Pages

Friday, September 5, 2014

Precision of Language, Please, New York Times

Above: the author's son Noel, who died of
natural causes in utero.
[Today's guest post by JoAnna Wahlund is part of our paid blogging program.]

I recently saw the movie “The Giver” (and loved it, just as I’ve loved the book since childhood). It’s still fairly fresh in my mind, so perhaps that’s why I kept hearing Jonas’ mother say “Precision of language, please!” while I read this New York Times article, “The Dawn of the Post-Clinic Abortion” by Emily Bazelon.

Aside from the article’s blasé and almost celebratory attitude toward illegal and unsafe abortion procedures (such as importing abortion-inducing pills from countries with no product testing or safety standards and handing them out like Halloween candy to anyone who wanted them, with no attempt to screen for people who were only posing as women in crisis pregnancies so they could slip them to girlfriends or abuse victims without their consent), what I found particularly disturbing was the author’s apparent inability to distinguish between elective abortion and miscarriage. For example, in the very first paragraph (all italics are mine):
In June 2001, under a cloud-streaked sky, Rebecca Gomperts set out from the Dutch port of Scheveningen in a rented 110-foot ship bound for Ireland. Lashed to the deck was a shipping container, freshly painted light blue and stocked with packets of mifepristone (which used to be called RU-486) and misoprostol. The pills are given to women in the first trimester to induce a miscarriage. Medical abortion, as this procedure is called, had recently become available in the Netherlands. But use of misoprostol and mifepristone to end a pregnancy was illegal in Ireland, where abortion by any means remains against the law, with few exceptions.
Right off the bat Bazelon conflates miscarriage with medical abortion, when the two are not the same. The National Center for Biotechnology Information states: “A miscarriage may also be called a 'spontaneous abortion.' This refers to naturally occurring events, not medical abortions or surgical abortions” (emphasis mine).

One could perhaps give Bazelon (and the NYT editors) the benefit of the doubt—perhaps they didn't catch the error because they were too entranced with the romantic image of sailing under a cloud-streaked sky off the misty coast of Ireland (albeit on a ship that should be called the Barge of the Dead)—but it doesn’t happen just once.

Later on in the article, she writes of how Gomperts encourages to lie to medical professionals and claim they’re experiencing a miscarriage instead of a medical abortion, should they need to seek help for complications. “Gomperts says there is no medical reason for women to tell anyone that they’ve used pills. Treatment, if needed, is the same as it would be for a spontaneous miscarriage.”

[Lying to your care providers about the drugs you’ve ingested is always a good idea, right? No one need worry about allergic reactions or potentially dangerous drug interactions. Gomperts obviously has only the purest of motives. It couldn’t possibly be that she wants women to lie so that she doesn’t get arrested, charged, and convicted of drug dealing.]

Ahem. Back to the story.

Further on in the article, Bazelon describes her experience at a training session for “abortion doulas.” “The training included a session on the basics of how misoprostol and mifepristone are administered in clinics and how to help ease the discomfort of miscarriage,” she writes.

Bazelon tells of abortionist Amy Hagstrom Miller, whose Texas clinic is facing closure due to Miller’s refusal to comply with new Texas safety regulations for abortion facilities: “Amy Hagstrom Miller, the founder of a network of clinics called Whole Woman’s Health, told me she has been thinking about what might be possible. Facing the closure of her 11-year-old Austin clinic, she was considering whether she might open some sort of ‘miscarriage management’ facility in the Rio Grande Valley.”

I am appalled that neither Bazelon nor her editors at the New York Times either didn't notice or didn't bother to correct this shoddy phrasing. As the definition from the National Center for Biotechnology Information clearly states, miscarriage is not the same as medical abortion, yet she uses the two terms interchangeably, as do her interviewees—not just once but multiple times.

Precision of language, please! Abortion and miscarriage are not the same. The biological processes facilitated by the pharmaceuticals may be similar, but they are wholly different in one very important aspect: an abortion is the intentional killing of an unborn child; a miscarriage is when an unborn child dies of natural causes. They are antonyms, not synonyms.

When people such as Emily Bazelon try to imply that my experiences with miscarriage (I've lost two children) are no different than those of women who have aborted, it is blatantly offensive. She has no right to lump together abortion and miscarriage because she is essentially equating deliberate murder with natural death. I wouldn't walk up to someone whose grandmother passed away in her sleep and accuse him of murder any more than I would tell a person who smothered his elderly grandmother with a pillow that it was a good thing his grandma passed away naturally, and why don't we go ahead and tell the government to subsidize him.

The callousness and insensitively of the false equivalence of abortion and miscarriage—on the part of Bazelon as well as her editors at the New York Times—is a stinging slap to the face of every women who has ever experienced an actual spontaneous miscarriage. It is a gut-wrenching, agonizing, utterly helpless feeling of terrifying impotence when you know that the baby in your womb is dead or dying and there is nothing you can do to save him or her, despite your willingness to do anything in your power to keep him or her alive.

Moreover, this unfortunate comparison has actually inhibited our ability to grieve for the children we have lost, because we're inundated by abortion propaganda claiming that the children we lost were just insignificant masses of cells not worth caring about. Blogger Becky Thompson explains this cognitive dissonance eloquently in her post “How Abortion Has Changed the Discussion of Miscarriage”:
It is hard for a society to mourn the loss of WANTED unborn life when it is busy calling it “tissue” and discrediting its personhood.
It is hard for a society to embrace a mourning mother for her loss of tissue when it is busy defending another mother’s right to dispose of it.
Bazelon and the NYT's insiduous conflation of miscarriage and abortion is a prime example of this mentality. While women who are threatened with a miscarriage are desperately striving to preserve their child's life, the women as portrayed by Bazelon are desperately trying to ensure their child's death. Yet, she attempts to claim there is no difference between the two.

In contrast, blogger Krissi Danielsson at About.com acknowledges, “The elective ending of a pregnancy is a completely different situation than the loss of a wanted pregnancy, both medically and emotionally.” Why is this concept so hard to grasp for the Emily Bazelon and the New York Times?

365 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 365 of 365
eroteme said...

I change my nym a lot. We met a few weeks ago.



Can't even remember my last nym, but I was Purrtriarchy for a long time.

Basset_Hound said...

Hate to cut into this thread, but does anybody know if Marauder's had her baby?

Purple Slurpy said...

I've already come to terms with the fact that my mom aborted. For the lack of a sibling, I am genuinely sad, but in the place of that sibling, I have a mom whose name appears in college biochemistry text books in many places for the work she has done, and the pioneer she has been for the girls of her home country. I am proud that her work has advanced biochemistry and medicine so that the technology can benefit human health, for generations to come. I am proud that she has shown me how to stand up for your dreams, and persevere no matter what obstacle society puts in front of her. I am proud that she is an outspoken proponent of women's rights and minority rights in our increasingly xenophobic home country. And I'm proud that despite the marathon experiments she ran, she still had time to give me all her love.

Russell Crawford said...

We do need precision in language. The term "pro life" to describe an organization that intentionally lets innocent babies die in an effort to force the birth of fetuses is a miscarriage of language. The fact is that there is nothing "pro life" about the pro life movement. The fact is that there are 1.8 born humans, 1.4 induced abortions and 10 natural abortions that occur each second ---- that's right, second. The "pro life" movement has the choice to save innocent born humans or to let them die and save a fetus instead. Their choice is to let the babies die.
The pro life movement could also choose to save the 10 wanted fetuses that die each ---second---, but they don't, they let them die in an failed effort to save unwanted fetuses. So all the "pro life" movement does is force unwanted fetuses to be born while letting innocent wanted fetuses and born babies, children and adults die. That is not being pro life, that is being a eugenicist.

