change. Whether you think it's "unfair" or not is irrelevant.

Suba gunawardana said...

Reasonable precautions include always using contraception and making your intent clear to your partner from the get-go.

If a man does that, ethically he should not be forced to pay for a child he never wanted, just like a woman should not be forced to carry a child she never wanted.

That doesn't mean the CHILD should be deprived. The responsibility for the child should fall on whoever actively chose to have them. If a woman chooses to have a child AGAINST the expressly stated wishes of a man, she is taking full financial responsibility for the child, and should be held to that obligation.

lady_black said...

It doesn't WORK that way, Suba. No matter how many times you stamp your feet. You claim it doesn't matter where the support comes from. Well, it matters to a great many taxpayers. Gestation and the support of a child are two entirely different matters. Neither men nor women can be forced to gestate. BOTH parents have to support their children or a burden falls upon the taxpayers that rightfully belongs on the parents (plural). Try looking at it this way. A man's "choices" end when his part of reproductive input ends. And so do a woman's. His contribution ends at ejaculation. Her contribution takes much longer than that. And you know it. Stop blithering about "non-elective children" and just come right out and say the child doesn't matter. I disagree with you, but if you think unwanted children should become a drain on the taxpayer instead, I respect your right to say so. But I can assure you, that is never EVER going to happen.

Suba gunawardana said...

I am neither stamping feet nor blithering, merely pointing out a huge inconsistency in the law.

"just come right out and say the child doesn't matter."

How did you interpret that from what I said? i.e. That doesn't mean the CHILD should be deprived. The responsibility for the child should fall on whoever actively chose to have them. If a woman chooses to have a child AGAINST the expressly stated wishes of a man, she is taking full
financial responsibility for the child, and should be held to that obligation. (Not the taxpayer but the person who CHOSE to have the child should pay for the child).

"The law says so" or "it will never happen" is not a real answer. My point is that it's huge a double standard.

Look at these scenarios.

1. Is a homeowner obligated to care for a child who wandered into their property?

2. When a person abandons their children, is their next of kin obligated to care/pay for the children?

3. Is a man obligated to pay for a child he chose not to have?

I say the answer should be NO to all, considering none of the people VOLUNTEERED for the task. If you say it should yes only for 3, how is that different from the other two?

myintx said...

Did you just with her about tampon funerals though?

myintx said...

Yes, she did...

myintx said...

"That a woman can abort right up until she goes into labor. That's the dumbest thing I have ever heard. " Kind of implies to me that you don't support abortion at some point in a pregnancy.

myintx said...

Truth

Drew Hymer said...

When you kill someone, you're not harming him because he has a past. You're harming him because he has a future. An embryo just like a newborn baby has a future and killing him takes away his future.

Drew Hymer said...

So, you're admitting the issue isn't "choice', which is my point. What's being chosen makes all the difference. This is why is wrong for pro-aborts to call themselves pro-choice; it avoids the real issue by hiding it under a platitude.

Killing someone, a newborn or an embryo, is not an appropriate way to avoid suffering.

dudebro said...

The right to a future does not give anyone or anything a claim on the body of another.

Drew Hymer said...

It is prudent because we live in a litigious society where people sue at the drop of hat. The problem is that some people don't want to be treated as responsible adults so the company has to CYA.

Drew Hymer said...

Not really. Sure doctors perform it and they use medical devices and drugs. But if it's not addressing an actual medical condition then it's not really a medical procedure. It's a non-medical procedure.

dudebro said...

it is an actual medical condition, as the prenate tries to wrest as many resources as it can from the woman, often to her detriment:

http://harvardmagazine.com/2006/09/prenatal-competition.html

And this:

http://content.csbs.utah.edu/~rogers/ant1050/Lectures/mfconflict-2x3.pdf

And women menstruate as protection from invasive embryos:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3528014/

And look, an actual OBGYN talks about the inherent dangers of pregnan

The first clue to this serious misunderstanding is the claim that
childbirth must be safe because it is “natural”. Natural does not mean
safe, and we are pretty clear about that in other areas of life. For
example, natural disasters, such as hurricanes and earthquakes are 100%
natural. Nonetheless, we know that they are responsible for a tremendous
amount of death, suffering and destruction. Natural means one thing
only: it happens in nature. It tells us absolutely nothing about whether
it causes death or other serious effects.

