Pages

Tuesday, October 7, 2014

Dismantling the argument that pro-life laws invite forced abortions

Protestor's sign reads "Choice is the American Way"
Raise your hand if you've heard this argument in favor of Roe v. Wade:
If a government can force women to gestate, it can also force them to abort.
There's some pathos here. It's a nice, balanced sentence that sounds good to the ear. But strip the pathos away, and what you have is "Pro-life laws invite forced abortions." I posit that this makes no sense at all.

I am a citizen of the United States. As a pure matter of military muscle, my government can do whatever it wants. To be clear, that's not a good thing. In theory, the Constitution and other laws limit the government's power. In practice, constitutional violations happen, and the primary limit on governmental power is the collective outrage of the people.

What if I told you that this collective outrage is what currently prevents my government from forcibly sterilizing people? It's true. The Supreme Court found forced sterilization to be constitutional in Buck v. Bell. Fun fact: it then cited Buck v. Bell with approval in Roe v. Wade (see section VIII). (Sorry to spoil your innocence if you still thought Roe was all about "choice.") Another fun fact: the Court has never formally revisited Buck v. Bell and overturned it. It's merely considered obsolete because the public overwhelmingly disapproves of it, and therefore as a practical matter no elected officials are going to follow it.

Thankfully the United States never adopted a policy of forced abortion, even in the forced sterilization heyday. Thus, the legalization of abortion had no impact one way or the other. It did, however, have a major impact on abortions being coerced by non-government parties, i.e., the father of the unborn child.

But let's take a look at some other nations. China is of course notorious for forcing its citizens to undergo abortions. It's also a country where abortion is freely available on demand. What about more more moderately pro-choice nations, like the U.K.? The ugly specter of government-enforced abortion has reared its ugly head there, too.

I'm sure if a pro-life government like Ireland or Chile coerced someone to have an abortion, the media would make that a front-page story. So far, silence.

In the face of these facts, why does "If a government can force women to gestate, it can also force women to abort" gain any traction? It makes about as much sense as "If a government can force people to join labor unions, it can also force people not to join them and thereby destroy the unions" or "If the government can force you to buy health insurance, it can also force you to remain uninsured."

The answer is that many abortion advocates distrust the pro-life movement's motives. They're convinced that we can't actually be in this because we see abortion as a violation of the right to life. They're certain that we're just out to control women's bodies, and if that's the case, naturally forced abortions would be part of our misogynist scheme.

As pro-choice author William Saletan, trying to talk some sense into his colleagues, put it:
[W]hen public opinion turns toward reproductive freedom and equal rights for women but continues to oppose abortion, it punctures our dismissal of pro-life sentiment as a vestige of right-wing sexism. Spin and soundbites won’t make the evidence go away. Sooner or later, you'll have to face it.

1,237 comments:

1 – 200 of 1237   Newer›   Newest»
secularprolife.org said...

If you grant the government the right to force women to reproduce, then you also grant it the right to force you not to reproduce.

Government should have zero say in peoople's reproductive lives.

secularprolife.org said...

By the time a woman has found out she is pregnant, she has already reproduced - another human being resides in her. He or she should have his or her own right to life.

secularprolife.org said...

If a zygote is already a baby, then why bother with 40 weeks of gestation?

A woman has not reproduced until an actual infant is formed. Until then, it is nothing more than a potential life. A baby is not formed the minute sperm meets egg.

secularprolife.org said...

Then at what exact moment has she reproduced? birth?

secularprolife.org said...

At birth the fetus has proven to that it can survive as an independent entity.

secularprolife.org said...

There are plenty of pro-life atheists who do not believe that the government has the right to force someone to DO anything. Using force is never right, no matter how good you believe the outcome is (obamacare, forced unions, forcing someone to bake a cake, ect). We believe you may use 'force' to stop someone from doing something harmful to ourselves or another. Which is why abortion is wrong. It is a clear situation where one person has forced another into a situation by actively creating them, and then is attempting to physically harm them. Women have reproductive rights, the right to reproduce. What they don't have is destructive rights, the right to destroy humans which they have placed into a situation of dependence.

secularprolife.org said...

Can she kill the baby while the cord is still attached? Has it become human yet?

secularprolife.org said...

So conception = harm done, for which women must be punished, with a violation of their bodily autonomy, and potential death and disability?

secularprolife.org said...

It's been human all along. Don't be silly. But until it can survive independently it is not an independent, autonomous individual.

Gestation is a 40 week construction project. And at the end, you may or may not get a baby. It's a crap shoot, a roll of the dice. Women make babies with their bodies, a baby is not created when sperm meets egg.

secularprolife.org said...

>> The answer is that many abortion advocates distrust the pro-life movement's motives.


How can anybody trust pro-life motives when STRONGLY pro-life people include Jerry Falwell, Rush Limbaugh, National Organization of Marriage, Ted Cruz, Ken Ham etc. - right wing nuts who deny evidence-based science, equal rights for women, gays and lesbians etc, rabid hatred for atheists etc. Show me one mainstream pro-life figure who ISN'T an asshole. People who show flawed thinking in one issue tend to show flawed thinking in other issues.
In truth, the pro-choice philosophy is more likely to LESSEN abortion in the long-run, as they tend to support more progressive social agendas that address the societal reasons why women see abortions in the first place.

secularprolife.org said...

A woman has created a child and put it into that situation willingly. The baby is the one who has had its body placed into a situation without consent being asked. The woman is the one who has taken direct scientific action to create the baby. She has chosen the situation. The baby is the one who is in more of a threat of death (even without abortion, from miscarriages) than the woman is...the woman is not a "victim" of a pregnancy, the fetus is....the mother is the active facilitator.

secularprolife.org said...

How about the guy from the National Review who just said that women who abort their pregnancies should be hanged by the neck until dead?

Makes sense though, if abortion is a heinous crime where women cackle with glee as innocent unborn embryos are brutally dismembered for fun and profit. No, this is not a straw man, since pro lifers spend an inordinate amount of time talking about how choice = cruel and depraved dismemberment of unborn babies.

secularprolife.org said...

So then an ultrasound should be required before abortion? To make sure that the fetus has not developed into an organism which can survive outside the womb? What if it is advancing quicker than others?

secularprolife.org said...

That does not make any sense.

secularprolife.org said...

You said that any baby who can survive outside the womb is a human, thus cannot be aborted? Yes?

secularprolife.org said...

There is no need for abortion after birth, as birth ends the pregnancy.

