Pages

Wednesday, September 3, 2014

8 Things "After Tiller" Left Out

[Today's guest post by Maria Tsikalas is part of our paid blogging program.]

Social media is erupting this week in the latest abortion-related controversy: PBS’s decision to air “After Tiller” on Labor Day.

“After Tiller” is a documentary that examines the motivations and difficulties of four late-term abortionists—LeRoy Carhart, Warren Hern, Susan Robinson, and Shelley Sella—and some of their patients, in an attempt to contextualize late-term abortion and humanize the doctors. There is not much to add that hasn’t already been said on other pro-life websites, blogs, and Twitter (#AfterTiller), but here’s a list of simple facts that further ‘contextualize’ the procedure and those who perform it.
  1. In the film, we are told that third-trimester abortions are less than one percent of all abortions. What we are not told is that one percent = approximately 10,000 babies in the U.S. per year. 
  2. Most of the pregnant patients featured in the film were carrying babies with severe abnormalities or disabilities, but in reality, Tiller himself admitted that this situation constituted only about eight percent of his abortions. So that means every year these doctors abort about 9,200 healthy, viable, developed babies with no health complications whatsoever.1
  3. At least four women have died from legal second- and third-trimester abortions in the past two years. 
  4. Carhart has been responsible for eight medical emergencies (that we know of) since March 2012, including the death of Jennifer Morbelli last year. 
  5. Carhart has described babies in the womb dying as being "like meat in a Crock-pot." 
  6. Former Tiller employee Tina David said of Sella: "[The] baby came out, and it was moving. I don’t know if it was alive or if it was nerves, I have no clue. But Dr. Sella looked up right away at me and took a utensil and stabbed it, right here, and twisted. And then it didn’t move anymore.”

 
  7. Former Tiller employee Luhra Tivis has said that she was trained to answer the phone like a salesperson marketing a product, selling abortion to the caller. Tivis also described seeing Tiller carrying a heavy cardboard box full of dead babies into his crematorium and smelling the flesh as it burned. 
  8. Robinson was shocked when she realized a baby she'd thought to be 32 weeks from the ultrasound was actually closer to 37 weeks when he or she was aborted.
Hard to humanize all that.

[1] Please note that I am not arguing that abortion is more justifiable for babies with disabilities than without. The film features some women who had received diagnoses that their baby would die would die in utero or shortly after birth, or that their child would be in pain for his or her entire life, leading viewers to believe that such extreme circumstances constitute the majority of late-term abortions, when that is not true.

614 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 400 of 614   Newer›   Newest»
Plum Dumpling said...

Source of the quote please.

Plum Dumpling said...

Arguendo:

Anthropologically, Homo sapiens has three strategies
for dealing with unwanted reproduction (births): contraception, abortion and infanticide. All three are practiced in every culture worldwide historically and currently.

Those who restrict contraception and abortion make
infanticide, child abandonment/abuse and maternal mortality inevitable. We have many in vitro examples of this but the one that troubles me the most at the moment is this example:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...

There is nothing moral about your position if your
position is controlling women's reproductive choices by law. Illegal abortion and sepsis and hemorrhage in childbirth are the three leading causes of maternal death worldwide. Women have blood in the fertility game. Abortion and contraception are human rights. YOU do not occupy the moral high ground.

Plum Dumpling said...

Argendo:

There is nothing morally wrong with late term abortion. There will be a continuing need for late term abortions.

The Talmud, which predates Jesus and informed Jesus' ethics, states the following:

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

lady_black said...

I don't care if 99.9% of women choose perinatal hospice. That does nothing for the 0.1% that do not wish to continue the pregnancy. I'm very happy that support is there for women who wish to go this route. I would not, for the simple reason that it endangers my health and there is no upside, IMHO. Some women may see an upside, and that is 100% their choice, and it deserves to be respected. Women, ALL women, deserve to have their choices respected.

lady_black said...

That HAD to be a man. In three pregnancies, I have never "felt" implantation. I always knew I was pregnant from the fatigue. That's the only symptom I ever had, and I mean FATIGUE. I could sleep until ten, take a mid-afternoon nap and still be ready for bed by nine.

eroteme said...

You are wrong about that. Pregnancy is a minor inconvenience and has zero side effects. In fact, its so healthy that all pregnant women can run marathons at 34 weeks ( I learned that here).

Oh, and pregnancy is just like breathing.

You silly billy you!

expect_resistance said...

Yes! (Especially to the last sentance.)

lady_black said...

Godwin's law. You lose. You seriously have NO FREAKING IDEA what I think, and I'll thank you to stop playing psychic friends and trying to speak for me and what I think. There is not a damn thing wrong with my logic, and this is what I actually do think: I don't owe the use of my body to anyone. My consent is needed for that. It has nothing to do with your vile assertions about Nazis and slave owners. And don't you dare bring your children into this, and don't you dare bring MY children into this. That's right, I have children too. All of them were raised with my values, and all of them are pro-choice. You have no idea what I have personally gone through to bring my kids into the world, so you can just keep your vile tongue in your head. And the person you addressed this comment too is NOT on your side. That's how ridiculous you are, that you can't even see who you're talking to, or talking about. I spit on you. You get no vote in my life, EVER. You can't even master your own life.

lady_black said...

Your "audience" (to whom your comment was directed) doesn't share your view, and frankly hates the very air you breathe. Thanks for showing everyone how dumb you really are. You don't even know when someone is mocking you.

eroteme said...

Does it not bother yoy that pregnancy kills women?

lady_black said...

If I was using contraception, there won't BE any "toddler," silly cow.

lady_black said...

Yes, let's be honest. No I do NOT make decisions based on emotionalism, and certainly not based upon what YOUR emotions are. Emotions tell me I didn't want anyone cutting my neck open. Actual science and knowledge tells me the surgery will relieve the severe pain I'm in and allow my life to get back to normal. Which one do you think I went with? Hmmm??? The same thing applies with a pregnancy. My mother had an abortion, of a wanted pregnancy that went terribly wrong. What was removed from her was NOT "a baby" and was never going to BE a baby. That long ago, I didn't truly understand the issues like I do now, but even at age ten, I knew there wasn't any "baby" and she would try again at another time. I'm sure she was disappointed. But what was done needed to be done. That's the way it goes sometimes. Anyone who makes medical decisions based on emotionalism is an idiot. You have to deal with things as they are, not what you wish were true, or what your fear tells you. That's what we have doctors for.

lady_black said...

I would have absolutely NO PROBLEM allowing ten thousand embryos in a freezer die in a fire to save one 5 year old. Or 2 year old. Or newborn. Embryos simply don't have the same value because in order for them to have value, requires a very large investment of resources, starting with a woman to gestate each one of them. And even then... most of them won't make it. The 5 year old, 2 year old and newborn are already here. They have made it. Anyone can take care of them, it doesn't require a biological donation. I'm simply rejecting your notions of moral equivalence. It's a lot of nonsense.

noneimport said...

Are you really saying an appendix has the potential of becoming a sentient human being!? There is nothing more to say.

eroteme said...

Yep.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/s/somatic_cell_nuclear_transfer.htm

Ramanusia said...

Are you really that ignorant about what a diploid DNA content of a cell can accomplish?


You really should remain silent, your lack of a basic understanding of science is showing and it basically exposes the general lack of coherence with your emotional arguments that seek to rationalize robbing women of their autonomy and conferring their basic rights as human beings to tissue with their body. All you keep saying is that cells that are fully human are human beings, thus by your own logic an appendix is quite a population of human beings.


I'm sorry if you think your actual position is truly idiotic, but it's what you choose to keep saying, so yes, it is best that you just not say anymore asinine things. I encourage you to educate yourself, it might cause less embarrassment when you do choose to say things.

noneimport said...