Russell Crawford said...

You have a choice, Faye, you can choose to save innocent babies or you can choose to let them die and save a fetus instead. What is your choice?

Russell Crawford said...

So you are for spreading murder around the world?

Russell Crawford said...

JoAnna, you have a choice, you can save innocent born babies or let them die and save a fetus. What is your choice/

Russell Crawford said...

Birth kills 14 times more women than abortion. So that is the hill you must climb to save the pill is dangerous. It is a ton less dangerous than child birth.

Russell Crawford said...

The pro life movement is responsible for letting innocent born babies die.

Purple Slurpy said...

When did I ever say I was Catholic?

eroteme said...

*chuckle*

fiona64 said...

Yay for a bunch of histrionic, fact-free nonsense all in one place!

fiona64 said...

None of the "solutions" you offer is an alternative to being pregnant ...

fiona64 said...

If the woman doesn't want the child, she can give the child to someone who does. I know many such women.

Really? Then how come none of those women has gotten on the stick and adopted one of the 100K+ children currently available for adoption in this country? http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/resource/afcars-report-20

Most of these children will "age out" at age 18 without ever having been adopted. Where are these "many such women" that you claim want to adopt?



Or maybe they're just too fucking selfish to be bothered unless it's a perfectly healthy Caucasian neonate?

fiona64 said...

Actually, she isn't. Pregnancy is far from being a state of wellness. Even relatively uncomplicated pregnancies leave permanent physiologiocal changes on a woman. A forensic anthropologist (that happens to be my field of study) can tell how many times a woman has been pregnant from her skeletal remains; each pregnancy leaves striations on the pubic symphysis, as it never fully reconnects to its pre-pregnant state and, in fact, stays further disconnected with each subsequent pregnancy. This is referred to as pubic symphysis diastasis. A friend of mine, who has had five children, has PSD so bad that her walking gait is no longer normal and she cannot ride a bicycle. Yet, her pregnancies themselves were relatively uncomplicated.

fiona64 said...

To me I see that the problem in the US society is that women are stepping all over men.

Yes, men are dreadfully oppressed, aren't they? Especially straight white men. They have it so hard, sitting at the top of the privilege pyramid. /snark

fiona64 said...

My husband is constantly being discriminated against at conferences.
They recently excluded him because he's not of color, female,


Um, sweetie? Helping those who have been consistently discriminated against does not mean that your husband is somehow being discriminated against.

fiona64 said...

it was a conference workshop on having problems in the field. They sent
out a letter stating it was only for women, people of color, or married
couples in the same field.


Which means ::wait for it:: that your husband was NOT the target audience for this specific conference. Ye gods.

fiona64 said...

Don't Obama's daughters have a better chance at a college education
than say a white boy whose parents work on a factory assembly line and
goes to public school?


Only because the Obama family has money.

fiona64 said...

No offense but there aren't scholarships solely designated for white men.

No offense, but white men are the top of the privilege ladder. Women and people of color are under-represented in many, many, many fields ... and that is why there are specific scholarships offered.

fiona64 said...

I define murder as the deliberate killing of an innocent human being.

Well, the law defines murder as the unlawful (illegal) taking of a person's life with malice aforethought.

In case you missed the memo, abortion is legal ... and personhood attaches at birth. So, you are wrong.

fiona64 said...

A toddler is a *person.* Once again, murder is the unlawful taking of a person's life with malice aforethought. The definition is specific for a reason. Manslaughter is the unlawful taking of a person's life absent malice. Do you see the difference?

fiona64 said...

WRONG. Our laws are not based on morality, but on victim's rights. Murder is unlawful because it has deprived the victim of his/her security of person, not because it is "immoral." Robbery is unlawful not because it is "Immoral" to steal but because victims have a right to security of property as well.

fiona64 said...

So what happens when deliberately end the life of a human? Is that not called murder?

Nope. Once again, murder is the unlawful (illegal) taking of a person's life with malice aforethought.

YOUR definition means that the death penalty is murder, suicide is murder, manslaughter is murder ... and none of those things apply.

fiona64 said...

So many straw men! You should receive a medal for posting this many asinine, baseless remarks.

Personhood is a *legal status.* It attaches at *birth.* No one gives two craps about your personal belief that an embryo is a person; it has no basis in reality.

fiona64 said...

Why not embryos?

Embryos are not persons.

Let me put it to you this way: in order to afford the rights that you wish to afford to an embryo, you would perforce have to *abrogate* the rights of a born, sapient, sentient *person.* What is it when you abrogate someone's rights, again? Oh, yes. Slavery.

fiona64 said...

She is an uneducated imbecile.

fiona64 said...

I prefer the term childless.

And no one gives a shit about your preferences. The childless are people who want children and do not have them. The childfree are people who never want children.

it's like the difference between being cancer-less and cancer-free ... if that helps you understand it better.

Russell Crawford said...

Yes, JoAnna, you offer them the opportunity to join you in murdering real babies. You do realize that you have a choice, you can save real babies or you can let them die and save pretend babies. Your choice is to let the real babies die.

Russell Crawford said...

If killing babies is bad, as you claim, then why do you choose to kill real babies. I think what you really mean is that fetuses are more important to you than real babies and for that reason real babies should die to save fetuses.
That nails it, you are a eugenicist.

Russell Crawford said...

There are 250 million children that need to be adopted, along with some adults. When you have adopted them all then talk about adoption as an option.

Chris R said...

Do you believe a mother should be allowed to commit infanticide if she decides infants don't have any inherent value? If not, how do you justify forcing your belief that infanticide is wrong onto others? How do you justify taking away that choice?

someone45 said...

When a woman doesn't want to be pregnant you don't offer here anything but forced pregnancy and forced birth. Your "solution" is for her to give in to gestational slavery and carry to term against her will.

someone45 said...

And you talk as if giving birth is 100% risk free... Child birth is much more dangerous than abortion and I should have a right to decide which way I want to "risk" my life.

Purple Slurpy said...

Hi Chris. I'm not a moral philosopher or historian, but as a society, we always must draw the lines. For example, what defines incest? Sibling-on-sibling? Cousin-on-cousin? Second cousin-on-second cousin? At what point are you sufficiently not related so your relationship is not considered incest? We must also define what it means to be a "person". Embryos are living, humans. I have no objection there. They are human. But for me, if you do not have the capability to suffer or anticipate your fate (and as far as we know, early fetuses probably don't), being killed doesn't cause you any harm. For me, therefore I would say that early fetuses are not "people", at least when it comes to abortion.

One caveat is that I said "early fetuses probably don't have the capability to suffer or anticipate impending doom". If future science can prove that they in fact can, I would be willing to re-evaluate my stance.

And this to me is what separates infanticide and abortion - whether the one being killed has the capability to suffer. And this is why I am opposed to late term abortion, though do not yet believe it should be illegal.

