Pages

Friday, October 17, 2014

Abortion as a social good?

On October 13, Slate published a piece by Hannah Rosin called “Abortion is Great,” in which Rosin discusses the views of pro-choice author Katha Pollitt and explains why more pro-choicers should embrace abortion as a social good. My blog post here is my initial reactions as I read Rosin’s piece.

Rosin points out that 6 out of 10 American women who have abortions are already mothers. In my experience, many pro-lifers don’t seem to realize this, as I’ve heard so many of us talk as if pro-choice people inherently dislike kids and would be incapable of parenting. Something to think about. 
“…any woman who’s reading this piece and has had an abortion, or any man who has supported one, should go in the comments section and [tell their story], until there are so many accounts that the statement ['I had an abortion'] loses its shock value.”

She seems to neglect the many post-abortive women and men who became pro-life because of their abortion experiences. 
“…we have all essentially been brainwashed by a small minority of pro-life activists. Only 7 to 20 percent of Americans tell pollsters they want to totally ban abortion…”

Most of the pro-lifers I know, including many pro-life activists, don’t believe abortion should be totally banned. For example, nearly every pro-lifer I’ve ever interacted with agrees abortion should be legal to save the life of the mother, and a majority of self-described pro-lifers believe abortion should be legal in cases of rape. It’s a misconception to suggest that pro-life activists are only those who think all abortions in every circumstance should be illegal.

Pro-lifers may disagree on the legality of abortion in the harsher cases: when a woman’s physical health is endangered, when she was raped, when the fetus has a severe, possibly life-threatening condition, etc. But if I had to describe the common thread that pulls together most people who call themselves “pro-life,” I’d say it’s the agreement that abortion is immoral and should be illegal at minimum when it is done on healthy fetuses resulting from consensual sex and carried by healthy mothers. And the great majority of abortions today are done in such cases. Rosin alludes to as much herself: 
“Three in 10 American women have abortions by the time they hit menopause. They are not generally victims of rape or incest, or in any pitiable situation from which they need to be rescued.”

Rosin continues: 
“They are making a reasonable and even admirable decision that they can’t raise a child at the moment. Is that so hard to say? As Pollitt puts it, ‘This is not the right time for me’ should be reason enough. And saying that aloud would help push back against the lingering notion that it’s unnatural for a woman to choose herself over others.”

Rosin is asking people to be more direct about abortion, yet she describes a woman’s choice to abort as merely “choosing herself over others.” That description is not direct at all. Abortion kills a human. That’s direct. Many people don’t consider that human worth much moral consideration, and so some of them are pro-abortion, as Rosin clearly is. Fine. But pretending that a death isn’t happening means ignoring why the entire subject continues to divide Americans. Rosin wants to believe this is about being aghast that a woman would choose herself over others, but it’s not about that at all.

Consider this: if a woman feels it’s not the right time for her to have children, she can choose not to have sex, or choose to only participate in non-procreative sex, or choose to use contraception, or choose to give a child up for adoption. She could also choose to abort. All of these choices may reflect her position that she isn’t prepared to or doesn’t want to raise children, yet one of these choices is far, far more controversial and contentious than the others.



If this were really about us being upset that a woman would want to choose herself over others, we’d be against any decision that puts her education, career, or other aspects of her life above procreation. Yet, for example, the vast majority of Americans, including the majority of pro-lifers, believe contraception is morally acceptable. Rosin says there is a "fog of regret" surrounding abortion, but we simply don't see that same "fog" surrounding these other decisions. There’s a clear distinction between abortion and other choices not to raise children, and Rosin, and so many pro-choice activists, skip this distinction entirely. Abortion is not simply about reproductive freedom, healthcare decisions, or a woman choosing herself over others. Abortion is about having a very young, less developed human killed. That’s the difference.

Rosin digs in with her gender-based theory by saying we don’t apply the same standard to men. “We would never expect a man to drop everything and accept a life of ‘dimmed hope’ because of a single ejaculation.” I expect the many men who (rightfully) have to pay child support for single ejaculations would beg to differ.

Rosin also elaborates on some of Pollitt’s explanations of alleged pro-life contradictions: 
“[Pollitt] cites one poll for example showing that 38 percent of people say abortion is as ‘bad as killing a person already born.’ But in the same poll 84 percent say it’s fine to save the life of a mother. If you really think about it, this position is untenable. No one would say it was fine to kill a toddler if the mother needed its heart.”

What a strange comparison. When is abortion about the mother needing the fetus's heart? The proper analogy would be if somehow a toddler’s very presence was actively killing the mother (akin to an embryo in an ectopic pregnancy) and the only way for the mother to save her own life was to remove the toddler, and the only way to remove the toddler resulted in the toddler’s death. 

I can’t think of a scenario where that would be true – which goes to a point Rosin and I agree on: the fetus and the mother have a complicated relationship. But if there was an analogous situation with a born human, I think many people would defend the right to kill as self-defense. This isn’t about killing someone else to use their heart (when would a mother ever be able to use a toddler’s heart anyway?) This is about killing someone else to prevent them from actively killing you. Most people, and our own history of self-defense laws, see the two scenarios entirely differently.

Rosin goes on to discuss how the left and pro-choicers should advocate for abortion, especially for poor women, as part of an effort to urge women to wait to have children until they are in stable relationships. She believes promoting abortion as an extension of birth control is part of “a new era of family values.” She agrees with Pollitt, who believes “the moral high ground is in reclaiming the right to have an abortion, regardless of the circumstances.”