I see that I meant to refer to blueberry and not eroteme. my mistake. and I never stated that I knew your thoughts but rather I spoke to the strength of your argument. And to avoid any further misunderstanding I will state that clearly: I believe your logic to be too weak, naive (I would use another term but I fear you would only understand the vulgar, that means the common, definition, so I will use naive) and poorly researched to continue to a discussion.

eroteme said...

Then prove her argument wrong, Simply saying you think that her logic is weak isn't gonna cut it sonny.

noneimport said...

do you understand what that article is explaining? I do not think you do. it is not saying that a somatic cell is an individual. they are talking about a cloning technique.

eroteme said...

It has the *potential* to become an individual, just like the zygote. It just needs assistance to get there.



The zygote also needs *help* to become an individual - a zygote is nothing more than a genetic blueprint- a tiny snippet of DNA surrounded by a cytoplasm.

noneimport said...

not within the realm of evolution and NOT an individual only a clone. a clone is a replica not a new organism. The technique discussed is considered asexual reproduction, whereas, a zygote is the result of sexual reproduction. mammal offspring tend to be the result of sexual reproduction which utilizes germ cells that give rise to haploids. which, when combined, produce a genetically different organism.

eroteme said...

a clone is a replica not a new organism.


So if a single zygote splits into multiple zygotes the multiples are mere replicas and thus worthless?


Often, in IVF, a single zygote is purposely split, and clones ARE created, in the hope that one will implant. But I guess it would be acceptable to throw them all in the garbage because they are clones right?


Heck, for that matter, according to you, twin newborns can be killed because they are clones of one another eh?

noneimport said...

ha

noneimport said...

To the twins: no, it would be suicide and in many states that is illegal.

in IVF, for now, they do not clone one zygote they fertilize several eggs. and each has DNA that is significantly different than the other. what you are speaking of is not currently used with human IVF, to the best of my knowledge, there is some work being done on food cattle for improved meat production and I think I had heard something about rhesus monkeys, but I am not aware of human use as of yet.

eroteme said...

no, it would be suicide and in many states that is illegal.

That wasn't the question, would it be morally permissible to kill twins because they are biological clones of one another?

in IVF, for now, they do not clone one zygote they fertilize several eggs

They do that, and they ALSO force some blastocysts to split, and they implant those. They implant the twins inside the woman, or quints, or what have you.

noneimport said...

I was being light on the response about the twins. My answer is no, not permissible. I could expound, but why. you are not looking to for a change of thought.
do you seek approval from pro-lifers? if you are not seeking our approval why are you here on this site? Do you think you can convince those of us that believe a child is a child, no matter their stage of development, that we should see them as anything else? do you expect to be convinced that your thoughts on the subject are wrong? Are you reaching out or are you just being a bully? picking on those that you see as different from you?
I am really asking. I do not know your intentions and would like them to be clarified. What is your purpose here...on a pro-life site?
Also, Can you cite some references on the embryonic splitting? As I said, I am not aware of human use of the procedure.

Blueberry said...

If I thought there were a logically consistent or compelling argument for unborn humans not having human rights, and if I didn't think that declaring unborn humans to be inferior completely and utterly destroys any foundation for human equality, I'd be on board with you. As it is, I don't "trust women" to make their own decisions about whether to abort an unborn human being anymore than I "trust women" to make their own decisions about whether to care for, kill, or abandon their newborn. That's why I support laws that don't allow women to do either of the last two things.

Blueberry said...

Missed this one.


"Support, feeding, etc. is not bodily donation."


Of course it is. YOUR body is being used for the benefit of someone else. It is being used for them, and their welfare. You're not actually taking a body part out of you and placing it in another, but that's not the case in pregnancy either. It's not like women somehow have greater autonomy over their womb than over other body parts, or greater autonomy over body parts closer to the center of their body, than to their hands, feet, muscles, breasts, etc.


"Some women cannot do that."


The point of the analogy was to assume that she could, and that no other way existed for the baby to survive. Obviously if she couldn't breastfeed the baby would die, but that would only be analogous to the mother's womb not being capable of carrying the baby.


"Babies are dependent upon adults in general, but a fetus is dependent upon the body of a specific woman."


Again, the point of the analogy is to assume that ONLY the mother can care for the newborn in this particular situation.


In which case the law currently would require that she care for the baby, regardless of how that infringed on her bodily autonomy.


Honestly, even if she could place the baby up for adoption, even requiring her to do that is STILL acknowledging that she has bodily obligations to the child, since she has to drive around, carry the kid, signs forms, etc.


The only conclusion of the child having no rights to the parent's body is that a parent can rightfully dump their child on the ground and walk away.

Blueberry said...

...Which, like the blood donation due to a car accident scenario, is not at all analogous to pregnancy.


Like I said, if cars were inherently designed to hit people but also used recreationally, and if 6,000,000 people a year required life saving transfusions because of being hit by cars (the real number isn't even close), and if they only person who could donate was the driver, we would likely change our policy, and I would be completely fine with requiring the donations. Just replace blood with liver lobe or something, and pretend they can have it back in 9 months.

Plum Dumpling said...

You probably should not have an abortion.
Abortion does not involve newborns.
I think you are nuts. Can I get a witness?

Blueberry said...

"So women should just die?"


Yeah, I've explained why this doesn't make sense already. You could as easily say, of requiring women to drive their sick children to the hospital, "Oh, so women should just die? Because some of them will, undoubtedly." The possibility of a risk maybe arising in the future is not the same as a risk being present now.


Women who are already dying are women who chose not to abort, so abortion becoming illegal wouldn't have prevented their deaths.


And if the parent were the ONLY person who could donate blood, and had personally caused the child's need for it, yes I would require them to donate. I wasn't saying that meeting basic natural needs is the ONLY time in which donations could be required.


And no, I didn't say I would force a stranger to donate blood in a real-life blood transfusion scenario. Your entire comment is full of numerous strawman arguments.


The point is that a child who needs a blood transfusion does NOT, in real life, specifically need their parent's blood, because there is a ton of other blood available, because people already do frequently donate. There are blood banks full of blood that could be used. A real life blood transfusion situation is not analogous to pregnancy for numerous reasons, which is why I made an analogy to make it more similar.


And for the umteenth time, giving a child a chance at life, even if it's a small chance, is not the same as killing or harming them.


Say you had a cloning machine which brought people into existence as toddlers, but there was a 50% chance of death.


This is NOT the same as if you had 4 toddlers, and shot 2 of them.

Blueberry said...

Yeah well, hundreds of subsets of the human population have been declared morally inferior over the years. The people who stood up and claimed that they had rights too were often looked at as radical or crazy. So I guess I'm in good company.


As a side note, EVERY other time, in the long course of human history, where we've decided that certain human beings were inferior, we've been wrong. The odds aren't exactly in favor of pro-choicers being right now.

Plum Dumpling said...

Oh and that logically compelling argument? No problem. I hate it when I agree with Ayn Rand. And then there is the argument in the Talmud I already posted.


"An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn).

Abortion is a moral right—which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body?“Of Living Death”
The Voice of Reason, 58–59

Never mind the vicious nonsense of claiming that an embryo has a “right to life.” A piece of protoplasm has no rights—and no life in the human sense of the term. One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months. To equate apotential with an actual, is vicious; to advocate the sacrifice of the latter to the former, is unspeakable. . . . Observe that by ascribing rights to the unborn, i.e., the nonliving, the anti-abortionists obliterate the rights of the living: the right of young people to set the course of their own lives. The task of raising a child is a tremendous, lifelong responsibility, which no one should undertake unwittingly or unwillingly. Procreation is not a duty: human beings are not stock-farm animals. For conscientious persons, an unwanted pregnancy is a disaster; to oppose its termination is to advocate sacrifice, not for the sake of anyone’s benefit, but for the sake of misery qua misery, for the sake of forbidding happiness and fulfillment to living human beings.“A Last Survey”
The Ayn Rand Letter, IV, 2, 3

Blueberry said...