The point of abortion is to end the pregnancy, period. That's what it is. A termination of pregnancy.

secularprolife.org said...

yes, and babies can survive outside the womb before 9 months is up. Do you believe a woman can abort all the way up to birth? The full 9 months?

secularprolife.org said...

When possible, a viable fetus will be delivered, alive.

You are living in a fantasy world if you are suggesting that women have frivolous abortions at 8 months and so on.

secularprolife.org said...

'cackle with glee' - isn't that what Emily Letts did when she filmed her abortion for 15 minutes of fame??

secularprolife.org said...

I am trying to determine if you believe it is right, not if it is frequently done. if it is right, then "frivolity" would not matter. If it is not an abhor able act then why would it matter if frivolously done or not? Many pro-choicers mention that late-term abortions don't happen that often. We find this confusing, as they are said to believe that abortion is okay for the full pregnancy.

secularprolife.org said...

Abortion is performed on non viable fetuses.
A third trimester pregnancy termination = delivery.

secularprolife.org said...

The pregnant woman who is NOT a mother yet has a choice if she acts as an incubator for the ZEF.

secularprolife.org said...

So do you support the rape exception? I mean, if your entire argument is based on pregnancy being something the pregnant person started willingly, then it collapses entirely in the case of people who did not get pregnant willingly, does it not?

secularprolife.org said...

These anti-choicers think all women wait until 39.5 weeks to have the abortion. They are crazy.

secularprolife.org said...

"Raise your hand if you've heard this argument in favor of Roe v. Wade"

Hmm, I think I've heard it maybe one time outside of here. I don't think it's all that popular an argument.

secularprolife.org said...

I'd actually never heard that argument before, which is good because it seems too nonsensical to ever be taken seriously. Another thing it makes about as much sense as: "If the government can force businesses to serve LGBT people, it can also force businesses to refuse service to LGBT people."

secularprolife.org said...

Its pretty simple actually. Do people have a right to privacy? To security of person? To self I determination? Forced pregnancy and forced abortion violate those rights. Any government that is given power over your reproductive choices can easily switch and do the opposite.

Look at history. Take the Patriot Act. It was originally intended to guard against terrorists. Now it has broadened to the point where ordinary Americans are spied on indiscriminately.

Or anti drug laws, which gave police the right to seize property involved with drug crimes. Now, police are indiscriminately seizing property from regular people, based on anything from one joint or mere suspicion.

Be careful what you wish for when you give the government too much power over your life

secularprolife.org said...

One thing to keep in mind is that just because we oppose abortion because we think that it's unjust (usually -- there are emergencies, etc) violence against a human being, that doesn't mean everyone does.

Justice Scalia's position, for instance, is not that the fetus should be considered a person under the 14th Amendment (he doesn't agree with that), but that there is no constitutional right to privacy and the government can make laws based on "morality" even if they involve very personal areas of one's life. Well, perceptions of morality change. There are people now who think it's immoral to carry a disabled fetus to term.

So I can't say I blame people for being suspicious. We need to take back "pro-life."

secularprolife.org said...

Scalia believes that the USA should be run as a Christian theocracy.

What if government was not secular, and laws were based on subjective morality - punish women for not wearing burkas? In Saudi Arabia it is illegal to be a witch and you will be executed.

secularprolife.org said...

That's like saying, because we aren't sure the child would survive on its own, outside of its house and without being nourished by its mother, we can kill it inside the house. But once it has come outside, well then, its clearly not our right to kill it.

secularprolife.org said...

Nope. An unborn human is incomplete and informed. That is the difference.

An infant = a skyscraper

An unborn human = a skyscraper under construction that may never be completed or function as a skyscraper.

secularprolife.org said...

I guess its a heinous crime, but they won't hold women who have abortions or induce miscarriages responsible and severely punish them. Bad for PR, bad for donations.

secularprolife.org said...

They will, eventually. Remember, laws will be interpreted as broadly as possible by ambitious DAs:
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/10/02/3575252/alabama-abortion-parental-consent/

secularprolife.org said...

What do you mean be informed?

A fetus is as complete in its stage as an infant is in its stage. That is to say, an infant isn't a completely formed adult but that doesn't mean it is incomplete. If by incomplete you mean not finished growing, that is a very scary thought.

secularprolife.org said...

Thank you for clarifying that, very interesting!

secularprolife.org said...

Unformed. Auto correct.

And no, that's like saying a half built skyscraper is already a complete skyscraper because it is where it is "meant to be" at this point in construction.

Its a tautological fallacy.

secularprolife.org said...

But if the pro-choice goal is to lessen abortions, my question is WHY? Why do pro-choice want to lessen abortions if they believe there is absolutely nothing wrong with an abortion?

secularprolife.org said...

Consent to sex is not now or has it ever been consent to the misery of pregnancy. Just because a woman willingly has sex does not mean she is willing to be a host to an unwanted ZEF and risk her health to carry it to term.

She has the right to decide what happens to and inside her body.

secularprolife.org said...

I think both sides want less abortions. The difference is the forced pregnancy side want to do it through gestational slavery and the pro-choice side want to do it with better access to birth control and better sex education for young people. Abstinence only does not work.

secularprolife.org said...

that doesn't answer the question though, why do pro-choicers want less abortions

secularprolife.org said...

you talk as though you expect a Z, E, or F to ask for permission!

secularprolife.org said...

I don't think many would agree that the point of abortion is just to end a pregnancy. I believe MOST (there are exceptions) women abort not because they do not want to be pregnant but because they do not want the child (they are not ready, the child has a defect, they have no resources to care for the child) that comes at the end of pregnancy. In antiquity when abortion could many times not be preformed, infanticide was more common. Like I said, there are exceptions for women who actually detest the idea of pregnancy for one reason or another (health for example), but for most, an abortion is to eliminate the problem that would cause them hardship, i.e. the child.

secularprolife.org said...

There is nothing inherently wrong with abortions of early fetuses. (I am against late term abortions) But considering that many women have abortions for economic reasons, or because it is too difficult to balance school, career and motherhood, suggests to me that there are many cases where the child is wanted, but societal pressures make it difficult. So to me, a society where people are paid a living wage, where women receive the same pay as men, where companies provide adequate support for mothers and families, is a good thing. In other words, a society where abortion is the best possible choice is probably a society that is not performing as well as it could.


I desire a society like this, and as a side effect, I believe a society like this will naturally have a lower abortion rate. I don't believe most of the mainstream pro-life side shares these views.

secularprolife.org said...