But I’m not sure “reclaiming” is the correct verb here. Was there ever a time when people who promote abortion regardless of circumstances had the moral high ground?

Rosin seems to think her side has descended to defensiveness by saying abortion should be safe, legal, and rare and by focusing on abortion in the extreme cases of maternal health and life or of incest and rape. But (to my knowledge) this isn’t a descent – it’s where many abortion defenders have been from the beginning. Perhaps they focus on the extreme cases and act defensive about abortion in general because polls suggest most Americans think abortion as birth control – the kind of remorseless abortion culture Rosin promotes – should be illegal.

Rosin’s piece is not the first to push back against pro-choice defensiveness, but I suspect this aggressive strategy will ultimately backfire. From what I’ve seen, the average American finds abortion problematic but sees it as a “necessary evil,” at least for the extreme cases we so often focus on. I’m dubious our society is willing to instead embrace abortion as an unapologetic good.

730 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   601 – 730 of 730
secularprolife.org said...

I have to admit, the educated people that I spend time with have never used terms such as "beef-witted pox-closets".

secularprolife.org said...

Are you educated?

secularprolife.org said...

Um. I am already quite aware that pregnancy isn't just like breathing. What I disagreed with is "the number one cause of death for women is gestational issues and giving birth to children". I trust the CDC and WHO with the information they publish and will believe them before I believe a stranger on the internet. Both agencies do not say that maternal deaths are the number one reason that cause women to die. Both list other causes. I posted the links, so please, do not take my word for it. Read the information for yourself.

secularprolife.org said...

Didn't you recently accuse me of being mean-spirited? Hypocrite much?

secularprolife.org said...

Its a question, sweetie.

secularprolife.org said...

You lost your shit and attacked me when all I dared to say is that it is not a state of health and has the potential to maim and kill.

U mad bro?

secularprolife.org said...

A rape baby? Fucking seriously? Is that all you have - slut shaming a rape victim and her child? Rape victims everywhere look out! If you don't "choose" to have an abortion than there will be pro-choicers that will degrade your child as a "rape baby" in order to make you ashamed of your child so you will change your mind and "choose" to have an abortion.
You also try to play the guilt card of forced gestation, after I already stated that I don't support banning abortions? Oh, I see, you couldn't get past the part that I lean pro-life, so you can't help but make ignorant assumptions based on equally ignorant stereotypes.

secularprolife.org said...

U mad bro?

secularprolife.org said...

"I" lost my shit Lmfao. No, you want to paint me as such because you and your friends couldn't admit to being wrong about posting misleading information. Is this an admission that maternal related deaths are NOT the number one cause of death for women without you being straight forward about being wrong?

secularprolife.org said...

Sure, sweetie ;)

secularprolife.org said...

U still mad bro?

secularprolife.org said...

Nope. Just a little surprised. I would have though you had SOME morals. Nice reference though. Perhaps, someone should write an article on how some pro-choicers endorse slut-shaming rape victims and attacking their unborn children.

secularprolife.org said...

Guess not.

secularprolife.org said...

Massive straw man, sweetie. Par for the course with you, sweetie.

secularprolife.org said...

Nazis may have been in support of German women considered ethnically pure to pop out children but he was also a big fan of eugenics. So was the founder of Planned Parenthood. Don't get me wrong, Planned Parenthood has done some really outstanding things for women but it doesn't change the intent of it's founder.
Children born in what is deemed Third World countries are not parasites.(in fact they did quite well until Westerners decided to "civilize" them). Children born to the poor are not parasites. Children born to other than white are not parasites. In fact, innocent children are not parasites
Maybe if we stood up against unethical practices of corporations and asserted a little more self-control then we just might be able to save our planet.

secularprolife.org said...

I sincerely apologize. It's been awhile since I was so popular by being unpopular, I'm trying to catch up. I did reply a few minutes ago. I am also wrong for going on the offense the way I did and I apologize for that too.

secularprolife.org said...

I never made a stance supporting "forcing humans to be born". You just assumed I did because I lean pro-life.

secularprolife.org said...

How does leaning pro-life and not using abortion as a Band-Aid equal to forced births?

secularprolife.org said...

Oh, so now I support one- percenters. And did you just advocate for a bloody revolution? Do you own a guillotine and do you practice with it?

secularprolife.org said...

Sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me. Criss-cross, apple sauce - no tag-backs. Oh and by the way, you have cooties.

secularprolife.org said...

This is Secular Pro-Life, isn't it? It's not like I went to a pro-choice site. Guess that makes you the troll.

secularprolife.org said...

Calling you out for YOUR display of unethical behavior is a straw man? Alrighty then.

secularprolife.org said...

Doesn't mean much since you have a tendency to guess wrong.

secularprolife.org said...

I know you are but what am I?

secularprolife.org said...

Immature childish behavior makes you a troll.

secularprolife.org said...

Nothing unethical about pointing out how you want to spread the pain.

secularprolife.org said...

You mad bro?

secularprolife.org said...

Right. Responding with "rape babies" is an excellent way of exposing my "plot" of wanting to "spread pain". You got me.

secularprolife.org said...

It doesn't matter if you aren't interested in forcing more human mouths-to-feed to get born. Your position of, in essence, wanting to deny most abortions is logically equivalent to insisting that that-many pregnancies must be carried to term. Not to mention that you could simply explain the attitude of other abortion opponents, who are interested in forcing more human mouths-to-feed to get born.

secularprolife.org said...

What is it about 'buzz off' you do not understand?

secularprolife.org said...

What are you going to do keyboard warrior?

secularprolife.org said...