Also, human societies are by necessity pragmatic. Laws are codified to increase the chance of survival of that society. Societies that allow things like random murder are not going to be stable. How can an economy grow if you are always afraid you might get wiped out at any moment? Infanticide, if practiced en masse, naively would probably lead to the downfall of society as there would be a dearth of future generations. And its probably an extreme waste of resources. It takes a lot of energy on the part of the woman to carry a pregnancy to term. Further, the woman or the man's in-laws probably would not appreciate one of their grandchildren being killed. So I think such a practice is practically a bad thing for society. Abortion in the early stages would not waste as much societal resources, so from this purely pragmatic view, I don't think society at large would have as much objection to it.

Faye Valentine said...

saving a child is saving a child is saving a child. 6 in 1, half-dozen in the other. Although, if it's a choice between saving ONE child and saving SEVERAL children, saving the several would make more sense, no?

Faye Valentine said...

If you were to ask my husband, he would tell you that yes, I *am* in fact sexy all the time.

lady_black said...

Medication abortion is exponentially safer than childbirth.

lady_black said...

If you don't think abortion is right, don't have one.

lady_black said...

Who SAYS they have no safety standards. You??? Where did you get your pharmacology degree?

lady_black said...

The crisis is she doesn't want to be pregnant. And you have nothing to offer.

lady_black said...

Giving birth is not 100% safe either. NO medication other than normal saline solution is 100% safe. We still utilize medications all the time, because the benefits outweigh the risks.

lady_black said...

SO???? Can someone else be pregnant for her?

lady_black said...

No she isn't.

lady_black said...

Is there some POINT here? Taking Tylenol is riskier.

Jennifer Starr said...

I don't know of any medical procedure that is.

Jennifer Starr said...

Lots of children available right now to people who want them. Over 100,000 in foster care have been cleared for adoption and the state will help with the cost.

Jennifer Starr said...

It's quite easy to tell who erotome is, no matter what the name.

lady_black said...

Complete crap. You can compare ANY two children from more versus less privileged households, and the rich kid ALWAYS has better opportunities than the poor kid.

lady_black said...

The difference is, abortion is not murder. Definitely not rocket science now, is it? Abortion has never been murder... even when it was illegal.

lady_black said...

A woman who aborts after rape isn't "executing" anyone for any crimes. You appear to have a great deal of difficulty with the English language. A fetus is not capable of being executed. And the woman is a victim. She doesn't have to carry the seed of a criminal. PERIOD. How ugly of you to suggest she must.

lady_black said...

Abortion is not now, nor has it ever been murder.

lady_black said...

You have every right to be proud of your mother. She sounds like a courageous woman. Pay no attention to vile comments.

lady_black said...

Tumors of a certain type have skin, hair, nails. teeth, sometimes even eyes in them. I am SO NOT IMPRESSED by your appeals to emotion.

lady_black said...

Conceived "children" will always die before birth. Cry me a river.

Ella Warnock said...

Never would have had anything to offer me, certainly. Of course, it wouldn't really be about me, though. It would be about my doing others' bidding with no regard of what would personally be in my best interest.

Ella Warnock said...

I know some, too. However, no woman with an unwanted pregnancy 'owes' them a healthy, white infant, and they're well aware of that fact.

Suba gunawardana said...

Why is abortion wrong?

Suba gunawardana said...

So what would you offer to a pregnant woman who doesn't wish to be pregnant any more?

What would you offer to a woman who doesn't want to raise a child but doesn't trust anyone else to raise her child either?

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...

Thank you secular prolife blog!! You are a voice of sanity and courage! Just "shared" you on FB :-)

Faye Valentine said...

Do you realize that your use of the word "transformed" is indicative of magical thinking, and a disconnect from reality on your part?

K said...

If you don't think rape is right, don't rape anybody. If you don't believe domestic violence is right, don't beat anybody. See how easily that type of argument can crumble?

K said...

But sexism is ok as long as it's against men, didn't you know? I mean, 'cause we gotta get back at those dreadful penis-havers somehow, right?

K said...

Giving us equal opportunity is much different than giving us an unearned and unfair advantage. In the workplace, I would expect my skills and knowledge to be compared with equal consideration to a man's. I wouldn't like it if a man with less expertise got considered for a job before I was just because he is a male. However, I also don't think it would be fair for me as a woman to to get a job or promotion while having less expertise just because I am a female. I'm all for as much equality between the sexes as possible, but the very existence of affirmative action is discriminatory against males, and there is no denying that.

Jennifer Starr said...

You're life as no meaning once you become a parent? So my life is pointless? You should just shoot me?


You seem to be taking this very personally. He isn't talking about you.

Russell Crawford said...

In context it is not used in "magical" thinking. It is clearly occurring within the process of DNA "expression."

Jennifer Starr said...

All it's doing is encouraging more women to go into the field who may have otherwise choosen to study something else.


And that's a bad thing how?

Russell Crawford said...

"I was asking you to narrow down what you mean by a person being alive and born to look like a person. You still didn't narrow that down. The pre-born have organs. They have skin. They have fingers and toes with nails. Normal ultra-sounds do not give perfectly clear pictures. My own ultra sound much latter in my gestation from a bajillion years ago makes me appear as a blob. I wasn't a blob."


The phenotype must be correct. That means that every single requirement of being human life capable of living must be intact. If the fetus can live as a human, it is human. If it cannot live as a human, it is something else. Usually it is a product of conception.

"Arizona also stipulates how chemical abortions are to be performed. You can't just buy some random drug and take them legally. This has adverse affects to your body. But if you want to go ahead and run the risk of harming or killing yourself so you can get your abortion, I can't physically stop you. I think it's foolish, obviously."

If abortion is outlawed women will die. So think about that, you will be responsible for that outcome.

"You're life as no meaning once you become a parent? So my life is pointless? You should just shoot me? Come on now. We know people's lives have meaning regardless of whether they have children or not. And this holds true for you as well."

Straw man fallacy and of no value.

"Yes, it does. Consenting to sex implicitly runs the risk of pregnancy."

That is twisting the facts. Most conceptions end in abortion. There is only a 30 percent chance of pregnancy that will produce a child.


"It is the same if you choose to drive a car. If you wear a seat belt, you up your chances of not dying in an accident. However having the use of a seat belt does not ensure an accident will not occur. That's why you also invest in car insurance. It is the same with sex. Every time you engage in sex you run the risk. If you don't want a baby, then don't have sex."

They are not similar. With sex each time you conceive there is a 70 percent chance you will abort. So intentional sex is consent to abort 70 percent of your "babies." Driving a car does not result in an accident 70 percent of the time, so the analogy is invalid.


"If you don't want a car accident then don't drive a car."

The analogy is false, but what is true is that if you don't want to abort, then don't have sex. Intentional sex is consent to abort.


"The problem because that people like those two things and so they try to bury the risk. They don't want to give them up but they don't want to take responsibility for the consequences either. This isn't adult thinking."

It isn't adult thinking to compare auto insurance or accidents with abortion. In order to be pro life one must come up with ludicrous analogies.

Russell Crawford said...

"So are you saying that a baby born at 25 weeks gestation and a baby in utero at 25 weeks gestation are "look" different? One is a person and one is thing? One is alive and the other is....dead? Color me confused."

Lets talk scientific fact. It is a scientific fact that a fetus has a different structure than a human baby. Until birth the heart, lungs, brain and digestive tract along with other organs are different from a baby. Until those transform into human organs, we don't know for certain that a human baby will be produced.

"Actually you "can't have one if you want" there are laws governing how abortion is administered. And this varies from state to state. For example, it is illegal in Arizona to have an abortion because you don't like the baby's gender."