So... I'm sure you can show me all the video evidence of babies being 'put' into a woman's body. Or is what any such videos show merely sperm being put into a body, and you are redefining a zygote as a 'baby'?

secularprolife.org said...

Irrelevent whether it can 'ask' for permission. It has no right to occupy someone else's body without their consent, regardless of whether it can 'ask' for it or not. And the fact that it CAN'T 'ask' for it is good evidence that it's not entitled to it as some sort of 'human right', because it has no agency and no brain.

secularprolife.org said...

I think a woman has a right to get fake breasts. Doesn't mean I prefer women with fake boobs.

secularprolife.org said...

Yes, because they want to end the pregnancy before it gets to the point where it is a child. And many women don't feel comfortable giving away their child to perverts who might molest and abuse it:http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/10/foster-parent-filmed-himself-sxually-abusing-a-6-week-old-premature-baby-fbi/

However, if there was a way to beam embryos out of women's bodies and grow them in artificial wombs, people would most likely go that route as it involves the least amount of force.

It just happens that there is no way to keep a non viable embryo alive outside the womb.

secularprolife.org said...

A severely autistic child cannot ask for things either, does that mean he is not "entitled" to the physical body of his parents for his needs? (for example, the parents use their body to comfort him, carry him, feed him etc)

secularprolife.org said...

Just to be clear, I wasn't holding Scalia up as any kind of an example of anything we should want!

secularprolife.org said...

I didn't think so, but I still had to point out how awful he is!

secularprolife.org said...

Which is irrelevant. The point is, it is infringing on your body and you have a right to remove it if you choose.

secularprolife.org said...

I think you misjudge pro-life movement if you say they do not want to improve the living condition of these women. Indeed the women who do choose to keep a baby and not have an abortion are helped by pro-life groups with diapers, rent, formula, cribs, etc. I don't think I have ever seen a pro-choice group help a crisis pregnancy except with abortion. Also, there are democrats who are pro-life who work for more social justice precisely for these people. The Catholic Church works tirelessly in areas of poverty in virtually every city and they are pro-life of course. You say that abortion is an indicator of socio-economic performance, and that abortion is "the best choice," but I don't believe that at all, actually I think it perpetuates their situation. We all want a society like the one you describe, but I don't believe it will happen if the voices of millions of babies are silenced.

secularprolife.org said...

exactly so the point is they do not want the child, not the pregnancy, and the only way to ensure the child is never born is to end the pregnancy. I was just clarifying the language since you said that the point of abortion is to end the pregnancy; well the point of abortion is to ensure a child is not born, the termination of pregnancy is just the method of achieving that result. Just clarifying.

secularprolife.org said...

It costs 250k to raise a child. I don't see pro-lifers mortgaging their own homes to help with that, do you?


I don't see pro-lifers offering to pay 30k-100k+ hospital bills should the woman suffer complications from the pregnancy. I don't see pro-lifers offering free services or millions in charity for disabled children.

Diapers and formula are a drop in the bucket, and when we are talking about millions of pregnancies it doesn't go far, at all.

And need I remind you, pro-life politicians, the ones with actual power to enact legislation, are all republican and they routinely cancel social services that actually help the needy.

secularprolife.org said...

No, i sincerely doubt they want the pregnancy either, unless you think that a majority of women just looove being pregnant and going through labour?


I think that many would take the child given the resources to raise it, however, that does not automatically mean that they enthusiastically *want* a child just because they became pregnant. If resources were the ONLY thing that stood in the way of having a baby every time you got pregnant, don't you think the rich would all have 10+ kids by now? Why aren't billionaires wives all broodmares with 10 kids?

secularprolife.org said...

Totally agree with you on the republican politicians, but your argument fails as far as helping because you seem to say just because you cannot help EVERY pregnancy then you shouldn't help ANY

secularprolife.org said...

Forcing all women to give birth and then throwing them a few diapers and formula while cancelling important social programs and leaving women with huge hospital bills isn't exactly a sound policy.

secularprolife.org said...

You are the one that is saying resources matter, not me. and yes in my case I loooved being pregnant. but like I said in the previous post there are women who have abortions just because they detest the idea of pregnancy for health or other reasons, but the majority detest the idea of having a child they cannot raise, or that has a defect or that they cannot afford.

secularprolife.org said...

you will find that organizations that help women in a crisis pregnancy have a much harder time when social programs are cancelled.

secularprolife.org said...

Yes, some women do not want to have a child unless they can guarantee it a good life. That is compassionate, imo.


Anyway, if it's only a matter of resources, why don't rich women have 10+ kids?

secularprolife.org said...

CPC's tend to drop women like hot potatoes. They also lie about contraception, and tell women that BC will cause all manner of horrible side effects.

secularprolife.org said...

First, I'm not saying ALL pro-lifers don't care about the bigger societal issues. I believe some pro-lifers have their heart in the right place. I'm not saying abortion is the "best solution", millions of women are. I think a society which pressures the women into thinking that this is the best solution is not a good society overall.



As for the Catholic Church, sure it does some stuff, but is also against LGBT rights and adoption, the very people who could give the unwanted babies a nice home. And worldwide is against contraception, which helps slow the spread of STDs and lowers the pregnancy rate in places where there are too many children in horrible economic situations. So overall, I think the Catholic Church does more harm than good, and leads to more abortions.


And how come so many people who deny evidence in science and social sciences OVERWHELMINGLY are pro-life? Why are the mental failures in the world so overwhelmingly pro-life? That must tell you something.

secularprolife.org said...

I never said it was a matter of resources, not sure why you keep asking that. I know many families who have 5 or + children and they are by no means millionaires, some children are adopted out of foster, some are biological, but they are all loved regardless of resources. I don't think only millionaires should have children because they can afford them.

secularprolife.org said...

You appear to be arguing that women 'choose to kill the unborn babies' because of financial concerns, and not a wish to simply not be pregnant.


Are you not trying to cast women who abort as selfish killers? But in a nice way? That is the impression I am getting. Please correct me if I am wrong, somecloud.

secularprolife.org said...

I just looked up a CPC and could not find anything of what you are saying. The fact the oral contraceptives cause cancer, is on the cdc website

secularprolife.org said...

The point is to end the pregnancy before it can become a child.

secularprolife.org said...

I don't really want to get into a discussion about the CC on Secular Pro-Life, but it seems to me that you get most of your information on the CC from non Catholic sources....it is as though I wanted to learn about atheism from an evangelical source. I challenge you to actually go to the source (Catholic.com has a LOT of information) to understand why the CC believes what it does...I hope you take up this challenge because why ask the questions if you are really not interested in knowing the answer fro the other side, right? Lastly science and the Catholic Church go hand in hand, there is really no divide there (again you are getting your info from second hand sources). The vatican has astronomers, and astrophysicist on staff. Pope Francis himself has a degree in Chemistry!

secularprolife.org said...