Of course because anyone that thinks that using the term "rape babies" is degrading to rape victims is "crazy". Bravo. You just used two favored right wing tactics against women.

secularprolife.org said...

Bugger off.

secularprolife.org said...

THANK YOU. Now I can point out the main flaws in your argument, even while accepting the notion that you are applying your argument almost entirely to late-term abortions.

First, I'll assume an even higher mortality rate for the pregnant woman getting those late-term abortions, to better-stress the first flaw --call it 50 maternal deaths per 100,000 late-term abortions --so you can't accuse me of painting too rosy a picture here. I'll even pretend that ZERO maternal deaths will occur if those abortions had not been done.

The net result is that, to save 50 lives, you want 100,000 more mouths-to-feed to be born, most of which would normally be expected to have children in the future --and of course some of those 50 women might have extra children. If the abortions are done, we lose the 50 women, AND we avoid all those future births as well, from the grown-up 100,000 mouths-to-feed. Meanwhile, the total number of pregnant women NOT seeking an abortion is rather-significantly greater-than the women who do seek abortions. The human species can easily afford the loss of those 50 women, because of the birth rate associated with wanted pregnancies.

There is formally-considered-to-be-a-classic science fiction story that was made into a movie, "The Cold Equations". Basically, facts are facts, accurate numbers don't lie, and Nature cares nothing for human opinions/feelings. And in this case the most relevant fact is that the world IS overpopulated with humans (search for the exact phrase "not even a global pandemic can solve our overpopulation problem"). We can afford the 50 maternal deaths from late-term abortions, while we can't afford the alternative, 100,000 more mouths-to-feed.



Another flaw in your argument is the assumption that late-term abortions are always/ever going to be done the same way, that no safer procedure exists to be found/used. If that happens, then your problematic maternal death rate might disappear. And here is one suggestion along that line: Get the equivalent of a fairly strong "alligator clip", but it doesn't have teeth. It can be slim enough to insert through the cervix safely, at the end of an appropriate flexible manipulator conduit. Along with the clip, we also insert a flexible fiber-optic laparoscope. The abortionist would use the video feed from the 'scope to puncture the amniotic sac and insert the clip, and apply it to the umbilical cord. The clamping pressure cuts off the blood flowing through the cord. The fetal brain will shut down in less than 30 seconds, and a few minutes after that, the brain will die from lack of oxygen. Now all that needs to be done is induce labor, to expel the corpse --see above assumption regarding zero maternal deaths if births happen; I'm working within the same scenario, only now there are zero cuts, associated with a risk of hemorrhaging, being made inside the uterus, see?


Finally, let's assume the women seeking those late-term abortions are fully informed of the risk: 50 deaths per 100,000 is the same as a 1-in-2000 chance of death. Of those 100,000 women seeking those late abortions, some might change their minds. But I suspect most would accept the risk and get the abortion , anyway. It is their choice to risk death, and not your place to insist they cannot make that choice.

secularprolife.org said...

In other words, you advocate for abortions not from a human rights issue for women (because you are more in favor of these women dying). You advocate for abortions as a means of population control.

"It is their choice to risk death, and not your place --nor the place of any other abortion opponent--to insist they cannot make that choice" - if you thought by stating as such would put me in my place and silence my voice, you are very much mistaken.
However, I do thank you for opening my eyes to the real agenda of the pro-choice movement. Prior to this dialogue with you, I believed that pro-choicers were genuinely concerned for the well-being and rights of women, even if I believed them to be misguided. If someone from the pro-life movement had stated that pro-choicers believed in what you stated in your latest post, I would have accused them of propaganda and inciting hate through malicious lies. So, I also thank you for being honest, even though I just about lost my breakfast by reading your latest post.

secularprolife.org said...

Bugger off? Is that why you chose the name of "Plum Dumpling? Lmfao.

secularprolife.org said...

Hit the street.

secularprolife.org said...

Ohhhhhhhh!!!! Tough guy now? Or is it in the street that you hope someone will bugger your plum pudding? You jumped in and you can jump out anytime you wish. Please don't allow me to keep you from walking away.

secularprolife.org said...

That sound you heard was the point, going right over your head.

Not that I'm surprised.

Allow me to break it down for you, my dear dimwit: if you had actually studied history, you would know that under Dubya and for a few years thereafter, the economic situation in this country (which is improving over that black man who you don't like being in the White House) was *identical* to that of France during the 1780s, 1830s and 1870s (did you think there was only one revolution there?). The Occupy movement deliberately did NOT choose leaders because they did not want bloodshed. However, if there had been a Maximilien Robespierre, the 1 percenters would have been dragged into the streets and executed just like the French aristos


And you wonder why I keep telling you to crack a freaking book? Really?

secularprolife.org said...

They must not have read much Chaucer or Shakespeare.

Assuming you spend any time with educated people whatsoever, which (given your ignorance about a great many things) I doubt.

secularprolife.org said...

That's quite a tale you've spun. Given the anti-choice propensity to lie, I guess I'll have a tiny struggle to take it at face value but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

So, I'm an "extreme pro-choicer" because I believe that a woman has a right to use contraception or not, gestate a pregnancy or not, rear a child alone or with a partner of her choice, or surrender a child for adoption? Yeah, that's really extreme, letting the actual pregnant woman decide.

I used to be an anti-choice dimwit Just. Like. You. Then, I got out of high school and into the real world, where I discovered that reality is not as black-and-white as you want to make it out to be.

As a survivor of rape and DV, information of which you have already been apprised, I am beyond insulted that you would think that I would find that behavior acceptable.