To declare the embryo or fetus "not yet living" is, frankly, biologically ignorant. There is universal acknowledgement that the fetus or embryo is an individual, living human organism. It's a member of our species. To say that it is not alive until it's born is sheer madness; even a minimal understanding of embryology or a glance at a fetus moving around and sucking its thumb on the ultrasound shows that.


And no, procreation is not a duty. Ensuring that your offspring get adequate food, nutrition, etc. AFTER you have procreated (conceived) is a duty.

Plum Dumpling said...

A fetus is not 'living' until it survives to and through birth. Until then, the host Mother lives for the fetus. I have now, with the below, given you TWO logical arguments for abortion.


And then for argument 2, we have the argument from the Talmud. Jesus never mentioned abortion because these are rules Jesus followed. The passages about the Sotah in Numbers tell us about abortion as a trial by ordeal for adultery, proof being the/a miscarried fetus.

"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.

Plum Dumpling said...

Americans support Roe v. Wade at more than 50% steadily for more than 40 years.
http://www.pewforum.org/2008/09/16/a-slight-but-steady-majority-favors-keeping-abortion-legal/

A fetus is not a human being. A fetus does not meet the requirements for 'human being' or 'legal person' until it survives to and through birth.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/badcatholic/2013/01/catholic-hospital-claims-fetus-is-not-a-person.html

A fetus is human, it is alive, it may be unwanted. Women will abort said unwanted fetus whether abortion is legal or illegal.

Blueberry said...

"A fetus is not living until it survives to and through birth."

I'm sorry but...every single biology and embryology textbook disagrees with you. Seriously, if you have a credible scientific source saying that a fetus is not a living human organism prior to birth, I'll eat my hat. The biological humanity, and status as a living organism, of the fetus is virtually universally accepted.

Even Planned Parenthood admits that zygotes and embryos are human organisms, not just tissue or a random cell. http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-info/glossary#alpha_e


A few of many, many sources.

https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html

http://clinicquotes.com/category/quotes/scientists-speak/

http://bdfund.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/wi_whitepaper_life_print.pdf

A fetus, like all living things, needs to be in an environment where it can get adequate nutrition, oxygen, etc. It just so happens that the only way a fetus prior to ~24 weeks can get those things is through the placenta, and that, presently, the only thing a placenta can really attach to is the womb. If we make artificial wombs, fetuses won't suddenly go from non-living to living. Getting nutrition and oxygen through the umbilical cord rather than the esophagus and lungs doesn't disqualify the fetus from being a living thing.

Jesus never mentioned kitten killing either. That doesn't mean I should infer that it's okay.

I don't subscribe to the rules that current Jewish leaders have set up, and I think there are numerous places both in the new and old testaments that show the value of unborn human beings.

Also saying that it's okay to remove the fetus if the mother's life is threatened doesn't mean that the fetus is inferior. If the fetus can't survive without the mother, and she dies, they'll both be dead. One death is preferable to two.

Blueberry said...

Pardon my French but most Americans don't know shit about Roe vs. Wade. They know "it made abortion legal," and since they don't think ALL abortion should be legal all the time, and overturning Supreme Court decisions sounds radical and extreme and scary, they go with it.

Roe vs. Wade and Doe vs. Bolton made purely elective abortion legal extremely late into pregnancy. But most Americans oppose abortion either all or most of the time: http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2014/03/10/cnn-poll-58-percent-of-americans-oppose-abortion-in-all-or-most-circumstances-n1806283

The criteria for personhood have been debated for centuries, frequently with the intention of deliberately excluding an inconvenient, different, or easily exploitable group.



Also whether the fetus meets the criteria for "legal person" has nothing to do with whether it is actually a person. Blacks at one point did not meet the criteria for legal personhood, but they were still people, with human rights.


What criteria do you think a newborn meets for moral personhood, if being a human being isn't enough to secure personhood/human rights?


Making abortion illegal will very likely drop the abortion rate (I've heard from quite a few women who openly said that wouldn't have done it if it were illegal, or essentially figured it must be moral because it was legally allowed), but no, it won't stop all abortions. No law stops any action 100%. That doesn't mean there shouldn't be laws. Besides, the goal is also to provide better for women and children (something many pro-lifers are dedicated to), promote adoption, and influence public awareness so that people better understand the horror of abortion and why it is wrong. (After all, a lot of crime is prevented by people's own consciences, not by the law. I'm sure more people would abuse their animals than at present if they had no moral objections, even if it was still illegal.)

Plum Dumpling said...

Roe v. Wade came into existence to regulate abortion because of religious protest by clergy and popular protest by Americans of laws making abortion illegal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Collective
http://womenshistory.about.com/od/abortionus/p/clergy_abortion.htm



Effectively, there is now no regulation of any kind on abortion in America and YOU and your pals did it. And you stupids are proud of yourselves. LMAO.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/03/back-alley-abortions_n_5065301.html



Now the maiming and the deaths and the fetuses in school bathrooms begins in earnest. They will all be reported in minute detail. Folks will be horrified again. A new law will be passed and abortion will never be illegal in the US again ever.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2740707/Fetus-trash-Texas-high-school-bathroom-Police-believe-student-gave-birth-class-time.html

http://www.care2.com/causes/13-year-old-performs-abortion-at-home-time-to-rethink-parental-notification-laws.html

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/09/12/1130718/-Finally-a-Limit-Is-Reached-Ninth-Circuit-Rules-McCormack-Can-t-Be-Prosecuted-For-Her-Abortion

Plum Dumpling said...

Arguendo:

My body and its contents belongs to (pick one):
1. You.
2. the State.
3. Me and my family.

My children belong with and to:
1. You.
2. the State.
3. Me and my family.

Plum Dumpling said...

Also whether the fetus meets the criteria for "legal person" has nothing to do with whether it is actually a person. Blacks at one point did not meet the criteria for legal personhood, but they were still people, with human rights.

.............
Were Slaves attached to the Master by umbilical cord and battening on the Master's flesh and blood? What a crappy analogy.

Plum Dumpling said...

"Making abortion illegal will very likely drop the abortion rate"
..........
Women have been aborting for eons. You cannot stop abortion; you can only kill and maim women.
Why do you cultists lie so much? Simple. The truth does not serve you. Women have the same number of abortions, legal or illegal. My Mother had an abortion when it was illegal.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/12/news/12iht-12abortion.7863868.html?_r=0

William Cable said...

False Dichotomies all - Your body belongs to you, but just because it belongs to you doesn't mean you can do whatever you want with it. As the saying goes your right to choose ends were your fist meets someone else's face. Your child does not 'belong' to anyone, they belong to themselves. As their parent you have certain prerogatives over how they are raised educated etc. but you also have a duty of care towards them.

Plum Dumpling said...

'Your body belongs to you, but just because it belongs to you doesn't mean you can do whatever you want with it.'
...............
A dichotomy is a choice among two alternatives. I gave you three alternatives. You refuse to answer and make shyte up. Typical cultist behavior.

I have encountered this argument before. I actually wrote a long essay in response. You may read it here. Or not. What one 'can do' has no relationship to what one may actually do.
http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-practical-limitations-of-government.html

'Your child does not 'belong' to anyone, they belong to themselves.'

...........
Disingenuous silly argument. There is more than one meaning for 'belong.' And the sense in which I am using 'belong' is made more than clear by my language and the sequence of the questions.