A ZEF can't ask for anything because it does not have any brain function to think yet and it is not aware that it is developing yet.

secularprolife.org said...

Because it is easier to prevent an unwanted pregnancy in the first place by using BC than to have an abortion.

secularprolife.org said...

It's irrelevant whether the donor recipient "asks." In most cases. they do not. Consent is still required to use the organs of another.

secularprolife.org said...

An autistic child, and NO child, is entitled to the body of his parents for his physical needs. Providing care is NOT bodily use. It is a form of labor that can be provided by ANYONE.

secularprolife.org said...

>> but it seems to me that you get most of your information on the CC from non Catholic sources

Will you then care to tell me what I said is incorrect?

Catholic Church is against birth control. True or False.

Catholic Church is against LGBT marriage and adoption. True or False.

>> why the CC believes what it does.


Oh, OK. So its not that you're saying I am wrong on the CC's positions, its that I am right, but they have reasons for being against BC which has proven to be effective against the spread of STDs and unwanted pregnancies and abortions. They have reasons for being bigoted against LGBT.



The problem is, their reasons are dogma. Not social science research or epidemiology. Dogma. And that is a great path to terrible social policy.






So the Vatican has an observatory. So what? From an organization that arrested Galileo because he had evidence that the earth orbited around the sun, and this was somehow inconvenient truth for the Catholic Church? What sort of publications and findings has the Vatican Observatory made? While I have a physics PhD, I am not too aware of any real science that the Vatican is doing.

secularprolife.org said...

No it is not.

secularprolife.org said...

Because whether a woman has an abortion or not, an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy would be better prevented from happening in the first place. There is a difference in how one arrives at fewer abortions. One respects women as full human beings and the other doesn't. It should be fairly obvious. The way to decrease abortions is by eliminating unwanted pregnancy, and there was a very good piece on that in this very forum a couple months ago.

secularprolife.org said...

The question was answered in her post. But since you want someone to crayon you a picture, here goes: Abortion is an undesirable outcome. So is unwanted pregnancy. BOTH can be lessened without treating woman as less than full human beings with full rights. This is done with universal free access to the most effective methods of birth control.

secularprolife.org said...

Then you can't force women to give birth. Actually you can't force them if you're willing to pay for everything.

secularprolife.org said...

Go visit one. Ask them about referrals for contraception. See what happens.

secularprolife.org said...

Great. It can move out, get a job, maybe a cute apartment? Otherwise you are giving rights to the body of a specific person to another specific person. That's slavery.

secularprolife.org said...

ROFLMFAO. That doesn't happen. Gestation is universal. There aren't some pregnancies full term at 40 weeks and some full term at 30 weeks.

secularprolife.org said...

Oh, so she was crying about the 'difficult' and 'gut wrenching' decision she made after she investigated adoption, resources available to help her so she wouldn't have to kill, after she talked to the father and he refused to help financially, etc... is that what happened? No, she was happy, smiling, cackling, etc - waiting for her 15 minutes of fame to start.

secularprolife.org said...

>> Oral contraceptives cause cancer.



Uh, no it doesn't.


National Cancer Institute

breast cancer -> SLIGHT INCREASE, but back to baseline 10 years after discontinuation.


ovarian and endometrial cancer -> REDUCES RISK.



cervical cancer -> INCREASES risk, but the fact that women who take oral contraceptives tend to be more sexually active confounds the causal relationship. Difficult to say.

secularprolife.org said...

Abortions happen because women do not want to be pregnant. If they don't want a child, and are OK with pregnancy they just have it and sign it away. Don't even take the baby home from the hospital. Problem solved. NO.. she REALLY doesn't want to be pregnant. That was why I got my tubes tied. I wouldn't have objected to another child, provided that it grew spontaneously under a cabbage leaf, and when it was ready, I just pick it off and take it inside. But I was violently opposed to gestating again. It was disastrous for me.

secularprolife.org said...

No. I really REALLY didn't want to be pregnant again. EVER.

secularprolife.org said...

You loved being pregnant. Do not assume your experience is universal.

secularprolife.org said...

You're wasting your time, dealing with someone who thinks full term pregnancies vary widely.

secularprolife.org said...

It wouldn't be right for me. But then again, abortion for many reasons wouldn't be OK for me. But the only person I can make that decision for is myself. The law draws the line at viability, and I'm great with that.

secularprolife.org said...

hehe, that was pretty funny

secularprolife.org said...

Bodies aren't houses.

secularprolife.org said...

The state of the fetus is "incomplete." That doesn't entitle it to completion at the expense of a complete person.

secularprolife.org said...

Who says the Patriot Act was intended to fight "terrorists?"

secularprolife.org said...

I saw the video. No cackling. So what if she smiled? You aren't inside her head. I doubt you're even inside your own most of the time.

secularprolife.org said...

Well said.

secularprolife.org said...

Infants aren't skyscrapers.

secularprolife.org said...

Can't guarantee anyone a good life. Regardless of defects. Likewise defects don't guarantee a bad life. Just a side point.

secularprolife.org said...

that was funny!! you are actually saying that the only reason a ZEF doesn't ask for permission is because it can't! Hilarious!

secularprolife.org said...

I did

secularprolife.org said...

funny, cancer.org classifies it as group1 carcinogen

secularprolife.org said...

Cancer.org does indeed list it as a carcinogen, but also
says

>> Estrogen-progestogen oral contraceptives (combined) (Note: There is also
convincing evidence in humans that these agents confer a protective
effect against cancer in the endometrium and ovary)

secularprolife.org said...

funny, x-rays are also carcinogen yet they prevent lots of cancers, there is not parenthesis there, though

secularprolife.org said...

X-rays do not prevent cancer. They kill cancer cells as well as normal healthy tissues surrounding them.

secularprolife.org said...

aren't they used for preventive screenings to detect suspicious tissue before it becomes cancer?

secularprolife.org said...

I am not...read the previous posts

secularprolife.org said...

They are used for imaging putative cancerous tissue. They do not prevent cancer, it is an imaging technique, like ultrasound is an imaging technique.

secularprolife.org said...

ok

secularprolife.org said...

I thought pro-choicers always argue it is not so easy to sign away the baby and that's why abortion is preferable. Make up your mind!

secularprolife.org said...