Furthermore, I nearly died due to gestational complications (as you have already been informed) ... and you accused me of "fearmongering" because I described the reality of gestation.

You argue that women should be *forced* to gestate because YOU don't like abortion. You CHOSE to have your children. Other women do NOT have to choose as you did.

You seriously need to look at why you're angry at other women who choose differently from you. And yes, I do think it's jealousy.

secularprolife.org said...

I can't check things that don't exist.

Why are you jealous of pro-choice women?

secularprolife.org said...

Okay, I'll stop equivocating: why are you jealous of pro-choice women?

secularprolife.org said...

If you don't want your children discussed, keep them out of the discussion.

My son is 28 years old. I nearly died of gestational complications when I had him. There will NOT be another pregnancy gestated in my body; should my tubal ligation fail, there will be an abortion so fast that your jealous head will spin right off.

Don't like it?

Tough.

secularprolife.org said...

I just wanted to make sure that you could understand the information presented, sugarplum. Cunt is not even remotely derived from Japanese (as you claimed). It's Anglo-Saxon.

Here are 67K results for you to peruse at your leisure. https://www.google.com/search?q=etymology+of+cunt&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=sb

None of them, BTW, say that "cunt" is derived from Japanese ... because it isn't.

secularprolife.org said...

Your right

My right what? Right foot? Right ear? Right shoe?

Please complete the sentence.

After that, try to figure out why you are specifically jealous of *me.* It's sticking out all over you.

secularprolife.org said...

You haven't posted any facts. About anything.

"Cunt is derived from Japanese." FFS.

secularprolife.org said...

You don't have the slightest idea why IndoEuropean languages (which contributed to AngloSaxon) have no relation to Japanese, do you?

secularprolife.org said...

Haven't you read the post written by ignorance_is_curable? Let me enlighten you with part that i.i.c. wrote:
"If the abortions are done, we lose the 50 women, AND we avoid all those future births as well, from the grown-up 100,000 mouths-to-feed. Meanwhile, the total number of pregnant women NOT seeking an abortion is rather-significantly greater-than the women who do seek abortions. The human species can easily afford the loss of those 50 women, because of the birth rate associated with wanted pregnancies".
You can stop pretending that this is about protecting the reproductive health choices of women and that you actually are concerned about maternal deaths due to childbirth and pregnancies . At least i.i.c. is forthcoming and honest.

secularprolife.org said...

Lmao. You're still on this kick. Again, if such grandiose delusions help your self-esteem, then by all means, indulge yourself.

secularprolife.org said...

I find it amazing on how you keep insisting to prove yourself as a pathetic idiot.

secularprolife.org said...

"I'm not saying it was aliens but......"
Give it up. Ignorance is curable recently explained why abortion is about population control (which in itself is a myth used to commit human rights violations but that in itself was not discussed).

secularprolife.org said...

I see. You are on a smear campaign because you know I am right but are doing your best to discredit anything I say. Like I stated in the most recent responses to you, another pro-choicer admitted publically that abortion is about population control that cares neither for mother and child. It' out. No need to fight about it.

secularprolife.org said...

Beat feet.

secularprolife.org said...

If anything I have lost I.Q. points for allowing myself to engage you in what was supposed to be a debate. First, I'm a Democrat. I voted for Al Gore, you idiotic twat and have shown nothing but support for Mr. President Obama. Second, you deny and then affirm but lie to yourself by believing you were clever about your apparent desire for a bloody revolution. I despise the one percenters too but I don't see how it would make me a "superior" human being by smugly explaining if Occupy Democrats had a Maximilien Robespierre (which you probably gave a loving sigh after typing his name) then Occupy Democrats would have slaughtered American citizens, assholes or not, protected under the Constitution of the United States of America. But of course, Occupy Democrats "deliberately did NOT choose leaders because they did not want bloodshed", suggesting that you possibly believe that Occupy Democrats have that kind of power. However, I guarantee you that there are many of my sisters and brothers that have sworn an oath to protect the United States of America and the Constitution of the United States of America and would quickly put a stop to domestic terrorism of which you just advocated. In fact, I find it hard to believe that you are actually a Democrat. You sound more like a Tea Party Member troll. Still, it will interesting to see if Occupy Democrats are part of the Domestic Terrorist list.

secularprolife.org said...

Drop and beat your face.

secularprolife.org said...

Rotflmfao!!!! And you tried to imply I was racist? Bwhahahahaha!!!!!!!!!

secularprolife.org said...

You completely ignored the "some scholars trace" didn't you? I guess it must be really important for you to prove Anglo-Saxon superiority, isn't it? Of which of course, we all know that Anglo-Saxons and/or other white populations aren't superior to any other ethnic group or people of color.

secularprolife.org said...

Ha ha. Maybe you should scan for your own mistakes in grammar before pointing out my mistakes. Of course, you are too lazy for that, aren't you old lady?

secularprolife.org said...

>SINGS<
Hit the road Jack and don't you come back
No more, no more, no more, no more
Hit the road Jack and don't you come back no more.

secularprolife.org said...

Apparently, you did not take the time to read the information I posted. Tsk, tsk.

secularprolife.org said...

I love that song! To the beat now.

secularprolife.org said...

Great song. Lots of people have sung it. I like the Ray Charles version.

secularprolife.org said...

I think the version by Ray Charles is the best but then again, it is the only version of the song that I have heard.

secularprolife.org said...

Good argument. Strengthend by the 14th. No one can 'seize' my body.

secularprolife.org said...

I think Ray wrote the song. Could be wrong. I like this version too:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rU_EweSJfGE

secularprolife.org said...