Such laws are based upon false precepts. If one attempts to enforce such a law they can only do so by causing the death of a born human.

"So me having children means I am inferior? I'm worth less than a woman who has no children? Or perhaps a man? Way to set back the feminist movement if that's you're way of thinking."

That is a straw man fallacy based upon a false analogy and is of no value in this discussion.

"And mine says that your choice ends when it violates someone else's."

Your own beliefs must be violated to be "pro life". In any effort to save a fetus you must violate the rights of born babies, children and adults. You rights to be pro life do not exist because you must murder life to be pro life.

"In other words it's the child that's the "slave" not the woman. If children are "owned" to be discarded at will that's slavery yes?"

You are conflating a fetus into a baby. A fetus must be born before it changes its organs and becomes a baby. That is a scientific fact.

" A woman (in the vast majority of cases) ran a risk engaging in sex."

Speaking in absolute terms, any choice to have sex is consent to abort 70 percent of any "babies" that are produced. So engaging in sex is consent to abort.

"It's like getting into a car. Do we sue the car if we are at fault for creating an accident?"

It is not like getting into a car. When you have sex, you consent to a 70 percent accident rate where a "baby" dies. With a car you are consenting to a one in a million accidental death.

" We knew the risk of driving. We know the risk of sex. Yet we are punishing someone else in both cases. Why? "

You are conflating a fetus into a baby. You need to make some type of common sense argument to explain why? Do you think you can do that? Lets talk.

"Why not own up to our responsibilities and deal with the risk instead of sweeping it under a rug?"

In order to force the birth of a fetus you must intentionally murder an innocent baby. Until you can explain why a fetus is a baby and why you can murder real babies, I don't see you having a valid argument.

Russell Crawford said...

Looking at an ultrasound does not prove the fetus has enough human DNA to live as a human. It is really of no value whatsoever in the sense that viewing such photos will not detect a non human fetus.

Once a woman conceives she has no idea as to whether or not she will be a mother or not. Most of the time she will abort naturally or produce a still birth. That is a scientific fact. So at conception she has a small chance that she will be a mother.

Thinking you know what is right for everyone else is not proof that what you think is right. In fact your ideas lead you to murder innocent babies.

Before abortion was legal, the number of births was declining. After abortion became legal, the number of births increased. For that reason I thrust women to make decisions that will lead to more life. Those decisions include the choice to abort.

Russell Crawford said...

"So what does a person look like?"

If a human phenotype expresses a living human life form and not a product of conception then it does not matter what it looks like.


" My children are two and four. My two year old's head is more disproportionate to his body than his brother's head because the rest of his limbs and torso haven't developed yet. This is normal for his age. Does this mean that my four year old looks more like a person because he's more proportional to that of an adult? Should I shoot my two year old in the head because his head to body ratio is different? Come on now. Be rational."

That is a false analogy.

"As for your second point, sorry but that's how morality in civil society works. Should I allow a pedophile to molest my children because it's perfectly fine in his moral universe?"

You should not be able to murder innocent babies to stop a pedophile. You should not be able to murder innocent babies to force the birth of a fetus.


"Should I not voice that I think it's morally wrong and why? Should I not say this should apply to all children even those who parents allow others to molest their children? You have to draw a line in the sand and mine says abortions are murder."

You have a sick fantasy that justifies your act of murdering innocent babies to save fetuses. You "falsely believe" a fetus is a baby and that you have the right to murder babies to save fetuses. That is a sick idea. My goal in life is to stop you from murdering innocent babies. I will shine my light of truth on you.

Russell Crawford said...

Your choice to pursue the pro life agenda forces you to murder innocent born babies in a false attempt to save a fetus. You are murdering innocent life by practicing the pro life fallacy.

Russell Crawford said...

Any abortion is safer than practicing the pro life agenda. Pro life ideas can only be transmitted and discussed by allowing innocent babies to die. Society would be better if pro life arguments were treated for what they are, money raising scams.

Russell Crawford said...

The site you mention is only successful in the sense that it is a money raising tool used to murder innocent born babies. It is impossible to post information that is pro life without causing the death of an innocent born baby, child or adult. The doctors in the source are murderers if they are following the pro life agenda. The people that built the site are murderers and those that attempt to sell the site and raise money and power for the pro life movement are murderers. That is abundantly clear?

Russell Crawford said...

There has been an increase in life of millions of babies, so obviously importing pills is better than not importing pills. And that is what the real question is. Which is better? Letting pro lifers murder babies or allowing the import of pills? The answer is clearly yes, importing pills of questionable quality is better than letting pro life ideas kill women.

Russell Crawford said...

But you murder babies to give them information in crisis pregnancies. Is that a lucid practice?

fiona64 said...

No, there is *plenty* of denying that. Women get paid 77 cents on the dollar for doing the same work as men. No, there is *plenty* of denying that. Women get paid 77 cents on the dollar for doing the same work as men. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/24/upshot/the-pay-gap-is-because-of-gender-not-jobs.html?abt=0002&abg=0

Being paid equally for the same work is not giving someone an "unfair and unearned advantage." Neither is choosing a woman or a person of color if two applicants are equally qualified. You seem to think that men are automatically better qualified for a given position, and that simply is not so. Historically, though, a white man is much more likely to be
chosen among equally qualified applicants. He's more likely to get an *interview* among equally qualified applicants.

And if you don't believe me, you can read the article written by a man whose first name is Kim. http://qz.com/103453/i-understood-gender-discrimination-after-i-added-mr-to-my-resume-and-landed-a-job/

fiona64 said...

Actually, that doesn't fall apart at all; people who think rape is wrong don't rape. People who think DV is wrong don't commit rape. People who think abortion is wrong need not have abortions.

fiona64 said...

I read a fascinating book about Lise Meitner last year. Men were given credit for her work, because the scientific community didn't believe that women were capable of work at that level. It boggled my mind.

expect_resistance said...

Ru486 isn't killing children. No one is advocating killing children. A zygote, embryo, fetus is not a child. Got any more fact-free crap for us?

Basset_Hound said...

@spam

expect_resistance said...

Ever hear of the Jane Collective? Might want to read up on that.

Shan said...

What happened to the whole "precision of language, please" thing?

lady_black said...

Those are crimes. See how quickly your dishonest argument crumbles?

MamaBear said...

Actually, I know several families on waiting lists for years to adopt one or more of those 100K children, any race or age. The agency contracted to adopt out of foster care in my area not only moves extremely slow, but are totally unrealistic in this day and age in that they want the adoptive home to have a stay-at-home mom. Social worker I know confirmed many agencies contracted to do foster care adoptions still have guidelines out of the 2-parent, stay-at-home-mom, match-the-race/ethnicity era.
Also, if you have other natural or adopted children in the home, you often cannot adopt older children as not permanently placing a child older than those already in the home is an almost universal, dramatically limiting available homes for older foster children.
Do you realize most foster children were originally wanted children, not placed there voluntarily as infants, and even once in the foster system, not available for adoption until a judge severs the original parental rights, don't you?
Freeing foster children for adoption often takes years as the system was designed to provide a safe place for children while parents fixed their problems.

Shan said...