You either have reading comprehension issues or you are dishonest in the service of your forced birth cult. I vote for the latter. Not one of you forced birth cultists is sane or ethical/truthful.

Plum Dumpling said...

I gave you more than two choices. I gave you the entire universe of choices.
When you are willing to honestly answer the question(s), get back to me.

Plum Dumpling said...

Quote:
Your body belongs to you, but just because it belongs to you doesn't mean you can do whatever you want with it. As the saying goes your right to choose ends were your fist meets someone else's face.
..............
I addressed this argument at length because forced birth cultists use it so often. Silly argument in the face of reality.
http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-practical-limitations-of-government.htm

Plum Dumpling said...

Laughing at you. You think you can baffle me with BS and sheer number of words. How much of that crap did you cut and paste? You have not made a germane response yet.

Plum Dumpling said...

I did not give you a dichotomy of choices. That would be two choices only. I gave you the universe of choices. There are no other choices. You are either dishonest or you do not understand the questions. Maybe both.

Blueberry said...

Hur, hur. You're the one throwing out pointless insults and name calling. Sorry for taking your arguments seriously and trying to give thorough and thoughtful replies. (Or rebuttals, since several of the points you mentioned are demonstrably false.) I just thought maybe you were interested in an actual reasonable discussion. If not, then good bye, and have a nice day.

Plum Dumpling said...

Pazzo!

lady_black said...

Those are NOT bodily donations.

lady_black said...

Yes there is a definite duty of care to children. CHILDREN. Not zygotes, embryos or fetuses. There is no duty of care toward them.

eroteme said...

Let's review shall we.

She says that caretaking = full body donation
She opposes forced blood transfusions - even though that is a body part donation
She is in favour of forced breastfeeding - which removes milk, which belongs to the woman, and give it to someone else(which is why she is against forced blood transfusions)
If full bodily donation is morally acceptable, then what is wrong with slavery and rape?

I am sure that you can see the contradictions and inconsistencies here.

She keeps bringing up the responsibility objection, yet she would force a rape victim to gestate. She said that shed throw a parent out of a plane to save a child if that parent was the only one with a parachute. But, since she is for forced gestation in the case of rape, then she would be morally obligated to throw everyone out of the plane who has a parachute.

She doesn't think that abortion is justified because not nearly enough women die from pregnancy. Do you think that she would still want abortion to be illegal if *only* 800 prenates were aborted per yeaer?

Most offensive of all, she believes that anorexics are so mentally incompetent that they can't make decisions - such as the decision to have sex

eroteme said...

So if someone is raping you, you can't defend your body because you will be infringing on the rapists bodily integrity?

lady_black said...

A fetus "needing" your body doesn't create a right to have your body.

lady_black said...

No we would NOT likely change our policy, dear. It isn't about numbers of people in need. It's about our bodily autonomy. You cannot strap me down and force me to give of my blood or any other tissues even if someone, or a whole lot of some ones will die without it. You are the one pretending, with your existential angst that a fetus has rights that you and I do not have, or that parents have some innate duty toward unborn children that they do not have toward born children. Pregnancy is totally NOT anything like changing diapers and giving a bottle of formula. The main difference being that anyone can change that diaper or give that formula. It doesn't require the 24/7 presence of a specific person. Subsequent to giving birth, we don't force people to parent. The parents don't even have to take the infant home from the hospital. If they do take the infant home, they have assumed a duty to care for it. If not, it becomes a ward of the state, and will be relinquished for adoption. One cannot drop an embryo off at the hospital and walk away. And you cannot force women to care for a prenate any more than you can force her to care for a newborn.

eroteme said...

On a side note, I'm not arguing that "abortion should be illegal because
the Bible says it's wrong." I'm just replying to your comments


Numbers 5, abortion totes acceptable if a woman is accused of adultery.

Biologically, the fetus is a living human being, whether it's born or not.

So is a partial mole, a braindead yet still living cadaver, and a parastic twin.

Respectfully, you haven't given any scientific source saying that the
fetus is not a living human organism, a biological entity who is a member of our species


Doesn't automatically follow that it's a person, though. That's your problem.

Basically, the idea that outlawing abortion will result in all these
dead and maimed women who got back alley abortions just doesn't seem to
be at all supported by the facts.


Meh, if only a few hundred women die from unsafe/illegal abortion, and from all those forced births, it doesn't really matter, because dead women = a mere statistic, and women, as a group, according to you do not have the inalienable right to life, freedom or privacy

And, respectfully, I don't consider it convincing. Like I said, allowing the fetus to be removed if the alternative is the mother dying (and consequently likely the fetus too) doesn't mean the fetus is considered
inferior.



She put it there by having sex, why should it pay with it's life in order to save hers. By removing it, you are essentially saying that the woman is more valuable, yes. At least the RCC is consistent and wants them both to die.

eroteme said...

Yeah, I've explained why this doesn't make sense already.

It does make sense. People have the *inalienable* right to life, freedom and liberty. Murder and slavery would STILL be wrong if only ONE person was affected.

You seem to believe that life and other 'rights' should only be granted based on statistics.

Would you still oppose abortion if there was a chance that only 1,000 fetuses were killed per year? Would you just chalk it down to a 'minor risk' and leave it at that?

Women who are already dying are women who chose not to abort, so abortion becoming illegal wouldn't have prevented their deaths.

If you force every woman to gestate, more women will die, That is a fact. But again, they are just statistics, right, so their lives don't matter?

There are blood banks full of blood that could be used

Again, you are basing your morality on statistics. And no, blood doesn't exist in an infinite supply. You keep talking about parental responsibility, yet you draw the line where it might be an inconvenience to certain people. Are you one of those people who would rather use someone else's blood than donate your own? Giving blood is way safer than pregnancy.

And for the umteenth time, giving a child a chance at life, even if it's
a small chance, is not the same as killing or harming them


Nope. If the woman's womb is an unsafe place, and innocent embryos are continually implanted in the hope that one will survive, and 90% die, then that is no different than throwing a bunch of babies in the pool to drown and hoping that one might figure out how to swim.

eroteme said...

Also whether the fetus meets the criteria for "legal person" has nothing
to do with whether it is actually a person. Blacks at one point did not
meet the criteria for legal personhood, but they were still people,
with human rights.



Blacks have *always* met the criteria. Only, their humanity - sentience - sapience, thoughts feelings empathy etc was denied.


What is the difference between a walking, talking feeling, suffering black person and a zygote/ Can you tell the class?

eroteme said...

Of course it is. YOUR body is being used for the benefit of someone else

Well if it's bodily donation, then surely nurses can be conscripted to literally breathe for their patients yeah? Just hook the nurse up to a patient who doesn't have functioning lungs, and the nurse can breathe for them?

Heck, i suppose you could also do the same with kidneys...liver...spleen...anything the patient can't do, just hook the nurse up and force the nurse's body to perform all of the metabolic functions for the patient yeah?

You're not actually taking a body part out of you and placing it in another, but that's not the case in pregnancy either


So rape is ok, because the rapist isn't removing the woman's vagina?

eroteme said...

Again, you are arguing based on


1) statistics


2) naturalistic fallacies


You are religious, aren't you? I guess that's why all the 'natural law' bullshit keeps seeping in.


Also, I would like for you to explain how forcing people to donate body parts after a car crash would be implemented. Details, please. Organ matches, age of the 'offender', blood matches, what if the offender is in multiple accidents, do we just slowly remove all their organs until they die?

eroteme said...

My answer is no, not permissible. I could expound, but why. you are not looking to for a change of thought.

I would like it if you were to elaborate.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1110569010000403

Guest said...

He allegedly says it here:

https://web.archive.org/web/20060831213948/http://www.dr-tiller.com/images/latekills.mp3


That's all I can find. I suppose you could deny that the audio is real, though it's hard to know for sure either way.