Forced labor and the 13th Amendment in regards to abortion rights:

http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1031&context=facultyworkingpapers

secularprolife.org said...

Why are you jealous of me, StarSeed?

secularprolife.org said...

I'm sorry you're so confused about the reality of this particular word. It has nothing to do with "superiority," except, apparently, in your mind.

Why do you feel inferior to so many people? Perhaps you should seek counseling for that.

secularprolife.org said...

Why are you jealous of people who are smarter than you?

secularprolife.org said...

Then I suggest you stop addressing me; you can't afford to lose any IQ points whatsoever. I would hate to see you go into a deficit because you don't understand simple concepts.

secularprolife.org said...

It appears that pro-choicers ARE THE ONES that are wiling to risk the
life of a woman in order to prevent the burdensome "more human mouths
to feed" children from being born.


Nope, since unlike the pro-life lobby, we don't seek to make abortion *mandatory*, whereas pro-lifers seek to make birth *mandatory*, and a 1st trimester abortion IS safer than birth. 91% of abortions are prior to 9 weeks, and only 1.2% are after 20 weeks, and those are done out of medical necessity.

When performed under proper medical conditions by trained personnel in a hygienic setting, abortion is an extremely safe procedure. Fewer than 1% of all U.S. abortion patients experience a major complication and the risk of death associated with abortion is 10 times as low as that associated with childbirth. However, when the procedure is performed by an unskilled person, or in an environment not conducive to safe medical circumstances, it is considered unsafe. The risk of death associated with unsafe abortion worldwide is 30 deaths per 100,000 live births.

In 2007, six women in the United States were reported to have died as a result of abortion complications. (Compared to 800 women who die per year from pregnancy)

citations: World Health Organization (WHO), Unsafe Abortion: Global and Regional Estimates of the Incidence of Unsafe Abortion and Associated Mortality in 2008 , sixth ed., Geneva: WHO, 2011.

Pazol K et al., Abortion Surveillance—United States, 2007, MMWR Surveillance Summaries, 2011, Vol. 60, No. SS-01.

secularprolife.org said...

another pro-choicer admitted publically that abortion is about population control that cares neither for mother and child

I'm sorry, I guess I didn't see that post. Of course, it's utter bullshit, but hey. That's nothing new coming from you.

You are welcome to have children until your uterus prolapes, and I'll not do one thing to try to stop you. Unlike you, I recognize that other people's reproductive decisions are none of my damned business.

You might want to try that on for size, after you figure out why you're jealous of every woman who isn't you.

secularprolife.org said...

Why are you jealous of every woman whose life doesn't suck?

secularprolife.org said...

You don't have the slightest comprehension of what you quoted, do you?

I'm sorry you're so stupid, but it's really not my fault.

secularprolife.org said...

PS: go fuck yourself. I am far too aware of the realities of potentially life-threatening complications that come with pregnancy. Just because you can crap out kids like some kind of barnyard animal doesn't mean that others experience no complications.

secularprolife.org said...

She seems to be incredibly threatened by the idea that we might 'scare' some poor woman into choosing not to give birth by, gasp, posting evidence that pregnancy is not all daisies and unicorns.

secularprolife.org said...

Retard = ableist


You're so full of shit when you attempt to take the moral high ground, sweetie

secularprolife.org said...

Throughout history, maternal and infant morality rates, plus female infanticide, is what has kept our population in check.



Cry all you want, but once a human population (or any population) exceeds the carrying capacity of the environment, famine war and genocide often follow.

secularprolife.org said...

Honestly, her constant, delighted stupidity is giving me a migraine. And I *wish* I were exaggerating. :-/

secularprolife.org said...

You're getting under her skin, that much is clear.

secularprolife.org said...

Well then so is contraception. And choosing not to fuck and have kids. Oh, so much evil.

secularprolife.org said...

However, I do thank you for opening my eyes to the real agenda of the pro-choice movement.


Yes because IIC is the sole spokesman for the PC movement.


Your'e a fucking moron.

secularprolife.org said...

Another massive strawman, because that's all you have, fuckwit.

secularprolife.org said...

It is indeed.

secularprolife.org said...

I've said it before (elsewhere, mostly), and I'll say it again, that abortion is a tool for helping us with our very real overpopulation problem. Nothing in what I've written here can be called any sort of insistence that an abortion must be done.


Also, don't assume my arguments are representative of others who oppose abortion opponents. My arguments are mostly designed to show how your arguments are so fatally flawed as to be idiotic. And here, the policy of opposing abortion is logically equivalent to a policy of helping a Malthusian Catastrophe to happen --which event can be expected to result in the death of at least 80% of the entire human species (possibly as high as 99%). How can they possibly call themselves "pro life" when THAT is the long-term consequence of their short-sighted policy???


Anyway, the women seeking abortions are doing that for their own reasons. We-as-a-species simply need to allow it more than we need to prevent it, in this day-and-age. Can you provide one slightest bit of evidence to the contrary?


Regarding risk-taking, consider recent television ads indicating that tobacco products kill 1/3 of those who choose to use those products. Yet many young adults still choose to take that risk. Then there are risks of death associated with dietary choices, transportation choices, job choices, and so on. World wide, the total death rate from all causes is about 50 million a year. But the birth rate, even after something like 30 million abortions a year, is something like 80 million a year. Someone who truly thinks that abortion should be used to control population is likely to think that we need to start forcing more abortions to happen --but I am not one of those people. Providing easier access to inexpensive contraceptives will cost Society lots less than building more abortion clinics. and creating stormtrooper squads to haul pregnant women off to those clinics.