The second clue to this serious misunderstanding is the claim that
childbirth must be safe because “we are still here”. This is evidence of
basic lack of knowledge about biology. The fact that “we are still
here” only tells us that in every generation, the number of people who
lived exceeded the number who died. It doesn’t tell us anything about
the ratio. So, for example the population will grow at a certain rate if
each couple has 3 surviving children. It does not matter whether the
couple had 3 children, all of whom survived, or 10 children, 7 of whom
died.cy and birth:

Giving birth is and has always been inherently dangerous.
From the early 18th century on back, 1% or more of births resulted in
the death of the mother. To put a 1% maternal mortality rate in
perspective, it is twice as high as the mortality rate for receiving a
kidney transplant, and a bit less than half the mortality rate of having
“triple bypass” heart surgery.What’s really amazing to consider is that
the chance of the baby dying was always dramatically higher.


----------


I am going to go with the OB and not your deluded ravings.

dudebro said...

It's prudent because she or the fetus could die out there.

Drew Hymer said...

Suba is correct. In a society that accepts abortion as a legal right, men should be able to refuse to take care of the child just as the mother can.

If the child doesn't exist until birth, it's the mother alone who brings him into existence.

lady_black said...

Because the child has the right to be supported. PERIOD.

Drew Hymer said...

That right is the embryo's based on the mother's obligation to care for the one she caused to be in need.

Drew Hymer said...

And the company might get sued. So, the company treats the woman like a child instead of as a responsible individual

Suba gunawardana said...

I admitted no such thing. If you are unable to care for a future child, you have the CHOICE of

-letting them be born and suffer in a substandard life
or
-preventing such suffering by abortion now



It s most definitely a choice.

Drew Hymer said...

When people speak of "medical condition", they mean an unhealthy condition where something has gone wrong. That's the vernacular.

The medical dictionary (http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/medical+condition) agrees:

MEDICAL CONDITION: A disease, illness or injury; any physiologic, mental or psychological condition or disorder....


A biological or psychological state which is within the range of normal human variation is not a medical condition.


Pregnancy is not a medical condition. Saying it is only shows your misogyny.

Jennifer Starr said...

If the pregnant woman was your partner or wife, would you want her to be somewhere without proper medical care if something went wrong? I'm betting that you wouldn't.

Suba gunawardana said...

Of course the child has the right to be supported.

The question is not IF the child has the right to support, but from WHOM the support should come.

I contend only the person/s who actively CHOSE to have the child should be legally held responsible for support. Forcing anyone else to pay that is unethical. Anyone else includes random strangers, next of kin, or a biological parent who specifically stated they don't wish to have children.

Jennifer Starr said...

Pregnancy is definitely a medical condition. Saying it is not only shows your disregard for a woman's health and well-being. You don't even think she needs to go to a doctor.

dudebro said...

Nope.

Supererogatory burden. She doesn't owe it anything.

dudebro said...

Pdft. According to Drew Hymer, our resident obgyn, birth complications can always be predicted and avoided. 100% of the time. Except when they can't be predicted and mom/fetus die but eh, people make mistakes so why should it matter?

dudebro said...

Pregnancy is not a state of health as my numerous scholarly citations have demonstrated.

You are entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts .

Suba gunawardana said...

A person's potential future is absolutely NOT the only thing you take away by killing a living person with an established life. You cause emotional damage to their family, friends and anyone else who had benefited from the existence of that person, plus tangible financial damage to some/all of them. If the murdered person was enjoying a good life, you take that away too.

An unwanted zef has no loved ones and no one depending on them. No one suffers emotional/financial loss from the death of an unwanted zef. The zef itself has no established life, and the only potential life it can have as an unwanted child is bound to be a crappy one. You have yet to show why a zef would NEED that potential life as an unwanted child.

Drew Hymer said...

Yes, it's a choice like whether or not to shoot somebody who is currently being abused.

You're judging someone else's life to be "substandard" and therefore unworthy of living. That's quite presumptuous with death being the penalty.

Drew Hymer said...

Sure, but that should be her decision not Hamilton's. Fears of litigation make it Hamilton's.

dudebro said...