Good we agree that abortion is undesirable

secularprolife.org said...

Pro-choicers for the most part do believe abortion is undesirable. But it is a choice.

secularprolife.org said...

No I am saying the ZEF has no higher thinking abilities so it should not be factored into the decision when a woman is considering abortion.

secularprolife.org said...

Since you start throwing accusations and insults I can tell this subject touched a nerve. Like I said, inform yourself if you want to have some credibility in your assertions, I don't want to discuss the CC on Secular Pro-Life

secularprolife.org said...

I believe I am just repeating the CC's positions. Why don't you tell me which one I repeated incorrectly? Are not all the accusations true? Did the Catholic Church not imprison Galileo and posthumously apologize? Where are the peer-reviewed publications from the Vatican Observatory. These are simple questions.

secularprolife.org said...

wow, I hope that an autistic child never crosses your path, because that would be very sad for him. He needs his parents' bodies for EVERYTHING. Providing care for a child like this require ALL of your body, and I might add all your emotions too. You are sleep deprived for years and physically beaten up. Your body definitely takes a toll from having a severely autistic child.

secularprolife.org said...

Listen, if you are interested in apologetics discussion I really recommend you check you catholic.com Very accurate information there as well as a radio show where they encourage people who disagree with catholic faith to call in and are treated with respect. I just don't think Secular Pro-life is the place

secularprolife.org said...

Appreciate the comment, discourse should always be civil!

secularprolife.org said...

Not too interested in apologetics, and don't think the CC is the worst organization in the world. I understand they have done good works, like inspire great centers of learning and the building of beautiful cathedrals, but I am questioning their motives when they "help the poor". To me, their policies are hit-and-miss. Some do good, but many do bad, like their stance on contraception. They sometimes do stupid things because the "why they believe the things they do" as you say, is purely dogmatic. They will not change their minds even when evidence points to some of their policies causing harm.



And this is at the heart of what I see of the mainstream pro-life movement. Dogma and religion are its biggest motivators, so they will not consider other avenues which have been proven to reduce abortion but does not bode well with their immutable church teachings.

secularprolife.org said...

against bc yes, but. against abortion yes, but if life of woman is in danger or she needs to undergo some treatment and in the course of saving her life, baby unintentionally dies (eg an ectopic pregnancy) then it is ok. LGBT should not marry yes (but it is not so simplistic that 's why you can go to the website I mentioned). Pope Francis is the head of the visible church on earth or as you say it he is the head of the fairy tale, and he is anti abortion, and pro traditional marriage, sorry to burst your bubble. Nothing that Pope Francis says is new, by the way. All the social teachings have always been part of the CC, as is the exhortation that LGBT should be treated with respect and compassion. If you see people insulting them, they are not following catholic teaching.

secularprolife.org said...

I don't really know where Pope Francis really stands in regards to social policies, but he strikes me as one who has genuine concern.

As for LGBT, all sorts of Catholic leaders have plenty of horrible things to say about them. And as an active researching computational neuroscientist, I feel I have the capacity to understand many layers of complexity. I meld elements of programming, numerical optimization, calculus, Bayesian statistics, neurophysiology and understanding of experimental techniques to analyze and construct models of observed neural activity. I have read the CCs positions on LGBT marriage and adoption. Sorry to say, I find them simplistic and dogmatic. As a father, I see a few same sex (married) couples at the playground where my kid plays. I don't see how they cannot be good parents, or why they cannot be included in to the fold of marriage as a secular institution.

secularprolife.org said...

first i completely understand about catholics not following the church's teachings, I mean looks at Nancy Pelosi, there's a cafeteria catholic if I ever saw one. Nobody denies that LGBT people are not good parents, but I think the church tries to see it from the child's rights because they are more vulnerable. Which family situation is better FOR A CHILD: two same sex parents or two opposite sex parents? Anyway that's isn't even the point though when it comes to same sex so called marriage. As far as this is concerned, if marriage is between anything other than an man and a woman, then why have marriage at all, think about it. There is something else that society at large tries to box these people into: Just because you have a certain attraction that does not define who you are. People have all sorts of attractions to all sorts of things, but fundamentally we are to be treated as people, not gays and heterosexuals. Anyway (sorry I am rushing out the door), in couples where there is a deep commitment and love, nobody disputes that that love is real and sincere. The CC also acknowledges this but wants to be clear that in this case, you are called to live chastely. just because you are called to a celibate life, the love you feel for the other person is not any less valid.

secularprolife.org said...

Please, don't be late for your appointment.



From the what I see of the children of LGBT parents at my playground, they don't seem unhappy at all. Granted, not a huge sample size, but from about 10 or so that I know, I don't see any difference.



You can spin for the CC all you like, but I just hope that religion hasn't made you lose your humanity - Matt Dillahunty. Just listen to yourself telling people who have no control over their attractions, who knew even before puberty that they would not be like Jack and Jill, that they need to suppress their love in the one and only life they have here on earth, to remain chaste and celibate. Its so easy to say when you're heterosexual and can easily go back home to a warm family and a kiss on the cheek. What you're saying is they need to go home to a dark, cold house and deprive themselves of a loving touch.

Do you think you sound like a person possessed of real human compassion?


I'm sure the CC will "evolve" on this issue, just like they did with Galileo, just like they did with Darwin.

secularprolife.org said...

This might be true if we were really talking about an "it". The complication arises because we are actually talking about a "he" or a "she". The gender of human beings is determined as conception. Pregnancy is not an "infringement", it is the natural result of having sex while fertile.

secularprolife.org said...

May or may not get a baby? Ason at get a live or dead baby? Or may get a cat or a dog? Thus argument lacks a basic understanding of biology.

secularprolife.org said...

Nope.


The homunculus theory of reproduction has been thoroughly dismantled.

secularprolife.org said...

Yeah. Not every zygote becomes an infant, you know. There's that whole gestation thing, where the genes have to be read, interpreted, and expressed, and that may not work out, which is why you get stuff like stillbirths, anencephaly, hydrocephaly, potter's syndrome, and just about every genetic defect that you can imagine.

secularprolife.org said...

Still irrelevant.


I'm a she, does that mean I have a right to your body without your explicit and ongoing consent? No, it doesn't. There is NO right, for people or non-people, to use the body of another without consent. Period.

secularprolife.org said...

Jim cavizel. A pro abortion friend said he would convert if Jim put his money where his mouth was. Jim and his wife adopted three special needs children. His friend reneged.

secularprolife.org said...