Plum Dumpling said...

This is an answer? Allegedly?

Bert_1 said...

The Talmud states no such thing. The closest the Torah comes to mentioning abortion is in the case of a man hitting a pregnant woman causing her to miscarry. That's it. However, the way it is worded ( When two men fight, and one of them pushes a pregnant woman so that her fruit be expelled, but no harm (ason) befall (her), then shall he be fined as her husband shall assess, and the matter placed before the judges. But if harm (ason) befall (her), then shall you give life for life) Strongly suggests that the ancient Jews considered the mother and child to be completely separate lives, not one.

Bert_1 said...

Children, ALL children, have the right to life.

Bert_1 said...

But, what percentage of those pro-lifers who truly believe that abortionists are psycho killers (I have no idea what percentage of pro-lifers that would be. I assume low. Most believe that they are killers but not necessarily psycho) would agree that killing abortionists is an acceptable solution?

Plum Dumpling said...

Liar.

Bert_1 said...

That's a direct quote from the Torah. If you believe it is in error, take it up with the author.

Bert_1 said...

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations." Jeremiah 1:5

Plum Dumpling said...

Liar.
http://www.jewfaq.org/sex.htm

Bert_1 said...

People commit murder whether it is legal or not. Does that mean we should legalize it?

Plum Dumpling said...

Bugger off, pompous liar.

Plum Dumpling said...

Jehovah is a proabort.
Hosea 13:16
The word of the Lord ...
The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open."

Bert_1 said...

You call that "pro-abort"? It is stated as a punishment - that people will die, including the pre-born. That shows that God considers the pre-born to be every bit as sacred as the born. All are human beings.

Plum Dumpling said...

Nope. Shows the Bible god cared nothing for fetuses. As do the Sotah passages in Numbers. It is blasphemy IMO to teach the Bible when you know nothing at all about it.

Plum Dumpling said...

Bert types lies whether he knows it or not. Does that mean he is stupid?

Bert_1 said...

If God truly doesn't care about pre-born children, why mention it? If He doesn't care then there is no difference between a pregnant woman dying and a non-pregnant woman dying. The mere fact that the women's pregnancy was mentioned at all tells us that there is some degree of significance to that fact.

Bert_1 said...

If I have lied, testify to the lie. If I haven't lied, why do you falsely accuse me of such things?

Plum Dumpling said...

Quote: The Talmud states no such thing.

Plum Dumpling said...

All children everywhere have been born.

Bert_1 said...

Which is true. Nowhere does the Talmud state the things you claim it states. Abortion is not supported or condoned anywhere in the Talmud or the Bible.

Bert_1 said...

Except for the ones who haven't been yet, yes.

Plum Dumpling said...

I proved that is a lie. You failed to read the proof. You like lies. I hate a liar worse than a thief. A thief steals things. A liar tries to steal the truth.

Bert_1 said...

I haven't seen any proof from you. For that matter, all I have seen is proof by others that what you said was wrong.


Regardless, the rejection of an argument does not make the response a lie. I have only seen your comments on two articles so far and it appears that when you have nothing to support your position, you resort to name calling and insults. I have lied about nothing. I may disagree with you but I haven't lied.

Plum Dumpling said...

No point in conversing with a pompous liar. Bye bye now.

Bert_1 said...

Odd... I was thinking the same thing.

eroteme said...

numbers 5

eroteme said...

If your imaginary skydaddy truly cared about unborn humans, he wouldn't force approximately 70% to spontanously abort or fail to implant.

eroteme said...

Ok, so not psycho killers, just cold hearted killers


i assume that you also agree that killing a woman who wants to abort is also an acceptable solution? The murderous bitch!

Bert_1 said...

I don't agree that killing anyone is an acceptable solution.

Bert_1 said...

Why?

eroteme said...

Yeah? Even if they are raping the shit out of you and killing them is the ONLY way to escape?

Bert_1 said...

Numbers 5 deals with adultery not abortion.

Bert_1 said...

Killing someone can be, in certain circumstances, justifiable. It is never simply acceptable.

eroteme said...

Why what

eroteme said...

Yes, and if the woman is guilty of adultery it causes her womb to empty and she is rendered infertile


that = abortion

Bert_1 said...

Why should 70% of pregnancies autoterminate?

eroteme said...

Abortion is not unjust killing. Women have the right to protect their bodily autonomy from unwanted persons and things - that includes rapists, embryos and parasites.

eroteme said...

Because nature ie your god doesn't give a shit about zygotic life, that's why.

Bert_1 said...

It doesn't say that she us pregnant. It describes a test for adultery. If she fails, she may die or become barren. Some translations do say "miscarry" but that us generally considered to be an inaccurate translation.

Bert_1 said...

Parasites aren't't human so no contest. Rapists are committing a violent crime that may very well end the woman's life so homicide may be justifiable. Pregnancy is neither of those. Why should anyone have the right to kill another human being just because s/he is inconvenient?

Bert_1 said...

You aren't making sense.

eroteme said...

It doesn't have to say that she is pregnant.


The point of the test is to discover if she has been sleeping around - and if she has, it empties her womb *(abortion) and renders her infertile *(simply rendering her infertile will result in an abortion)


Try to keep up.

eroteme said...

Explain how.

eroteme said...

Oh, so being HUMAN gives someone the right to occupy the body of another human.


Ok, I need to occupy your body, without your consent, for 9 months to save my life. In fact, this should be government mandated. And if it kills or harms you, too bad so sad, but my right to use your body for life support overrides your right to your body.


You would find that acceptable?

Bert_1 said...

When I get home I will post the exact passage

lady_black said...

Nope, there is no "right to life."

Bert_1 said...

Pregnancy is a natural process. Your occupying my body, if at all possible, is not.

lady_black said...

How so? Are you immortal? If you are not immortal, you have no "right to life." And what you CERTAINLY don't have is the right to use the body of another to sustain your life. The fetal "you" had no such right, either.

eroteme said...

Naturalistic fallacy.


1) rape is natural


2) a parasitic worm living inside of you is also natural, in fact, they co-evolved to live in our guts

lady_black said...

Learn to read for comprehension. She said TALMUD, not Torah.

eroteme said...

I would think death trumps inconvenience.

yeah? So my right to life overrides your right to be inconvenienced by the list above?

Do you think you'd find permanent diabetes to be a mere inconveninience?

How about having to wear a colostomy bag for the rest of your life? Also a tiny inconvenience?

Bleeding gums?

Anemia?

Hypertension?

Constant and unending vomiting and nausea for 9 months?

Should you be FORCED to undergo any of those to save a life because diabetes = minorly inconvenient?

lady_black said...

In some situations, it is an acceptable solution.

lady_black said...

Contradictory fiddle-faddle. I have news for you, sweetie. If someone is aiming to harm me, I'll kill him and sleep like a baby. YOU can just get over it.

lady_black said...

Yeah... there isn't any "child" and even if there were... I don't have to fork over my body for it.

lady_black said...

Fallacy of appeal to nature.

Bert_1 said...

1 And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 12 “Speak to the people of Israel, If any man's wife goes astray and breaks faith with him, 13 if a man lies with her sexually, and it is hidden from the eyes of her husband, and she is undetected though she has defiled herself, and there is no witness against her, since she was not taken in the act, 14 and if the spirit of jealousy comes over him and he is jealous of his wife who has defiled herself, or if the spirit of jealousy comes over him and he is jealous of his wife, though she has not defiled herself, 15 then the man shall bring his wife to the priest and bring the offering required of her, a tenth of an ephah[c] of barley flour. He shall pour no oil on it and put no frankincense on it, for it is a grain offering of jealousy, a grain offering of remembrance, bringing iniquity to remembrance.