Finally, I DO have concern for the well-being of women --why else offer a description of a less-risky abortion technique?

secularprolife.org said...

And at the same time he allowed Jewish women to have abortion for whatever reason. Does this mean he cared for these women and wanted to grant them freedom over their lives and their bodies? NO. Hitler's politics on abortion in no way fits as an example in the modern abortion debate so please stop embarrassing yourself, and drop this "argument".

secularprolife.org said...

It fits perfectly. He was anti choice - forced gestation for the "right" women, and forced abortion for the "wrong" kind of woman.

Point being, the state should have zero say when it comes to reproductive choices - let people make up their own minds, and stay the hell out of their bodies.

secularprolife.org said...

You really do believe yourself to be quite the clever bad-ass, don't you? Lmao.

secularprolife.org said...

No, I'm not a delusional, angry fuckwit like you.

secularprolife.org said...

That's it? Ctfu.

secularprolife.org said...

Yeah, I think your dealer needs to give you a different type of illicit drug.

secularprolife.org said...

Famine, war and genocide were a part of our society long before humans "overpopulated".

secularprolife.org said...

Self-project much?

secularprolife.org said...

Wow. Lmfao. Like seriously, I'm hysterically laughing. You made my day sweet pea. By the way masturbation is healthy. Maybe you should try it and you wouldn't be so uptight.

secularprolife.org said...

Yes, YOU'RE right, WikiQueen.

secularprolife.org said...

I think it's the other way around. You are obsessed with it.

secularprolife.org said...

Oh, no iic was quite offended that I would put him or her as the spokesperson for pro-choice. I have stated nothing but truth, because seriously, who the fuck are you or anyone else to me that I would have to resort to lying? Do flatter yourself into thinking that you are worth lying over. You inability to even be fair, shows your disconnection from intelligence, not mine. You claim to be educated, yet those that are educated are able to argue both sides of an issue and concede when another person is right while admitting to any mistakes. You have not yet demonstrated that ability.

secularprolife.org said...

Yeah, they have been, precisely because of overpopulation, dumbass.

secularprolife.org said...

"Nope, since unlike the pro-life lobby, we don't seek to make abortion *mandatory*" - maybe not within the states but women are being forced to have mandatory abortions in other parts of the world.
I posted some links that contrast the data you provided. Not only that, I used very similar data from the CDC that you just provided that was included in the argument. Hopefully, you will check it out.
However, this is really over for me. There are times that I was so tempted to go back to pro-choice, especially after a mom went to jail after giving her daughter an abortion pill because she was too poor to drive the long distance to an abortion clinic and/or too poor to pay for the abortion. And while I would never support banning abortions, I still believe that women deserve real data and not propaganda designed to get them to abort. Whatever the case, it most certainly has inspired me to do further research.

secularprolife.org said...

Oh, this is more about you gratifying your ego for the last word. Awwwww, :(

secularprolife.org said...

maybe not within the states but women are being forced to have mandatory abortions in other parts of the world.

Yeah, and pro-choicers oppose that. In fact, the PC side fought for the rights of a girl to keep her pregnancy after her parents were trying to force her to abort against her will.

And while I would never support banning abortions, I still believe that
women deserve real data and not propaganda designed to get them to
abort.



Strawman. No one is trying to get women to abort by pointing out that pregnancy isn't all daisies and unicorns. The fact that pregnancy isn't a state of wellness, and does come with risks, isn't fearmongering, it's fucking reality. I am so sorry that you can't deal with that, you angry little girl you.

secularprolife.org said...

Why are you jealous of people whose lives are better than yours?

secularprolife.org said...

Um, sweetie? There's some spittle on your chin. You might want to see someone about your anger issues, as well as your jealousy issues.

secularprolife.org said...

Why are you jealous of women who made better life choice than you?

secularprolife.org said...

Why are you jealous of people who are better educated than you are?

secularprolife.org said...

Why are you so obsessed with other people's sex lives? Are you jealous of that, too?

secularprolife.org said...

If it was, it would not be with yours. You were the one that told me to fuck off and all I did was turn it back around. Not that I expected you to be amused, lol.

secularprolife.org said...

Uh huh. Says the great WikiQueen. Of course you would already know that Wiki is not considered a valid academic source, if you were educated. Then you would have been more creative than to use a line similar to "I meant to do that because you're so stupid" when in fact, you chose to list an invalid academic source while passing yourself as educated but instead, made yourself look like a retard. Then you get mad at me for your own stupidity and expect me to be jealous because you are stupid. The majority of this pleasant dialogue has been nothing but you trying to bring me down because I hurt your feelings and called your argument a red herring and then you were butt hurt after your manipulation of data was called out (especially because the source YOU provided did not support your opinion but the sources I provided proved my point which infuriated you more). So you decided to resort to name calling and lash out because it was the only way you could make yourself feel better due to your insecurities. We could continue to do this but at the end of the day, you're still an asshole and nothing you say to me changes that.

secularprolife.org said...

Or so being a mother is a poor life choice? Sobbing about how gestational diabetes almost killed you and how everyone should bow down at your feet because of your "sacrifice" for your son is a "better" choice? I wonder how he turned out. Did you remind him everyday of the "sacrifice" you made for him? Especially having to give up all that ice cream and sweets and settle for fruits while pregnant. It must have been so rough for you. Are you bitter because you were too much of a coward to face your fears and have another child? Because it sure as hell seems like you are the jealous one because I had more than one child and you were too chickenshit to have another.

secularprolife.org said...