Really? I have never had a problem. I was 14 when I was stupid enough to believe he loved me. After I was dropped as another teen bed fodder. No pain or emotional distress there. Fortunately, I smartened up and realized I was worth waiting for. Abstinence is possible and does work. Really it is a lifestyle choice. I have quickly discovered who was interested in me as a person and who just wanted me as an end to sexual gratification.

Just because you find it difficult doesn't mean it doesn't work. Dieting and exercise are difficult for some people but nono one says they don't work.

secularprolife.org said...

http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/74/15/4078.short?rss=1

secularprolife.org said...

Actually, the CC does not oppose birth control. NFP can be used as a form of birth control and that's perfectly licit. It's only contraception that taught against.

Also, see here: http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/facts/fm0162.htm

secularprolife.org said...

She proved that abortion isn't the 'gut wrenching' decision and decision of last resort that pro-aborts always claim. She was happy to kill her unborn child - truly sick and selfish.

secularprolife.org said...

So, death is preferable to abuse? Why don't we just kill all the kids in foster care and up for adoption right now, just in case they get abused at some point down the road?

Also, what is the magical point at which a human organism becomes a "child"? Can you support this assertion with scientific evidence?

secularprolife.org said...

I have five kids and I'm certainly not a millionaire. :) Actually, none of the families I know with 5+ kids are millionaires.

secularprolife.org said...

Oh NFP, that method where users somehow end up with 5+ kids, and the conclusion is that the method works because that's how many god willed me to have. Yeah god. You pointed me to that webpage a while ago, and that's what I conclude from the person writing it.

secularprolife.org said...

So abstinence for life works for a couple? Wow... I feel bad for your husband.

secularprolife.org said...

Children are a $250k investment.

When you are elderly or sick it is not your career or vacation home or car that take care of you but your children.

secularprolife.org said...

Is this presenting any new information I presented above? Reading the paper, it basically says there may be a slight increase in risk for high-dose estrogen types, but no risk for low-dose estrogen types. And in the end, it concludes:

Although these results suggest an increased risk of breast cancer,

-->
the many established health benefits associated with oral contraceptive use, including reproductive planning, menses regulation, decreased dysmenorrhea, and decreased risk of benign breast conditions (37, 38),

<--


must also be considered when making individual choices.


What I take away from this is that oral contraceptives are basically safe, and have many health benefits. Were you trying to show me that oral contraceptives cause cancer? If so, this paper you pasted doesn't seem to be it.

secularprolife.org said...

Have children to exploit them later in life?

secularprolife.org said...

I would say that non existence is preferable to abuse, yes.

secularprolife.org said...

Thanks JoAnna, when I say BC I always mean artificial birth control, but you are right a distinction needed to be made

secularprolife.org said...

So it's the Catholic Church's fault that about 400,000 abortions are done by women who didnt use any contraceptives in the month they became pregnant? nope.

secularprolife.org said...

Time to come out of the Dark Ages and into the light of modern science.

Human life begins at conception. Biologically and scientifically confirmed.

secularprolife.org said...

I agree with you that a single mom situation is not an ideal situation for a child either. And what are you talking about? Of course the church is against divorce, and of course there is pastoral care for that too.

secularprolife.org said...

Human development begins at conception. That's it. There is no deeper meaning. Zygotes are not tiny people.

secularprolife.org said...

Personhood is a legal concept, not a biological concept. That which is legally defined in the Federal Constitution will determine the rights ascribed to the unborn.

secularprolife.org said...

I think I have compassion, but if it is coming across as the opposite, I will certainly try to work on that, God knows there are a lot of things on my list of things to improve

secularprolife.org said...

No mind = no rights.

secularprolife.org said...

Discrimination against the mentally disabled. Shameful!

secularprolife.org said...

The mentally disabled have minds. They are not microscopic snippets of DNA.

secularprolife.org said...

Thank you for reaffirming the scientific facts that human life begins at conception.

Now we need to debate about the sacredness of human life at various stages of age. Discrimination based on age...called ageism.

And about the discrimination based on habitat. Within the womb or outside of the womb.

In any case, the momentum for civil rights for the unborn continues to grow.

More states considering amending the criminal code in such manner that killing a pregnant woman would result in two counts of homocide.

The legal and political trends are driving towards a progressive view of civil rights!

secularprolife.org said...

If my husband does not respect my fertility and cannot abstain from sex at those times then he is not worthy of me. Equally if I am to selfish to understand and communicate my fertility then I am not worthy of him

secularprolife.org said...

Don't be an ass

secularprolife.org said...

Slurpy

What do you do to help the poor? Besides saying the government should....

secularprolife.org said...

And about the discrimination based on habitat. Within the womb or outside of the womb.



Yeah, let's talk about that. Why aren't born children permitted to use their parent's bodies, organs etc, in order to sustain their own lives? Through force of law of course. Kid needs bone marrow, parent must donate or go to jail. That way born children will have the same rights as unborn humans.

secularprolife.org said...

So when you are unconscious, you have no worth.

When you suffer a stroke or get Alzheimer's Disease, losing your mind, then you have no worth.

When you have a head trauma and lose your mind, you have no worth.

When a 9 month old fetus is aborted one minute before birth, he/she has no worth.

What an immoral and unethical view of human life!

secularprolife.org said...

I am sorry, but that is the gist of your point. Have kids so they can look after you when you get old. It just sounds so cold, you know?

secularprolife.org said...

When you are unconscious, you still have a mind.


And yes, we do not treat those without minds as persons, at least, we do not keep them on life support, otherwise anencephalic babies and beating heart cadavers (no mind, but body is alive) would be kept on feeding tubes for as long as possible. They are not. We either bury them in the ground or harvest their organs.



And you should stop embarrassing yourself with 9 month fetal abortions, please. A pregnancy termination at 9 months is a birth, and barring medical emergency, will most likely be induced labour of a live baby.

secularprolife.org said...

Nope.. that's requiring someone to take RESPONSIBILITY for the offspring they helped create. Telling a woman she has to CARE for her newborn isn't slavery...even if she doesn't want to call CPS or drop the baby off at a fire station. She HAS TO do something she doesn't want to. That's not slavery - that's RESPONSIBILITY.

secularprolife.org said...

When did I ever say it was? However, the Catholic Church which does yield considerable power in poor nations, is against contraception, and tells women in those countries information that is against their own interests. Many of those people are devoutly religious as they have no education, and will believe mysticism. Is that the Catholic Church's fault? Yes.

secularprolife.org said...

when I was rushing out the door I mentioned children but that is not official church doctrine, I was just saying that I think the church also considers the rights of the children when catholic adoption agencies for example, want to place children in traditional marriages. Sorry the post was a little rushed before. By the way, where do you get the "vehemently" from. I mean yes they believe that homosexual behaviour is not good for people, but also many other things. I don't think they single out one "sin" over another.

secularprolife.org said...