"And we are doing everything in our power to change the laws of our
country to preserve the lives of innocent human beings in the womb"

You realize you have to go through women's vaginas to get to them, right? It's not like CPS getting a court order to remove a child from an unhealthy home. It's making it illegal for every woman not to gestate and give birth to every single pregnancy, no matter what the circumstances, whether she was raped or whether she has a wanted pregnancy that's gone wrong. Is this really what you want for ALL women? Even your own daughters?

Russell Crawford said...

the problem then is not a shortage of babies, but a shortage of parents. I am sorry your friends were not found to be suitable, but that is no reason to torture a child.
And actually there are 210 million children that need to be adopted along with many adults. So there is no shortage of children, there is a shortage of parents.

Suba gunawardana said...

Whatever the reasons, (too many children, not enough suitable parents; or flaws in the system) the bottom line is that there are many millions of children suffering right now, as we speak.

To add MORE children into that situation without fixing the problems first, is to willfully promote child neglect & abuse.

JDC said...

I don't think that will do anything. They don't do very much moderation around here.

Sarah said...

Russel I have read through some of your comments on this page - none of them make any sense at all?

Mike said...

Where on earth has Russell got this idea of organs transforming at birth from?

Russell Crawford said...

That is an ad hominem fallacy and of no value. If you have some valid comment to support what you believe, the post that.

Mike said...

Russel I am also really struggling to follow this idea of a birth transformation where organs magically transform from one entity to another? It makes no sense what so ever - you are going to have to support these statements with sources that document this transformation rather than claim that any comment that challenges you on it is a 'ad hominem fallacy'.

Basset_Hound said...

I noticed it's a real rogue's gallery here. Sort of like the Critter Bar in the original Star Wars movie.

Russell Crawford said...

http://www.embryology.ch/anglais/pcardio/umstellung02.html

I suggest that you take a good embryology course. There are so many changes that occur that I cannot list them all on this page if I were to write solid for one hour. The above link should be a good start. But you need to know what happens in the blood/brain barrier as well. So look that up.

JDC said...

True. The limited moderation worked a lot better when this blog was less popular. Now it just results in chaos.

Russell Crawford said...

You know that if you think what I post is spam, you may be wrong. Why not express yourself and let everyone know what you think is inappropriate.
My personal belief is that you have simply come up against an argument that you do not understand or cannot defend against. Voicing you opinion would clear up that belief. Help the readers out and let us know your concerns.

Suba gunawardana said...

What's an obvious reason for increase of poverty? More people than there are resources; i.e. overpopulation. Who is the major culprit for that? The forced-birth movement.

Chris R said...

>As a society, we always must draw lines.

Why do we have to? Why can't we trust women and allow a mother to make that decision? If your value is based on how others feel about you, why doesn't that extend past birth?

>But for me, if you do not have the capability to suffer or anticipate your fate (and as far as we know, early fetuses probably don't), being killed doesn't cause you any harm.
Were you under the impression that late-term fetuses could anticipate their fates? Because that doesn't come until a year or so after birth.

>And this is why I am opposed to late term abortion, though do not yet believe it should be illegal.
Why not? If the late-term fetus can suffer, doesn't that make him or her deserving of protection under your system?

>Societies that allow things like random murder are not going to be stable.
Does this mean we should permit anything that does not lead to societal collapse? Are we throwing away the idea of individual rights? Because the South was doing just fine with slavery for hundreds of years until the North came along and imposed its morality on them.

>Infanticide, if practiced en masse, naively would probably lead to the downfall of society as there would be a dearth of future generations.

If everyone committed infanticide, sure, but the same argument could be made against abortion, birth control, or homosexuality. A society can permit infanticide and still survive.

>Further, the woman or the man's in-laws probably would not appreciate one of their grandchildren being killed.

People don't always appreciate their unborn relatives being killed either, but presumably you don't think that matters.

>And its probably an extreme waste of resources.
So? It's a waste of the parents' resources. Should we ban people from using their own resources in wasteful ways?

>It takes a lot of energy on the part of the woman to carry a pregnancy to term.

It also takes a lot of energy to reach 8 months. Why place the cutoff at birth? Since when is your right to live based on how much energy was put into raising you? Does a child raised in poverty with barely enough to survive have less of a right to live than a pampered child of a wealthy family? Does a 4-year-old have less of a right to live than a 40-year-old? Should we execute people, such as some of the disabled, who use more resources than they produce?

fiona64 said...

The children to whom I am referring are those for whom the plan is adoption, not repatriation. You might want to try actually reading the report to which I linked.

Jennifer Starr said...

I'

Purple Slurpy said...

While taking a course on classical mechanics (basically Newtonian Theory for major physics geeks), one of the final theorems we covered was Noether's Theorem. It states a connection between symmetries in the equations of motion and the existence of conserved physical quantities, and I thought it a most beautiful and profound mathematical statement concerning the physical world. I was shocked when I learned much later that Noether's first name is Emmy, and she was a woman! People like her, Lise Meitner, Ada Lovelace (first "computer programmer" of the Babbage Analytical Engine, late 1800s), Grace Hooper (inventor of the first human readable computer programming language, COBOL), Jane Goodall, Rosalind Franklin all are such pioneers, and prove that women are just as capable of ground breaking scientific discoveries. I know of a husband and wife team at Stanford who developed a method to sort cells based on their surface anti-body markers, a hugely innovated method which is used everywhere in biology now. The wife was not allowed to go to CalTech despite her talents, because CalTech did not admit women (late 60s), and did her early research unpaid, and this research is probably up there as a candidate for a Nobel Prize. There are similar stories as this of women not getting recognized or even paid as professionals, and this was happening AS RECENTLY AS THE EARLY 70s IN THE USA! This is the reason affirmative action is still needed. Long entrenched injustices are not fixed oven night.

I fully admire deltaflute's husband's drive and determination to be the 1st PhD in his family. I imagine it was much harder than what I had to go through. However, she and MamaBear need to realize that while poverty is a major setback to achieving one's goals in life, as a white male, NO ONE is going to feel that he is incapable of succeeding. Women have been barred from the top-flite US universities until the not the late 1860s and 1870s, but the late 1960s and 1970s. Women were not believed to be capable of achievement. In a similar vein, women were barred from the Boston Marathon until a similar time. Same goes for minorities. Even to this day, African Americans do not have strong role models in many academic disciplines. Is this surprising, given that lynchings were widely attended public spectacles, complete with people hawking souvenir postcards of the dead black person, well into the late 1930s?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyer_Anti-Lynching_Bill

Only in 2005 has the US Senate apologized for not making a bill criminalizing lynchings until 1968. And MamaBear and deltaflute believe that we no longer need affirmative action because African Americans and women are now on completely equal footing as the white male? All I can think of is that they have a not so firm grasp on reality and history.

eroteme said...

Some anti abortionists are also racist. Skinheads are notoriously pro life. They view women as fields to be ploughed.

Purple Slurpy said...

Awesome, highly credible hearsay anecdotes about supposed career-boosting benefits of white women marrying minorities. I guess if you believe prayer heals the sick (yet doesn't heal amputees??), and believe the accounts of nomadic dwellers of a man rising from the dead, this story might sound pretty credible. Just giving you another anecdotal tale of
a guy changing his name from Jose Zamora -> Joe Zamora, his job hunting went from nada
to a full inbox:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/02/jose-joe-job-discrimination_n_5753880.html

This one an academic study saying black sounding names get less responses than white sounding names:
http://www.povertyactionlab.org/evaluation/discrimination-job-market-united-states


I'm assuming MamaBear is someone who also believes like deltaflute that the whipping boy of modern academia is the white male. deltaflute claims a "largely female dominating class" of entering graduate students. From her husband's experience as the 1st PhD holder in his family (props to him, good work!), she observes that

>> To me I see that the problem in the US society is that women are stepping all over men.