16 “And the priest shall bring her near and set her before the Lord. 17 And the priest shall take holy water in an earthenware vessel and take some of the dust that is on the floor of the tabernacle and put it into the water. 18 And the priest shall set the woman before the Lord and unbind the hair of the woman's head and place in her hands the grain offering of remembrance, which is the grain offering of jealousy. And in his hand the priest shall have the water of bitterness that brings the curse. 19 Then the priest shall make her take an oath, saying, ‘If no man has lain with you, and if you have not turned aside to uncleanness while you were under your husband's authority, be free from this water of bitterness that brings the curse. 20 But if you have gone astray, though you are under your husband's authority, and if you have defiled yourself, and some man other than your husband has lain with you, 21 then’ (let the priest make the woman take the oath of the curse, and say to the woman) ‘the Lord make you a curse and an oath among your people, when the Lord makes your thigh fall away and your body swell.22 May this water that brings the curse pass into your bowels and make your womb swell and your thigh fall away.’ And the woman shall say, ‘Amen, Amen.’





No mention of pregnancy, miscarriage or abortion.

Bert_1 said...

You state that if God cared about pre-born children, He would cause 70% of them to abort.


I asked why.


You answered because He doesn't care. Doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Bert_1 said...

Rape is natural???


As I said, the parasite is not human.

eroteme said...

yeah. God is all powerful.


You'd think he could stop 70% of unborn humans from miscarrying, don't you agree?

Bert_1 said...

How so?

eroteme said...

wife to the priest and bring the offering required of her, a tenth of an ephah[c] of barley flour.

Rotting grain from the temple floor. It is an abortifacient.

‘If no man has lain with you, and if you have not turned aside to
uncleanness while you were under your husband's authority, be free from
this water of bitterness that brings the curse.


Yeah, if she's been fucking another guy, her husband's worry is that she's having someone else's children, and this is a big no no no because INHERITANCES only went to sons, and if she has a son with another man...bad news.

makes your thigh fall away and your body swell.22 May this water that
brings the curse pass into your bowels and make your womb swell and your
thigh fall away



And 'thigh' is a euphemism for miscarriage. Her vagina will empty, including all of it's contents, and she will be rendered infertile

Bert_1 said...

Virtually every country has a constitution that has, as one of its first rights, if not THE first right, the right to life. That right extends until our death and specifies that no one has the right to prematurely terminate our life without due cause.

Bert_1 said...

The Torah is the written version of the traditional oral Talmud.

eroteme said...

Yep, rape is natural. Rape is a reproductive strategy which enables men to spread their genes without having to put forth any of their resources.

It doesn't matter if the parasite is human or not, you are arguing that prengancy is wonderful because it's natural and what uteruses were made for - well, parasites evolved to live inside our guts, and it's completely natural...

Read this

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/helminthic-therapy-mucus/

Bert_1 said...

Yes. And, no, I do not know why He chooses that one should survive and another should not.

Bert_1 said...

Rape is an unnatural implementation of a natural act.


Killing a parasite is not the same as killing a human. Especially if the parasite is potentially fatal for the host, which many are.

eroteme said...

Nope.

Rape is an evolutionary reproductive strategy. 100pct natural

http://courses.washington.edu/evpsych/rape.pdf

Killing a parasite is not the same as killing a human

Stop moving the fucking goalposts. You stated that natural = good. Clearly, natural is NOT good, and just because something *evolved* to use one of your body parts does not mean that it has a right to it.

eroteme said...

Take a wild guess.

Bert_1 said...

You are trying to take things in isolation and defining whether they are good or bad. Parasites can be good - as in the article you provided a link to. Parasites can also be fatal. Just like bacteria. Certain bacteria in your gut in necessary for a properly functioning gut. Other bacteria in the same place can kill you. Both are natural but both are not good. Plus, parasites, not being human, do not have the right to life.


Rape is a violent act and, therefore, is not acceptable. Yes, the sex part is natural but the implementation is, as I have said, not.


Breathing is natural but it will kill you underwater or in the presence of certain gases.


And I am not moving the goal posts. I called pregnancy natural in comparison to you occupying my body. It was a ridiculous comparison to begin with but the natural aspect of a pregnancy is not the only criteria for supporting it.

Bert_1 said...

I do not have the mind of God so, no, I will not guess.

eroteme said...

You are trying to take things in isolation and defining whether they are good or bad.

I'm not taking anything in isolation. You are stating that pregnancy is intriniscally good, no matter the pain and suffering it causes the woman, because it's 'a natural process'

Is pregnancy also 'good' because it can 'naturally 'kill the woman? Maim her? Cause her lots of pain and suffering?

Rape is a violent act and, therefore, is not acceptable

Some rapes can cause less damage to a woman's body than a pregnancy. Birth is especially violent - 6-72 hours of *intense* pain followed by a large object being shoved out a tiny hole. If such assaults were induced by a means other than pregnancy, it would be considered TORTURE.

Yes, the sex part is natural but the implementation is, as I have said, not.

The implemention is completely natural, it's an evolutionary adaptation. Deal with it. Nature is NEVER fair. Did you know that ducks mate exclusively by raping females?

And I am not moving the goal posts


Yes you are. I pointed out the flaw with your naturalistic fallacy, and you fall back on 'but it's human'. Yeah well, rapists are human, I'm human too - and rapists have no more of a right to your body than I have to your body - even if our very lives depend upon it.

Bert_1 said...

The grain referred to in the passage is to be provided by the husband, not scraped up off the floor.


The Commandment being addressed deals with adultery, not inheritance.


Do yo have any references for your claim that "thigh" means "miscarriage"? I have never seen that in any discussion of that passage.

eroteme said...

Nope, the grain is taken from the temple floor.

The Commandment being addressed deals with adultery, not inheritance.

No shit, Sherlock. And people back then were OBSESSED with adultery and it was a VERY VERY VERY serious crime because a man had to MAKE SURE that his inheritance when to HIS KID and not some dude his wife was FUCKING ON THE SIDE.

http://www.keithhunt.com/Sex1.html

In the Bible, euphemisms for the sexual organs include such terms as "secrets" (Deuteronomy 25:11), "stones" (Deuteronomy
23:1), "loins" (Genesis 46:26), "thigh" (Genesis 24:2), "privy member" (Deuteronomy 23:1), "fountain" (Leviticus 20:18), and "the place of the breaking forth of children" (Hosea 13:13).

Bert_1 said...

Yes, pregnancy is a natural process and I have heard that a few women have even survived the ordeal over the years.


So, are you suggesting that it is OK for me to assault you as long as I don't inflict any permanent damage to you?


Rape is violent and wrong. You cannot justify it by how much damage the rape does to the woman. Even if it does no damage at all, it is still rape and it is still wrong. Unless you are a duck, I guess.


Rape is not natural. It is a violent crime and you cannot justify it by how much damage is done to the victim or if some animals engage in something similar.

Bert_1 said...

"then the man shall bring his wife to the priest and bring the offering required of her, a tenth of an ephah[c] of barley flour"


The man provides it.


The people were concerned about adultery because it violated one of the Commandments. It had nothing to do with inheritance.

eroteme said...

Yes, pregnancy is a natural process and I have heard that a few women have even survived the ordeal over the years.

Yes, cancer is a natural process and I have heard that a few women have even survived the ordeal over the years.

So, are you suggesting that it is OK for me to assault you as long as I don't inflict any permanent damage to you?

That's your argument.

Rape is violent and wrong. You cannot justify it by how much damage the
rape does to the woman. Even if it does no damage at all, it is still
rape and it is still wrong.


Why, it's natural?

Rape is not natural.

You keep saying that, but you can't back it up, either logically or with science.