I'm not particularly knowledgeable of religion, but judging from the overreaction of St. Patties Day organizers, people like Brian Brown of NOM (a Catholic) who goes out to Africa and Russia and supports death penalty for gays, The bishops Cordelione something a rather who bashes gays. They paint a picture that the Catholic Church as an organization (not necessarily everyday Catholics) actually hate LGBT.

secularprolife.org said...

You did say

>> Children are a $250k investment. When you are elderly or sick it is not your career or vacation home or car that take care of you but your children.


Can you blame fruit for mistaking that description with a 401k plan?

secularprolife.org said...

I did not hear about st. Patties day, and am not really familiar with NOM, but I can tell you that if he is advocating for death of anyone (not self defense or things like that) for hatred or spite, he is going against the teachings of the church. However it seems really narrow minded to judge a whole religion by the action of a few. There are and there have been people who have done great harm, but that does not invalidate the truths of the Catholic Church, Indeed these people are going against what the church teaches. I think you are absolutely correct that the liberal media (and also the conservative more evangelical one at times) do paint a picture that the catholic church hats LGBT. This is very convenient for the liberal agenda, I am sure you concur.

secularprolife.org said...

A gallup Survey showed that about 82% of Catholics in the US think Contraception is morally acceptable. So, it's likely that many Catholics use contraception. And, if a person is that devoutly religious and doesn't use contraception, odds are she won't break with the church and kill her unborn child if she got pregnant.


The Charity provided by the church saves more lives than are killed by the few that follow the churchs view on contraception but then break with the church and have an abortion.

secularprolife.org said...

False parallelism. An unborn baby and his/her mother are in a natural and healthy relationship of growth.

On the other hand, your example of a born child, who is sick, needs a medical intervention for an illness. There may be alternate means of possibilities.

Your analogy appears to be comparing apples with oranges.

secularprolife.org said...

Yes I agree, I do get a little worked up about religion. I personally find it SO distasteful to "believe" without evidence, and this colors my view too much of the religious.



I am aware that the Catholic Church, especially the Nuns are often catalysts of social change, and they are to be commended. And I sincerely believe most of the Catholics working for charities and going abroad for medical work are doing it out of goodness of their hearts and believing they are doing God's work.


However, it still stands that dogmatic worldviews can sometimes lead to terrible social policy, and the CC is guilty of supporting some policies that are proven not to work well in the real world. That is not a liberal media bias.


This originally started out with the assertion that pro-choice people don't love abortion either. Its just that the pro-choice policies tend not to be defined by dogma, but by evidence gained from epidemiological studies, social science and economic research that shows that the abortion issue is multifaceted, and is intimately related to socioeconomic well-being of its citizens. AFAIK, faith organizations do not do this kind of thing, and tend to be focused solely on abortion. They may help the poor (often with some preaching thrown in, but...) but disregard evidence that BC and abortion is effective in giving women social and economic mobility.

secularprolife.org said...

Agreed. US Catholics are far more liberal than its leaders. But I'm concerned about Catholics in Africa, Asia, S. America. Poorer countries with much lower literacy where the Church has much more sway over the people. What the Catholic Church says is taken with more than a grain of salt, and if the Church says contraception is not morally acceptable...

secularprolife.org said...

Is/ought /naturalistic fallacy

What matters is that a life could be saved. It shouldn't matter whether or not the intervention is 'natural' or unnatural, should it? The point is, if a child has a right to it's parent's body, it should not matter if the child is born, or unborn.

On the other hand, your example of a born child, who is sick, needs a
medical intervention for an illness. There may be alternate means of
possibilities



You mean selfishly taking someone else's bone marrow? Bone marrow that could go towards another sick child? Nope, sorry.

secularprolife.org said...

See, that's where you are wrong, myintx. Well, that and most of what you say about anything else. We don't force women to parent after birth. She doesn't even have to take "Little Peanut" home from the hospital if she doesn't want to. Problem solved. And SHE doesn't *personally* have to drop the newborn off at a hospital or fire station. She can get anyone to do it. No information is required. Not even the mother's name. They have no idea who the mother is, unless someone chooses to tell them. So take your "responsibility" screed to someone who doesn't know any better. A woman's "responsibility" to her offspring do not include bodily donation, or CONTINUOUS bodily donation.

secularprolife.org said...

Like I said. You aren't inside her head. And most of the time, you aren't even in your own head. You have no idea how someone else "feels." PERIOD. You have "proved" nothing.

secularprolife.org said...

Did they refer you for contraception?

secularprolife.org said...

Actually that's a more apt analogy. Infants aren't skyscrapers. But they do start out as a single cell containing information that needs to be interpreted and carried out in order to build a complete human (or not). If some of the information is missing, or not interpreted properly, the end product is defective. Sometimes fatally defective. On the other hand, your body isn't anyone's dwelling place other than yourself, and no one else can lay claim to it without specific consent.

secularprolife.org said...

The proper analogy is comparing the life of the baby born one minute after birth against the life of the unborn baby one minute before birth.

The fact that you would permit the abortion of an unborn baby one minute before birth is discrimination based on habitat.

That is immoral and evil.

secularprolife.org said...

Never heard of voluntary bone marrow donors? How unselfish!

secularprolife.org said...

Strawman. A massive one. God. Please do not argue dishonestly, it is bad manners.

Abortion = eviction of a non viable prenate.

Any fetus that is viable will be delivered, as in, birthed, and birth ends the pregnancy. In fact, induced labour is the safest way to end a third trimester pregnancy. Which means the fetus will come out alive, if at all possible.

So your fictional one minute before birth abortion will be a live delivery.


I am utterly appalled at your straw man. Wow. Incredible.

secularprolife.org said...

That bone marrow can go to another child in need. Why should a dying child be denied bone marrow because you are too selfish yo donate yours to your own kid?

secularprolife.org said...

She doesn't have to drop the baby off at a fire station, but what if she's late for work and there is no time to wait for CPS or a friend to pick the baby up? She is FORCED to care for her baby, until teh baby can be handed off SAFELY to someone else.Too bad. The baby has a right to life. She does have a responsibility to ensure her childs safety. That responsibility should start when her offspring is created - at fertilization.