>> (deltaflute's husband)'s written off because he is male

>> The vast majority of the people (deltaflute's husband) sees seeking advanced degrees or any degree at all are overwhelming female.

This genuinely piqued my interest.

So I decided to do a quick informal survey of Planetary Science graduate schools in the US, and count the F/M ratio. Any time a graduate student's gender was ambiguous (foreign name, no picture etc.) I counted that student as FEMALE, just to give deltaflute the benefit of the doubt. Here are the results.

F / M
U Texas 2/6
U Tennessee 22/27
UC Davis 24/23
Wash U St. L 15/16
John's Hopkins 17/18
UC Santa Cruz 32/25
MIT 91/94
---------------------
TOTAL 203/209

This shows a near 50/50 split. Hardly what I'd call "overwhelmingly female". For comparison, for Astronomy Graduate Schools,

F / M
Boston U 14/22
UC Berkeley 12/20
Yale 11/19
---------------------
TOTAL 37/61

For a more "hard" physical science, men still handily outnumber the women.

Why is this important to me? Well, in another thread, I wrote about Emmy Noether, whose most famous contribution to physics is "Noether's Theorem", a beautiful and profound result connecting symmetries in the equation of motion and conserved physical quantities. I was shocked when I learned that Noether was a woman! Careful digging reveals many great women scientists, including

Ada Lovelace (first computer programmer)
Grace Hooper (inventor of the 1st human readable programming language, COBOL)
Lise Meitner (nuclear fission co-discoverer)
Rosalind Franklin (crystallographer, co-discoverer DNA double helix)

Until the late 60s and 70s (that's 1960s and 1970s), the top-flite US universities were largely not admitting women, and many women researchers worked as unpaid workers. That's NOT 77cents on the dollar, BUT 0 cents on the dollar. In the US. In the late 1960s. Women are just as capable as their male counterparts, but institutional discrimination tried to tell women that they were not capable of science. Economic disadvantage hurts everyone equally, but if you are a woman or an African American, you are also expected to be incapable of doing your job. Note that the US Senate apologized only in 2005 for not making lynching of African Americans a punishable crime until 1968. If you're that much of a fifth-class citizen, do you suppose that your lot in life is going to improve in 1 generation after segregation was outlawed?

Purple Slurpy said...

Just so that you know, many US top-flite universities did not admit women until the 1960s and 1970s.

http://www.collegexpress.com/lists/list/years-that-mens-colleges-became-co-ed/366/

Many women researchers who went on to do influential work were paid 0 cents on the dollar compared to a man in the 1960s and 1970s. Not 77 cents on the dollar, 0 cents.

Lynchings of African Americans were a popular spectacle complete with postcards of the dead black man

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching_in_the_United_States

US Senate apologizes in 2005 for not making lynching of African Americans a punishable offense until something like 1968.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyer_Anti-Lynching_Bill




Do you feel women and African Americans have been allowed enough time to say bygones will be bygones, and pull themselves up by the bootstraps and be completely on par with white males?

Purple Slurpy said...

Thank you for your points. You have made me think.

>> As a society, we always must draw lines.

> Why do we have to? Why can't we trust women and allow a mother to make that decision? If your value is based on how others feel about you, why doesn't that extend past birth?

--------- BEGIN my response
I say we must draw lines because while I generally believe in trusting the woman, I do believe if we are to live in a society, some behaviors must have limits imposed by law. Otherwise, mutual cooperation would not be tenable, and society would probably collapse. I believe in maximal freedom of the individual as long as that behavior doesn't impinge on others.

Now your original question was "why not infanticide"? I should have answered the next question a bit better, and I will in the your next question:
--------- END

>> But for me, if you do not have the capability to suffer or anticipate your fate (and as far as we know, early fetuses probably don't), being killed doesn't cause you any harm.
Were you under the impression that late-term fetuses could anticipate their fates? Because that doesn't come until a year or so after birth.

--------- BEGIN my response
OK, "anticipate their fates" was added without much thought. I really meant to say "able to suffer". AFAIK, suffering and pain require a working central nervous system. I am not an
expert on the development of the CNS, but I would venture to guess that's somewhere around
20wks.

This is where I think the line should be drawn, because if an embryo cannot feel pain or sadness
due to its demise, who is the victim? Unless you somehow endow specialness to the embryo,
some inherent value to that life, I cannot think of any reason aborting a non-feeling thing
is inherently bad. This is why I say I am willing to change my stance on abortion IF it were
proven that early embryos are somehow able to feel pain. I can't think of a reason why an
embryo should have inherent worth. If it should, I think it should then follow that sperm
and eggs are also inherently valuable, which I don't think they are either.

I think I added "anticipate their fates" to distinguish the case of a person in a coma. At one
point in their lives, they were capable of feeling pain and must have had hopes and dreams. To kill a person in a coma (who has a reasonable chance of recovering) ignores this wish which has a non-zero chance of fulfillment. If a person is a complete vegetable with no hope of recovery, I would also argue that killing them is merciful. However, what we deem "no hope of recovery" is naturally dependent on our state of medical art, and this determination should reflect the state of medical art.
--------- END

>And this is why I am opposed to late term abortion, though do not yet believe it should be illegal.
Why not? If the late-term fetus can suffer, doesn't that make him or her deserving of protection under your system?

>Societies that allow things like random murder are not going to be stable.
Does this mean we should permit anything that does not lead to societal collapse? Are we throwing away the idea of individual rights? Because the South was doing just fine with slavery for hundreds of years until the North came along and imposed its morality on them.

--------- BEGIN my response
Societies do collapse because of slavery.
See Haitian revolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haitian_Revolution

Also, I think the US Civil War is societal destabilization for which slavery was a partial cause.

Also, while I am not an economist (Nobel Laureate Robert Fogel might disagree with me here), I would think slavery is probably not a good economic system in post-industrial societies. Having disgruntled and abused workers probably won't lead to very good products.
--------- END

Purple Slurpy said...

Thanks, my mom is certainly not unique. So many awesome women (not only scientists, but marathoners, little league base ball players) have said "Up yours" to bondage. I so prefer living in our world now as opposed to a world where they didn't speak up and stand up. I'm sure such a world would be orders of magnitude suckier.

Purple Slurpy said...

Isn't it funny how people who tend to hold 1 bad idea also tend to hold other bad ideas? Its highly unusual to find rational racists.

eroteme said...

Why racism and misogyny go hand in hand

http://anti-racistcanada.blogspot.ca/2014/08/guest-blogger-why-racism-and-misogyny.html

Adam Peters said...

" ... he would tell you that yes, I *am* in fact sexy all the time."
That's not surprising-- pro-life women usually are.

Clinton said...

Sarah, save yourself the headache and don't try to engage with Russell. Otherwise I can just lead you to a brick wall so you can have a more productive experience.

fiona64 said...

That's because MamaBear is full of crap.

fiona64 said...

Anecdotes =/= data, just so you know.

fiona64 said...

Yep, and Mary Leakey made most of the discoveries at Olduvai Gorge ... for which her husband was given credit.

Just had to add one from my particular discipline to the pile of evidence. :-)

fiona64 said...