Do some reading:

http://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&lr=&id=a2TTPKFUXgkC&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=rape+evolutionary+adaptation&ots=noFDKnvcnM&sig=cBH-JH4kOyO4-7_ZsFJdeX9ytrg#v=onepage&q=rape%20evolutionary%20adaptation&f=false

http://www.mta.ca/~ogould/FLIPS/Flips5McKibbin.pdf

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/features/why-men-want-to-rape/150003.article


--------


Rape is an evolutionary mating strategy.


There are two types of mating strategies in nature - tournament and pair bonding. Ducks = tournament. Humans = right in the middle, pair bonding and tournament.


Tournament mating = trying to trick the opposite sex into making a bigger investment into propagating your genes than you do. Rape is the strategy used by males to propagate their genes without the material investment. Rape lots of women, if some kids survive, your genes have been propagated. This is operating at the genetic level - selfish genes exist to replicate themselves.
Females try to get the upper hand by cuckolding - by sleeping with men who are not their pair bond, and then tricking their pair bond mate into putting all of his resources into raising the other man's child.


Your welcome.

eroteme said...

Yeah, he brings an offering, and it goes on the floor, and the grains from the floor + other materials create the abortifiacient

Bert_1 said...

Offerings were put on the altar, not the floor.

eroteme said...

Dust was scraped from the temple floor

And the altar, in case you didn't know, was covered in rotting blood from sacrifices

Bert_1 said...

So, you are deducing that the grain was an abortifacient, then.

eroteme said...

The grain + the dust + the rotting blood

Bert_1 said...

Deduction. No specific reference from the Bible or other sources.

eroteme said...

Well then why do her 'bowels' and her uterus empty, genius?

Bert_1 said...

It is supernatural. It is a curse.

eroteme said...

I am sorry, but no. Try to stick with reality.

Bert_1 said...

That is reality. It is what the Bible says.

eroteme said...

The bible was written by men.

Bert_1 said...

For this conversation, it doesn't matter who wrote it. It says that there was a curse put on the woman.

eroteme said...

Yes, and it was written by men. Pure fantasy.

Bert_1 said...

Irrelevant. You asked why the women suffers as a result of the procedure outlined. It states that it was a curse. Whether you believe it or not does not change what it says.

eroteme said...

Curse = god works in mysterious ways


Which is NOT a valid answer

lady_black said...

NO, it is NOT. They are two different things.

lady_black said...

No sweetie. There is no "right to life" in the U.S. Constitution. What the Constitution says is that no person may be deprived of life, property or liberty without due process. That doesn't translate to a "right to life." One thing in particular that the Constitution doesn't guarantee is the right to use anyone else's body to sustain your life. I get the feeling you have never even READ the Constitution, because you have ignorantly misquoted the first amendment. And the words "right to life" don't appear in any part of the Bill of Rights or any subsequent amendments either. "Due process" refers to actions by the government and does not mean and is not synonymous with "due cause." Many forms of killing are considered justified, and any form of denying another person a bodily donation isn't considered "killing them" in any way, shape or form. Example: You and I share a rare blood type. I need blood or I will die, and you are the only person immediately available with the type of blood I need. You may decide to give me some of your blood and save my life, or maybe you don't agree to do so. No law can compel you, even if it means I die. In similar fashion, woman are not compelled to bodily donation for a fetus, which actually involves all of her vital organs, i.e. her entire body. Not for nine months. Not for nine minutes.

lady_black said...

I'm not your logic tutor. I charge $20 an hour for tutoring. Look up that fallacy, which comes into play when someone asserts that because something is "natural" it is therefore good, right, justified, and safe. It's called a fallacy because it's a disingenuous and illogical argument. Pregnancy might be "natural" but it is not always good, not always right and definitely not always safe.

Arekushieru said...

Well, Canada must be an outlier, then. Considering that it's the only NATION where abortion is decriminalized. And, lo and behold, abortion rates, here, are slightly lower than those in the States.

lady_black said...

Well, in all fairness, abortion isn't criminalized in the U.S.A. either. Some people would very much like it to be, but Roe and Doe are still good law here.

lady_black said...

No. Let me explain something to you. A person doesn't abort out of "convenience." Having an abortion is decidedly inconvenient. It's expensive. It's unpleasant. So is pregnancy. Someone who can't afford another child, who is at risk of job loss, who is experiencing health problems is not acting out of "convenience." They are operating out of self-preservation and the preservation of the family they are already responsible for. In many states, a woman can be penalized in public assistance funds for having too many children. In ALL states, a woman can be fired from her job for taking too much time off. If she isn't full-time and been employed at her present employer for a year, she's entitled to NO time off under FMLA, even that is unpaid. Certain people think it's perfectly fine for her employer to deny her coverage for contraception, too. You can't have it all ways, kiddo. You want to decrease abortion? Here's how: Make sure contraception is free of burdensome costs because it's covered by insurance and I mean ALL types. Don't vote for politicians that refuse to expand Medicaid. Don't vote for politicians that want to cut funds for SNAP and WIC. Write your representatives and request that they support job protections for pregnant women. Ask that they subsidize day care for low income working moms. In other words, start treating women decently so that they won't believe they have no other viable choice.

Guest said...

No, lying is intentionally making a false statement. For example, I would be lying if I said that abortion rates are the highest in the Bible Belt because I know that to be false. Providing a source (that I admit to be questionable) for a quote after you ask for it is not lying. It's not a quote I would personally use, since I try not to make any claims that I can't back up with good sources. But if the quote is real, it would be pretty damaging to the narrative given in After Tiller. So I stand by my original post.

But I digress. I'm engaging the Goldfish Poop Gang after I said I wasn't going to. I need to stop.

Plum Dumpling said...

LIAR.

Plum Dumpling said...

You knew it was a bad source when you posted it. You are a liar.

thisispainful said...

I am 1000 times stupider from having read Blueberry's replies. What is the point in trying to have a discussion with someone who can't even comprehend the very simple meaning of bodily autonomy, or refuses to acknowledge the actual meaning of the term? You can't just make it mean what you want it to mean, Blueberry, and you're being wilfully ignorant. Your posts are filled with inconsistencies. If you want to be against abortion, go ahead but just say that you think right to life trumps bodily autonomy. And if you want to be consistent, wear the consequences of that statement, with all the horrible things that implies, or just acknowledge that your ideology is inconsistent. Honestly, admitting to inconsistencies will be less embarrassing than you having to struggle through this debate, where you are quite clearly out of your depth.

Jennifer Starr said...

And 75% have that right. But that's not going to be everyone.

Jennifer Starr said...

Flagged for being a terrorist.

Jennifer Starr said...

Haven't you heard of Donald Spitz, head of the terrorist group Army of God?

Plum Dumpling said...

Wrong. Simplistic and wrong.
http://www.jewfaq.org/torah.htm

Plum Dumpling said...

What child? There is no child until I make it out of my flesh and blood and successfully push it out of my body. i will decide when and if to do that. Not YOU.

Plum Dumpling said...

Stick 'natural' up your cloaca.


Childbirth is the leading cause of death for young women 15-19 in developing countries where all is 'natural.'


This is the argument used to prevent pain relief for laboring women. Childbirth from sepsis and hemorrhage are two of the leading causes of maternal death worldwide. The third is illegal abortion.

Plum Dumpling said...

Vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan says that he personally believes that rape is just another “method of conception” and not an excuse to allow abortions.

Plum Dumpling said...

I want to let everybody know that the downvote button still works. You can purchase a program that will show you how many downvotes a poster has gotten.
Downvote this sucker. Speaking as a disqus moderator, I can see how many downvotes a person has gotten, their overall reputation, and their email.

Plum Dumpling said...