You described her perfectly.

secularprolife.org said...

You're funny.


Sobbing about how gestational diabetes almost killed you

Interesting. You see, I never mentioned the complication in question to you. And it wasn't gestational diabetes. It was hyperemesis gravidarum ... not that it's any of your business anyway.

Are you bitter because you were too much of a coward to face your fears and have another child?

What a loving, "pro-life" attitude you're displaying.

I think you're definitely jealous of those of us who limit our family size.

secularprolife.org said...

Why are you jealous of other women who made better life choices than you did?

you're still an asshole

Oh, I'm just cut to the quick that you're angry. No, really. I'm heartbroken that some angry little anti-choicer on the internet is upset.

Poor child.

secularprolife.org said...

That's funny, coming from the woman who worries so much about other people's vaginas.

Maybe *that's* what you're jealous about; after having six kids, your husband probably feels like he's flinging a Vienna sausage down the Grand Foyer of the Paris Opera.

secularprolife.org said...

Wiki is fine. Learn to read citations.

secularprolife.org said...

You've lied about everyone here because you are a dishonest pos.

secularprolife.org said...

YOU ARE LYING. My earlier post BOTH states that we-as-a-species can afford the deaths of the few women, out of 100,000, who get late-term abortions, AND it describes a less-dangerous-for-women way to perform abortions. You CANNOT legitimately claim that I don't care about their lives.


NEXT, YOU ARE LYING AGAIN. There are no proposed human rights violations in what I wrote. You know very well that maternal deaths during late-term abortions are not deliberate. I specifically talked about them being fully informed of the risk of death, in the scenario I described. NOR are there any human-rights violations with respect to the aborted, since they are mere animal organisms, not people associated with rights. If you want to claim they are somehow more than mere animal organisms, more deserving of rights than, say, an elephant deserves protection from a poacher, let's see the evidence for it!


If I haven't mentioned this before, then I need to know if you understand the difference between "potential" and "actual". That's because, if you think the two should be treated the same, then, obviously, you could be invited to tell us what it is like drive across a potential bridge spanning a canyon. Or, perhaps you would like to be taxed as if you had won a multi-million-dollar lottery jackpot, since you obviously have the potential to win it. Or, perhaps you would like to be embalmed and buried today, since, if we wait enough centuries, you will prove to be a potential corpse. There is NO rationale for equating the potential with the actual, and thus there is NO rationale for claiming that unborn humans, potential persons, need to be treated like actual persons.

secularprolife.org said...

Why are you jealous of women who were better at planning their families than you?

secularprolife.org said...

"We-as-a-species can afford the deaths of the few women, out of 100,000, who get late-term abortions" - how does that equal to caring for the lives of these women when you say that humanity can afford for their lives to be lost?
Just because I have a different perspective does not mean that I am lying. Why should I lie? What would be the point? What gain do I have to lie about anything? Do you pay my bills? Does my life depend on you or what you think of me? No, it does not. Would lying change your mind and your viewpoints? Absolutely not. So, again, what would be the point?

secularprolife.org said...

No. You believe as such because I lean pro-life and that was justification for hatred in itself. Just because I disagreed and posted facts that childbirth is not the number one cause for the deaths of women and that at least half of women that die from childbirth and/or pregnancy related issues could have been saved with proper medical treatment. You and some of your "friends" tried to paint childbirth as so life-threatening that abortion would actually be the best way of saving their lives. I countered that access to medical is a better solution but you weren't trying to hear that. All you wanted to do was accuse me of "lying" to women by making them believe that pregnancy and childbirth and motherhood is nothing but "fairy farts" and "unicorns". That was a false equivocation. I never said that pregnancy and childbirth and motherhood is easy but neither does it make it an automatic death sentence. Obviously, you and friends have issues with that.

secularprolife.org said...

Not one of us said that pregnancy was an automatic death sentence.

Another strawman.

secularprolife.org said...

"You must never fully rely on any one source for important information.
Everyone makes mistakes. All scholarly journals and newspapers contain “corrections” sections in which they acknowledge errors in their prior work. And even the most neutral writer is sometimes guilty of not being fully objective. Thus, you must take a skeptical approach to everything you read". http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/education/2010/march/The-Top-10-Reasons-Students-Cannot-Cite-or-Rely-on-Wikipedia.html
Get the part of "not being fully objective"? One scholar or one scholarly stance is not the authority of any subject and since she claimed to have studied linguistics then she should and could have provided valid academic resources, not a source like Wiki that is not an academic source. That was her failure, not mine.

secularprolife.org said...

Wikipedia often has multiple citations.

Nice try, though.

secularprolife.org said...

Is a liberal engaging in tactics meant to dehumanize and obtain control of a woman? Lmfao. The fact that you would stoop that low shows a substantial amount of insecurity. Oh, by the way despite having multiple children, my vagina muscles are just fine. If anything, I'm unusually tight but thanks for yet another ignorant assumption based on your own personal biases on my life.

secularprolife.org said...

"We-as-a-species can afford the deaths of the few women, out of 100,000, who get late-term abortions" - how does that equal to caring for the lives of these women when you say that humanity can afford for their lives to be lost?
-----
My statement was a pragmatic Recognition Of Fact. One typical problem of abortion opponents is, they tend to Stupidly Deny Facts instead of accepting them. So, if 50 women happen to die during late-term abortions, it doesn't significantly change the chances of survival for the entire human species (not when there are about 50 million deaths annually from all causes, and global population still grows by about 80 million a year).