You still haven't addressed how offering a scholarship based on birth is
somehow helping people particularly those who don't really need it.


What part of *systemic discrimination* is hard for you to understand? I'm serious. Women and people of color faced, and continue to face *systemic discrimination.* White men DO NOT.

fiona64 said...

Indeed. Likewise, Louis Leakey was given credit for discoveries made by his wife, Mary, at Olduvai Gorge ... as I mentioned above.

fiona64 said...

They also tend to be in favor of the death penalty, whilst screeching about how "pro-life" they are. They disregard the fact that a statistically significant percentage of people on death row have been found innocent of the crimes for which they were incarcerated ... sometimes posthumously. :-(

MamaBear said...

Liberals all seem to have reading comprehension skills.
I said most will not put a child in the home who is older than the children already present, not that there can be no other children. That may not be written in the requirements, but is typically standard practice in permanent placements because children adjust to new younger siblings better than an older sibling. (Yes, there are exceptions.)
Also, I referred to requirements of the agencies that foster care services contract out to. They go by state requirements, but often also include their own in addition. And as I am in a small community, right now there is only one nonprofit social service contracted out for foster care adoptions in my town. A social worker who until recently was doing foster care adoptions herself in a nearby city informed me that there are several agencies who still want a stay-at-home parent and stress preference to same-race adoptions, including the one that services my community.

MamaBear said...

Yep, terribly unsuitable. (sarcasm)
They are white and most the children available in our area are Hispanic or mixed race, and their is still a strong preference (no longer in the written guidelines of course) for race matching, even when it keeps many children from finding permanent homes.
And they has been told repeatedly that they will not place a child for adoption with them who is older than her present child, and for a child that young she needs to be a stay-at-home-parent, but then they would not have enough income. (Ironically, she works with children.)
So, yeah, typical pro-child-murder lying, no one wants to adopt and if we find out there are actually people WAITING to adopt, they must be "unsuitable."

Faye Valentine said...

Changes as a response to change in their external environment =/= "transformation". When I put food in my previously empty stomach and it begins digestion, it does not "transform"-it's still the same stomach I always had.

PC'ers have a strange mysticism attached to development and organ function.

Faye Valentine said...

"What would you offer to a woman who doesn't want to raise a child but doesn't trust anyone else to raise her child either?"

Just thought I'd re-state this to highlight the schizophrenia of the PC position.

I don't want to raise a child, but I don't trust anyone else to raise this precious child, either. So of course, I must...kill the child. MAKES TOTAL SENSE! :D

Faye Valentine said...

"It would be about my doing others' bidding what's best for my child with no regard of what would personally be in my best interest."

Fixed for ya.

Suba gunawardana said...

I take it you have no answer to either questions? Which means your claim to offer "options" to pregnancy, childbirth & child-raising is a total LIE.

Faye Valentine said...

The mysticism of development/organ function. Right on queue.


Humans in their embryonic and fetal stages have fully-formed organs for the age they are currently experiencing.

Oh, wait. You're right. I guess my 11 year old daughter isn't a "complete and fully-formed human being" yet because she's not done with puberty and her mammary glands are "under construction". How could I have been so foolish!

Faye Valentine said...

I just want the killing to end. I just want children to stop being punished with death and torture for the bad choices of their parent(s). I *hate* injustice. If that's "sad", then so be it. But I think *everyone* should hate injustice.

eroteme said...

Oh please. If prenates are complete and fully formed, as you keep saying, they would be able to sustain their own lives independently. The entire point of gestation is to construct a human so that it can survive independently. And until it is capable of sustaining its own life as an autonomous individual its merely a potential life.

And babies have all of the organs and body parts that they will ever have. Can't say the same for an embryo!

Faye Valentine said...

P.S.

If you knew me, you'd know my "misery" isn't really "misery" at all. If more women were able to accept and love the children they bring into the world instead of resenting and blaming them for their problems, there would be far more joy, and far less misery all around.

eroteme said...

Misery loves company. That is what you want. Keep on hating though, your sociopathic personality does wonders for the PL movement.

eroteme said...

Your hateful reply to Chalkdust's thoughtful post was really out of line.

Purple Slurpy said...

I did not know who the Leakeys were, interesting read, thanks. This kind of arrangement was probably VERY common among scientists. Einstein's first wife was a major collaborator to the work that got him the Nobel Prize, the photoelectric effect. After divorcing his wife, he gave the moneys from the Nobel Prize to his wife, and posthumous examination of his correspondence to his first wife suggests that that she made critical contributions in the papers describing the photoelectric effect, yet she was never acknowledged as an author. No doubt Einstein was a genius, but it is probably very likely he wouldn't be the icon of towering minds without the contributions of a certain Mileva Einstein-Maric.

Faye Valentine said...

ROFLMFAO!

"Sociopathic"?

...says the person who trumpets the virtues of killing one's own child in utero to grease the wheels of ease of their own life.

Give me a friggin' break already. XD

MamaBear said...

You are giving the worldwide statistics. There is no way the US is going to allow over 200 million children adopted into this country. Approximately 20 million children or more are orphaned by AIDS
in Africa. I support an organization that feeds, educates, and helps grandparents or other relations raise AIDS orphans. They were wanted babies and the long term solution is to end the AIDS epidemic which took their parents. As in many situations, the solutions vary by country and culture, but in many cases, abortion would not reduce the orphans.
Getting back to the US, in 2010, there were 143,000 adoptions, 53,000 of which were out of fostercare. For infant adoptions (private and public), it is estimated there are 30 to 40 couples waiting for each baby. Wouldn't it be better to fix the system to match up adoptive parents and children, to do away with antiquated ideas such as my friends have run into of race-matching (on the part of agency handling adoptions - my friends will take any race)?
Abortion has not reduced the number of children in foster care or child abuse or poverty or single parenting in this country. All three have increased since the legalization of abortion many times greater than population increase could account for.

Faye Valentine said...

Once again:

changes to *EXISTING SYSTEMS* =/= magical transmogrification from one organism into another.

eroteme said...

So anyone who identifies as pro choice is a sociopath according to you? 100million+ people?

Faye Valentine said...

"Oh please. If prenates are complete and fully formed, as you keep saying, they would be able to sustain their own lives independently."

Umm...how does that follow? You're making an assumption "If _x_, then _z_." which simply isn't so. Very young children are dependent upon their parents for continued survival, up until around age 7 or so. Such is the life of the placental mammal, homo sapiens.

The entire point of gestation is to *finish* development of a human organism to the point that it can carry on its own internal life processes unassisted. I'd love to see the neonate that can "survive independently". They don't exist. But I guess neonates are merely potential lives until the point post-partum at which they can wipe their own bums.

All bodily systems are present by the end of the embryonic stage, by the way. ;)

Faye Valentine said...

No. Some are just victims of marketing, propaganda, and a shutting-out of thought and discussion.

My current husband considered himself "Pro-Choice" until he was actually allowed to give the issue serious thought. Turns out, the "Pro-Choice" side really loathes discourse, so they try to discourage it as much as possible by making people adopt the "Pro-Choice" position by default without thinking about it, lest they be accused of "U HAET WIMMIN, OMFFGZZ!"

eroteme said...

PC loathes discourse...which is why you immediately shat all over Chalkdust after she made a heartfelt post about miscarriage.

eroteme said...

Infants don't need to borrow someone else's lungs to breathe for them.