It is not the only direct quote from the Torah that mentions miscarriage/abortion. There are the passages about the Sotah in Numbers. Abortion as a tool of civil law.
STOP TEACHING THE BIBLE when you know nothing about it. THAT IS BLASPHEMY.

Plum Dumpling said...

Correct.

Russell Crawford said...

There are more important things that are being hid from the public. For example there are 1.8 born babies, children and adults, 1.4 induced abortions and 10 miscarriages dying each ---- second----. Pro lifers have a choice, they may save one of the 1.8 innocent babies dying each second or they can let them die and attempt to force the birth of a fetus instead. If they attempt to save the fetus, the 1.8 born babies die. They may also choose between saving the 10 wanted fetuses that die each second or the 1.4 unwanted fetuses that die. Of course their choice is to let the 10 fetuses die and attempt to save the unwanted fetus.

What we have here is a failure to communicate. Pro lifers communicate that they are "saving" life when in fact they make the intentional choice to let innocent babies die, that is eugenics, that is not saving life.

eroteme said...

Anything for my favorite fruit pastry

Russell Crawford said...

The zygote is in fact a fused egg and sperm. So you are equating an egg and sperm to a baby. Which is fine if you really mean to do that. But for the sake of accuracy you should not leave out the most important stage of human development. The gamete stage is the first stage in which there is a changed DNA code from that of the mother and father. In fact the DNA of the gametes makes the sperm and oocyte fully functional human life a their respective stage.
If the zygote is similar to a human baby in all respects, then the gametes are likewise a human baby at an even earlier stage. Just at the zygotes must have the uterus to become a baby, the sperm must have the egg. Without help neither the sperm and egg nor the zygote will become a born human.

eroteme said...

Refusing to acknowledge the meaning of the term is a common tactic. Yet they seem to know what it means if you demand their kidney.

Jennifer Starr said...

This is who he is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Spitz

http://www.armyofgod.com/



I'm ashamed to say that this 'Reverend' is from my state.

Boommach said...

Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson label themselves as reverend. I have never heard of any Christian testimony from these men. I hear peripheral references to scriptures laughably taken out of context. Spitz is no different than any of us. We are all free to choose whichever path to Hell we are most comfortable with. Fortunately, there is One Alternative Avenue.

thisispainful said...

"The mole isn't alive. It's made of living cells, yes, but the mole itself isn't alive as an individual functioning entity with any capacity whatsoever."


But neither is a bloody blastocyst, by your own definition! You can't base something's right to life on its potential to become something with a right to life.

thisispainful said...

"Parasites can be good... Parasites can also be fatal."



Having babies can be good... Having babies can also be fatal.

Guest said...

I didn't write the blog post. All I did was answer your question.

Bert_1 said...

It doesn't matter what a curse is. You asked what that passage in the Bible says is the reason for the woman's reaction. The answer is a curse. Whether you believe that or not is completely irrelevant. That's what it says.

eroteme said...

In the real world, we look at real causes, and the rotting grain + temple dust = an abortifacient


And regardless,if your 'curse' was real, the point would STILL be to cause an abortion

Russell Crawford said...

There are several problems for the pro life movement that will be widely known in the near future. For example, before Roe when abortion was illegal and birth control was legal, there was a drop of millions of babies born. And after abortion became legal there was an increase of millions of babies being born. So the old saw that 50+ million babies were lost to abortion is simply backwards. Abortion has lead to an increase of millions of babies.

And in the next few years it will become common knowledge that pro lifers have a choice to save or let die innocent born babies or fetuses and that their intentional choice is to let babies die. For example there are 1.8 born babies, children and adults, 1.4 induced abortions and 10 natural abortions dying ---each second---. There are more people dying than can be saved. So every person that claims to save life must choose which they will save. They may save innocent born babies or they may let them die and save a fetus instead. If they spend one second saving a fetus, then in that second 1.8 babies die. And if they choose to save an unwanted fetus then they have chosen not to save a wanted fetus and 10 wanted fetuses die each second. So pro lifers are never "saving life" they are simply choosing to let babies and wanted fetuses die in an effort to force an unwanted fetus to be born.

But that is still not the end of the problem for pro lifers. They also must contend with the fact that every scientist agrees that until the DNA of the genotype expresses the correct phenotype, there is no human life. And the point at which everyone agrees there is human life is usually at birth. Why? Because at birth several processes occur that make it clear that the fetus is alive and human. The fetal heart must transform into the human heart, the fetal digestive system, the fetal respiratory system and the fetal brain must all transform into their human counterparts. Until these changes at birth occur there is no proof the fetus has the human phenotype that will allow it to live as a human. This is something that every scientist can agree upon and it upsets the religious idea that there is human life at conception.

Keatsandshelley said...

Well, I think nowadays when a woman's life is in danger, which I understand is rare, the fetus is removed intact.

Ann Morgan said...

**What we are not told is that one percent = approximately 10,000 babies in the U.S. per year.**


And what the pro-lifers do not mention are the reasons WHY this is done? Because the mother wants to go party, as they continually imply? Or are there medical reasons?

Plum Dumpling said...

Nonsense. You do not think. At least about this subject.

Keatsandshelley said...

Well, you can keep talking to yourself from now on. I was reading some of your posts and you and a couple others are what we in the education field call bullies. You bully other readers instead of engaging with them in dialogue. Worst of all you gang up and bully anyone who has a different viewpoint than yours instead of conceding that perhaps, just perhaps, the opinion of others is just as valuable as yours. You are a bully and you take pleasure in bullying. I will not answer you again. I do not engage people who decide to bully others. Good day.

Plum Dumpling said...

Next.

eroteme said...

Yet you want to bully women into gestational slavery.

And Plum is correct, you do not think.

What if the woman's death can't be predicted? What if she bleeds to death during birth?

And since when are rights granted based on statistical probabilities? I bet you'd still oppose abortion if "only" 800 prenates were "murdered" per year. I bet you would oppose murder if YOU were the ONLY victim.

Russell Crawford said...

It is amazing how well the Jewish account comports to scientific fact. The fetus cannot be proved to be human until it is born because several changes occur that transform the fetus into a baby.
And most of those changes begin to occur at the exit of the fetus from the womb.

Plum Dumpling said...

Ancient people were not dumb. Russell, will you do us a service and list those changes.
I ask because this site, while full of arrogant moral posturing, is really light on science and medicine.

Russell Crawford said...

Before a successful birth can occur the fetal heart must transform into the human heart, the fetal respiratory system must transform into the human system, the fetal digestive system must transform into the human system and the fetal brain must transform into the human brain. http://www.embryology.ch/anglais/pcardio/umstellung02.html
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002395.htm

Shan said...

And maybe He also chooses let women decide whether and when they're going to give birth.

Bert_1 said...

Of course He does. We have free will and con sin or not as we see fit.

Suba gunawardana said...

Pretty much all articles on SPL operate under the pre-conceived notion that "abortion is wrong" without having provided a clear justification for this concept. As does this one.

Think about it... If abortion is not wrong, none of the "omissions" mentioned in the article matter at all. If abortion IS actually wrong, these omissions are the least of the problem.

Focusing on all kinds of irrelevant yet emotionally charged stuff while implying abortion is wrong, without actually showing it's wrong, is a transparent attempt at manipulation.

Shan said...

Where did God ever say that it was a sin for women to ever decide themselves if/when to give birth?

Shan said...

I think I see what you mean. If one trying to make the point that all abortion is wrong all the time, it doesn't matter WHEN the abortion is taking place or for what reason so this whole article is a big red herring. If that's the right term.

Suba gunawardana said...

Exactly... These are their distraction tactics, having failed to prove that abortion is wrong.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 400 of 614   Newer› Newest»