All life involves suffering Drew. to force life on someone without their consent IS to force suffering on them. Period.

Drew Hymer said...

Pregnancy is not a medical condition but a natural part of life. To say it is a medical condition suggests it's a defect or an illness which puts you in the misogyny camp.

Drew Hymer said...

There you go lying again.

When there's no indication of significant risk, there's no good reason to act as if there's significant risk. Duh.

dudebro said...

Death from old age is also a natural part of life. But we do what we can to prolong life. Humans are clearly misanthropic, for trying to prolong life, because death is NATURAL.

Drew Hymer said...

You're a misogynist because you think pregnancy is a pathology.

dudebro said...

No, I said it is not a state of health


Big difference. It's natural, but it's not healthy for the woman either. It takes it's toll on the body. And my scholarly citations back me up.

dudebro said...

Nope, because not all complications can be predicted


A perfectly 'normal' pregnancy can go from zero to blood exiting every orifice in seconds. This happened to a friend of mine - she was more than halfway through her pregnancy, everything was going GREAT, and then at dinner one night she started bleeding from her nose and other body orifices. Turned out she had eclampsia and could have nearly died.


Also, there is literally no predicting post partum hemorrhage, when the woman bleeds to death AFTER birth.



And as you so blithely pointed out, people make mistakes. What if the doctor is wrong about your health, and says you're doing good when you could drop dead?

Suba gunawardana said...

You are misconstruing the situation to indicate *I* am making the choice for someone else. NO.

It's upto the pregnant woman whether she is able/willing to provide a good life for the future child or not. If she is not, she should have the OPTION to terminate the zef now rather than subject it to a substandard life. She should also have the option to carry the pregnancy if she so wishes.

I am NOT forcing abortion on anyone else. You on the other hand wish to FORCE birth on everyone else, thereby taking one of their choices away from them.

Drew Hymer said...

Unlike you, i recognize that every abortion has a victim, the unborn baby.

So abortion is FORCING death on an innocent human being. You support such violent FORCE.

You aren't making the "choice" to kill but you're supporting the "choice" to kill. There's no moral difference between the two positions.

Suba gunawardana said...

Again you operate on the assumption that death is always a bad thing. NO. When the only available life is a horrible one, death is the better option.

And it's not I, the government or anyone else who makes that choice. ONLY the woman who is unable/unwilling to provide a good life to the future child gets to make that choice. If she chooses abortion, that means the only available life for the future child is a bad one. To force life on an unwanted child against the mothers' will is to knowingly condemn a future child to a bad life.

Mitzi said...

Sorry so late this site messes up my phone so I am switching for the moment. I completely agree with what you said IF we were talking about an actual parasite like a tapeworm. But a fetus is not a parasite. The fetus did not place him or herself there. The woman chooses (most of the time) to put herself in the position where pregnancy is a possibility....its like kidnapping someone taking them to your house keeping them there with shelter and nourishment and then one day simply cutting them off and leaving them out in the cold to die which they will without you. I agree that no one should be forced to procreate just as I feel fetuses should not be destroyed simply for the womans convienience.

Care2? Nope I've no idea what that is but thatsnmy oakey (cat)

Suba gunawardana said...

What's the difference between a fetus and a tapeworm?
They are both dependent on the host's body for their sustenance; both placed there through the unintentional actions of the host; both innocent and not culpable.

Why is it OK to kill one but not the other?

"its like kidnapping someone taking them to your house keeping them there with shelter......."

No, because no one actively and INTENTIONALLY takes an unwanted zef & puts it in her uterus, just like no one takes parasite eggs & intentionally puts them in their stomach. Both get into the host body as an UNINTENDED side effect of a different action, i.e. sex or eating.

If having sex obligates you to carry an unwanted pregnancy, why doesn't eating improperly cooked food obligate you to harbor parasites & not kill them?

Rainbow Walker said...

Indeed a woman should be able to do what they want with their bodies. But does that give her the right to dive
into his bank account so she can have what SHE wants. That like me saying I want a house so I will let you sleep there one night and now you have to pay for half of it and you can visit once in a while. Seem fair?

«Oldest ‹Older   601 – 763 of 763   Newer› Newest»