Faye Valentine said...

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ln6s3k18WC1qdf6w8o1_r1_500.gif

Faye Valentine said...

I'm talking about it. I'm talking about how double-minded it is, and how sad it is that she's had to dehumanize her own children just to maintain her PC position. Her child who died isn't going to get any mourning from his/her own mother, because she's had to convince herself that abortion is "no big deal" for so long, that she feels compelled to view her child's death as "no big deal" just to stay consistent. This is evident from the statement: "What undermines my ability to cope are pro-life billboards--you know, the ones that want to remind me that my prenate had a heartbeat for eleven days or so before it died."-she feels the pangs of reality by being given the facts which cut through her denial, and is bothered by the cognitive dissonance of her PC position ("No big deal.") coupled with the KNOWLEDGE (Yes. Think about that for a minute. A simple fact-KNOWLEDGE-of her once living child is what caused her this discomfort. That should concern you and your ilk.) of her child's short life.

I'm unvarnished. That's how I engage in discourse. Getting the conflict out of the way helps to get to the meat of the issue. So yeah, let's talk about it. Discourse is good, and saying what's on your mind helps to get things started.

Faye Valentine said...

...But they still use the oxygen. You're just up-in-arms over the method of delivery. I don't think it matters. You do. And there's the impasse. Can we rap this up now please?

fiona64 said...

I don't believe a word you've written. In fact, I suspect your friends are holding out for a perfectly healthy Caucasian neonate ... and probably a male ... because they're too selfish to be bothered with any of the other kids who are available.

typical pro-child-murder

Please cite where I have advocated infanticide. I'll wait.

eroteme said...

So?

eroteme said...

Then discuss it with her instead of being so dismissive and hateful. Please?

expect_resistance said...

All children anywhere have been born. Zygotes, embryos, and fetuses aren't children.

Russell Crawford said...

I don't claim there is a change in organism.

Faye Valentine said...

I'm inclined to side with the dictionary over your personal opinion.

Russell Crawford said...

So I am right. There are 200 million children that need to be adopted and you don't want to do what it takes to adopt them, but are willing to kill babies to force fetuses to be born.

And the same is true with the 110,000 children in the U.S. You are willing to kill born babies to force the birth of fetuses so you will have even more babies you can't get adopted.

There has been an increase in babies since Roe so there would naturally be an increase in the need for adoption, not a decrease. The way to decrease babies is to kill them the way the pro life movement does. the way to increase births is to allow abortion http://naturalabortionlaws.com/?p=79

expect_resistance said...

Not my personal opinion, fact.

MamaBear said...

So you want to uproot 200million children and adopt them all out without knowing anything else. How naïve and unthinking.
I obviously cannot talk about every situation in every country, but there are NOT anywhere near 200 million in orphanages or living on streets. And depending on many factors, including age of child, adoption to a foreign country might not be the best solution. Plus, their home country has a sovereignty in this, and many do not allow or limit adoptions.
With the AIDS orphans, a few of the 20 million are in orphanages, but the majority are actually with family, mostly grandparents. The organization I donate to helps those families care for their own orphans. They help with food, school costs (not all public schools in the world are free - many require tuition, uniforms, and school supplies), seeds for gardening, AIDs prevention education for older children, and economic development within the villages. It would be cruel and unethical to uproot those orphans from what family they have left for an adoptive home here. Far better to see what needs to happen to allow them to stay with grandparents, or aunt or uncle, or even an older sibling.
The prolife movement DOES NOT kill babies! We believe in respect and caring for life from conception until natural death, at all stages of life!

Russell Crawford said...

I see you still agree that there are millions of children that need to be adopted and that you do not have the will to help them. You in fact choose to kill innocent born babies in an effort to produce more adoptable children. You are insane, you know that right?

The pro life movement kills innocent born babies and attempts to create more children to adopt, without adopting the ones that are already here. And it tries to convert innocent people into murderers.
The movement will not open its sites to debate the truth because it is a multibillion dollar cash cow that does not care about life, just cash.

You have a choice mommabear, you can save innocent born babies or you can let them die and instead attempt to save a fetus you cannot prove is human or alive. Your intentional choice is to murder babies.

Faye Valentine said...

That's weird, because what I posted was in the dictionary, and from here it appears that you're just supplying your opinion.

Faye Valentine said...

Now think about what you just said for awhile.

Russell Crawford said...

"The prolife movement DOES NOT kill babies! We believe in respect and caring for life from conception until natural death, at all stages of life!"

It has been pointed out to you how you are murdering babies and you choose to continue to murder innocent life. Your empty statement does not resolve the scientific fact that you cannot save both fetuses and born babies, children and adults. Therefore you are proved to be killing life and because you refuse to stop, your murders are intentional.

expect_resistance said...

The dictionary definition of a fetus doesn't define personhood. Hence, the gigantic debate around abortion rights. A women who is pregnant can decide whether or not to bring a fetus to fruition. A fetus doesn't have more rights than the women who is pregnant. A zygote, embryo, fetus has no rights to be carried to term or to be born.

Furthermore, there is no consensus from the scientific, religious, or the community at large on when personhood begins. To say that you've solved this with a dictionary definition is silly at best.

fiona64 said...

Very young children are dependent upon their parents for continued survival,

Nope. Anyone can care for a born infant; otherwise, adoption would be impossible.

However, only the woman can be pregnant ... and only she can decide what to do about that, one way or the other.

fiona64 said...

For infant adoptions (private and public), it is estimated there are 30
to 40 couples waiting for each baby.


That's because they're selfish.

Wouldn't it be better to fix the
system to match up adoptive parents and children, to do away with
antiquated ideas such as my friends have run into of race-matching (on
the part of agency handling adoptions - my friends will take any race)?


It is my opinion that Adoptive Parent A should just be matched up with Child A, and no complaints permitted, right on down the list ... with a permanent eligibility exclusion for refusal.

"What, you didn't want a developmentally delayed female toddler and would rather hold out for a perfectly healthy male neonate? What would you have done if you had given birth to a developmentally delayed female? Next!"

fiona64 said...

The prolife movement DOES NOT kill babies!

No, it kills born, sapient, sentient women. Ref. Savita Halapannavar.

fiona64 said...

You are insane.

No love, someone whose wanted pregnancy nearly killed her and who will NOT gestate another. Period.

Chalkdust said...

She feels the pangs of reality by being given the facts which cut
through her denial, and is bothered by the cognitive dissonance of her
PC position.

Do you actually want to engage with this particular point, or do you just want to have fun mocking me? Because I've been thinking about why pro-life billboards bother me, and I'm not coming up with "because I think they're right".

Chalkdust said...

Thank you for the support.

fiona64 said...

Abortion is 14x safer than gestation and delivery. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22270271

If we're going to base this discussion on relative risk, I suggest you start griping about women remaining pregnant, since it is far more dangerous.

My experience with life-endangering pregnancy, BTW, is primary.

fiona64 said...

Wow. Three paragraphs, and yet totally non-responsive.

fiona64 said...

Just a little pro-tip, Faye; Merriam-Webster does not determine biological reality. In case you skipped a day in class, here are the stages of development of *all* viviparous vertebrates:

In utero:
Zygote
Embryo
Fetus

Ex utero:
Infant
Child <-- See that? Ex utero.

Adolescent/juvenile
Adult

I'm glad to help you with this gap in your education.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 365 of 365   Newer› Newest»