Abortions after viability are restricted. So, if she changes her mind at 25 weeks she HAS TO stay pregnant unless she meets one of the states exceptions. It's a shame we have to have laws to encourage people to be responsible.

secularprolife.org said...

Oh that's so much bull. Just stop. STOP. She isn't going to work. She just gave birth. Likely in the hospital. If she gave birth alone, at home, if all else fails, she can take a taxi to the nearest hospital and drop off the newborn. I'm guessing no friend or even acquaintance would refuse to do the dropping off, or at the very least, give her a ride. Driving after just delivering isn't recommended. For that matter, she can summon an AMBULANCE and give the baby to the paramedics.

secularprolife.org said...

Don't know who he is, but bless his heart. He is a bigger man than I. I truthfully don't think I could deal with a special needs child who is not my own.

That being said, it appears that same-sex couples tend to be more open to "hard to place" children than heterosexual couples. And the mainstream pro-life movement doesn't support gay marriage or adoption rights, generally.



http://www.adoptivefamilies.com/articles.php?aid=2321/


Hats off to Mr. Caviezel for manning up.

secularprolife.org said...

Oh, the smiles were 'acting' then? She didn't tell the father. She didn't try to get help. She killed for selfish reasons, including 15 minutes of fame.

secularprolife.org said...

No one is stopping any from donating bone marrow, as desired.

The height of irony... To be so unselfish that one can advocate the heartless slaughter of unborn babies through late-term abortions.

Please spare us all your concern for others.

secularprolife.org said...

You got caught in the logical extension of your thinking.

Now you need to defend by moving the goal post further to that of "non-viability." The realization of the immorality of late-term abortions finally sunk in!

Better late than never.

If you need to label a realistic hypothetical as a fictional straw man, then it merely gives evidence of the inability to rebut with substantive reasoning.

secularprolife.org said...

A newborn can be up to a few weeks old..some women do go back to work within a few weeks of giving birth. The point is that a woman (or man) has to ensure their child's safety. Even if it is against their will - at least in the time it takes to hand over their child. Oh no! They may have to do something against their will... If a parent has to take the time (however much time that is) to SAFELY hand over their child, a pregnant woman should have to do the same with her unborn child. Granted, it will take longer, but she still should have to do it. Killing a child because you don't want to ensure his or her safety is wrong - before or after birth.

secularprolife.org said...

Again, still arguing by misquotation. I never once advocates for late term abortion, because a viable third trimester fetus will be delivered ALIVE, especially if it is right before birth.

Secondly, you have argued that women should be legally obligated to donate their bodies to embryos. So, why can't fathers be legally obligated to donate their blood, organs and tissue to their toddlers?

secularprolife.org said...

Uhm...abortion has ONLY ever referred to non viable embryos and fetuses.

You invented the one minute before birth abortion fantasy because you are dishonest?

secularprolife.org said...

Apparently, you have distorted the definition of an abortion merely to fit your neat conclusions.

Just because you define it as ending the life of a non-viable prenate does not make it medically accurate.

The fact of the matter is that abortions occur throughout all nine months of gestation.

So please let that reality sink into your mind.

So do you now find it morally acceptable for late-term abortions to occur? Or are they immoral?

And why?

secularprolife.org said...

He is a multi millionaire actor, star of The Passion of the Christ, Mel Gibsons anti semitic movie.

It might have more meaning if the pro lifer adopted multiple disabled children while living on minimum wage, having to work three jobs, while living in a slum.

A rich actor can afford all the help he needs. It isn't a great sacrifice.

secularprolife.org said...

The CC is opposed to any artificial birth control including the birth control pill which is one of the most popular and effective forms of birth control.

secularprolife.org said...

Boy, you really need to catch up with the medical science surrounding abortions.

Please do everyone a favor and research further about the types of abortions done throughout the various gestation periods.

It is obvious now why it is so difficult to have a conversation with you. Your scientific "facts" are inaccurate often times.

Maybe then we can have a more fruitful exchange of thoughts.

Peace.

secularprolife.org said...

Nope. That IS how it is defined. Abortion on non viable prenates, delivery on viable. Induced labour is safest for the woman in the third trimester. The only time it is killed within her is when it is medically necessary, and that is extremely dangerous. Also, a third trimester delivery can cost from 8k to 30k based on the type of complications. It takes three days and is not done on a whim. It is done out of medical necessity.

Anyhoo, it is obvious that you invented this straw man because you cannot justify your special pleading for prenates vs born children.

secularprolife.org said...

Then she can have someone drop it off immediately following birth, or summon an ambulance for the newborn (which is probably smarter, considering that the newborn might need medical attention that she can't give). Your entire premise is BUNK. No she does NOT have to care for it. She can call 911 while the placenta is still attached. The paramedics come and take the newborn away, placenta and all. Or do they not have 911 and paramedics in Texas? Just wait. That will be next.

secularprolife.org said...

You don't know that. Plus, it's none of your fracking business.

secularprolife.org said...

According to the CC if a woman has an ectopic pregnancy the only "moral" solution is to remove the tube the zygote is in. They do not allow her to take an abortifact to end an ectopic pregnancy.

secularprolife.org said...

Third trimester termination = induced labour. Fetus delivered alive if possible = FACT. If it is already dead or dying within her due to a fatal defect, its heart will be stopped, then it will be delivered.

And Lady Black, a nurse, will back me up on this.

You are clueless. And a liar.

secularprolife.org said...

Well, still taking on disabled children even with help is something that should be commended.

secularprolife.org said...

There is no point continuing this conversation. I cannot have the assurance that our basic scientific terms of understanding are accurate during our exchange.

It is counter-productive for me to return to the need of simple definitions of scientific and legal terms, again and again.

Peace!

secularprolife.org said...

NFP is not BC... it is just asking to get pregnant.

secularprolife.org said...

This... person(?) trueDoucheview is just too annoying to be real.

secularprolife.org said...

Because you are ..

1) dishonest

2) invent straw men constantly

3) can't explain why you engage in special pleading for zygotes and leave toddlers to die

secularprolife.org said...

I agree. Its just not a major sacrifice. And lest we forget, pro lifers would force people living on skid row to raise multiple severely disabled children vs abort.

secularprolife.org said...

Catholic women use artificial birth control and have abortions. That's reality.

secularprolife.org said...

NFP is BC where the lord determines how many children is right for you, and you just suck it up and smile and thank the lord.

secularprolife.org said...

Anti Semitic movie? Indeed, Gibson is anti semitic but I don't remember the movie being so.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 1237   Newer› Newest»