My earlier post was divided into segments for a reason, to present different FLAWS in your argument against late-term abortions. Failure to pragmatically recognize Fact was one of those flaws. Another flaw was the assumption that no better way to perform a late-term abortion could be found, and I specifically indicated that if such was found/implemented, the maternal death rate that bothered you could disappear. And so I described an alternate and safer procedure. If I thought that only pragmatism mattered, I wouldn't have needed to bother writing that segment of that post.
=====

Just because I have a different perspective does not mean that I am lying.
-----
WHEN YOU WRITE: You judged one life, actually a theoretical fifty lives --THAT IS WHERE YOU LIED. Because I didn't make a judgment. Pragmatic recognition of Fact is not the same thing as "judgment". ALSO, YOU WROTE: The overpopulation myth is nothing more than tactic used to justify human rights violations. WHICH IS BOTH A DENIAL OF FACT (human overpopulation is very real, else the list of things I presented in another message, such as us causing 3 other species to go extinct every hour, wouldn't be happening), and had nothing to do with what I wrote, since, as I explained in my reply to that message, I did not in any sense propose any human rights violations.
=====

Why should I lie? What would be the point? What gain do I have to lie about anything? Do you pay my bills? Does my life depend on you or what you think of me? No, it does not. Would lying change your mind and your viewpoints? Absolutely not. So, again, what would be the point?
-----
You are in the midst of a Debate, and it is a common tactic to twist the things that an opponent says. You can especially think you are winning if you can successfully lie to yourself, thinking that your twisted words are accurate. THAT is why it is important to explode such twistings --but not everyone seems as willing to blatantly state it as I.

secularprolife.org said...

Your logic is based on an antiquated myth used to justify eugenics. You are not the first one, the only one, the last one to use this argument and neither are you part of a small minority that is preaching this nonsense. Twisting it to make yourself appear in a better light still does not change anything. The mentality of you and your little friends here with your far left extremist views just cost Democrats the election. So, I would like to thank you and those like you for your asinine and hateful rhetoric and stomping your feet like spoiled children while blaming everyone else for your misery. Conservatives and corporations can now focus on ass-raping us without almost any opposition because you literally alienated the moderate vote while smugly believing that liberals were going to vote in large droves to support your extreme left agendas. Congrats.

secularprolife.org said...

Did you miss the point about bias? Did you miss the point that academic students are not allowed to use wiki for research? And what professor would use wiki for scientific based research, leftie?

secularprolife.org said...

Still raging against the dying of the light?

secularprolife.org said...

Your logic is based on an antiquated myth used to justify eugenics.
-----
Your mere claims are worthless without evidence. PROVE IT! Because as far as I can tell, my logic is based on Verifiable Fact, such as the Fact that the Universe can get-along just fine without us, since it did exactly that for billions of years before we began to exist --and not worthless opinions like the notion that "intrinsic value" exists.
=====

You are not the first one, the only one, the last one to use this argument and neither are you part of a small minority that is preaching this nonsense.
-----
IF YOU PUT NONSENSE IN ANOTHER PERSON'S MOUTH, IT DOESN'T BECOME NONSENSE THAT THE OTHER PERSON ACTUALLY STATED.
=====

Twisting it to make yourself appear in a better light still does not change anything.
-----
I have twisted nothing. YOU have chosen to focus on part of what I wrote (the Fact that humanity can afford some maternal deaths during late-term abortions), while ignoring the rest (the Fact that safer forms of late-term abortions are possible). That is YOUR problem, not mine!
=====

The mentality of you and your little friends here with your far left extremist views just cost Democrats the election.
-----
FALSE. Facts are independent of extremist views, for one thing. For another, you ignore the role of "the Economy" in the minds of the voters. AND you ignore how short-sighted people often are. Do remember that when Clinton left office, the US Budget was running a surplus. But BEFORE the events of 9/11 happened, the Republicans that followed Clinton had already turned it into a deficit (look up the Facts; I dare you!). 9/11 simply gave them an excuse to pretend their actions were less detrimental to the economy than they actually were. But you will see; the economy may not have improved enough under Obama to win the election, but it is not going to improve at all with Republicans in power --who will be blaming Obama exclusively for the next two years, so that they can win the next election, too. And after that, the only thing that will happen is, the rich will get richer, and everyone else will get poorer; the Middle Class will suffer a major decline.
=====

So, I would like to thank you and those like you for your asinine and hateful rhetoric
-----
BE SPECIFIC. Where exactly have I presented "asinine and hateful rhetoric" in the Overall Abortion Debate? It is NOT "rhetoric" to say that someone exhibits Stupid Prejudice or Stupid Hypocrisy or is a Liar, when the claims can be proved --and I have done exactly that, proved my statements, over and over again.
=====

and stomping your feet like spoiled children while blaming everyone else for your misery.
-----
Your mere claims are worthless without evidence. PROVE IT!
=====

Conservatives and corporations can now focus on ass-raping us without almost any opposition because you
-----
I have not been debating Politics in general; I've only been debating abortion, attempting to educate the ignorant. And that has very little to do with normal corporate behavior.
=====

literally alienated the moderate vote while smugly believing that liberals were going to vote in large droves to support your extreme left agendas. Congrats.
-----
Moderate voters, with respect to the Overall Abortion Debate, are in favor of keeping it legal. So far as I saw from the political ads this season, there wasn't a lot of focus on the efforts of Republicans to enslave women as life-support systems for mere animal organisms. Perhaps if there had been....

secularprolife.org said...

Out of curiosity--do you oppose the draft in *all* cases?

«Oldest ‹Older   601 – 730 of 730   Newer› Newest»