Pages

Wednesday, December 10, 2014

A salute to the pro-lifers of the internet

[Today's guest writer is anonymous.]

It’s easy to dismiss online pro-life work as slacktivism. Sure, you might say, sharing your opinion on the internet will expose you to ad hominem attacks and insults—but if you really want to make a difference, go volunteer in the real world, reaching out to abortion-minded women. And of course reaching out to families in need is a great thing. But I want to challenge the assumption that internet activism is solely about the realm of ideas, while real-life activism is about actually helping people. It’s entirely possible for pro-lifers to assist pregnant mothers in need, without even leaving their homes.

There are numerous websites out there which (inadvertently) provide pro-lifers with the ability to dissuade individuals from seeking abortions. Simply Googling such sites (including forums, message boards, and blogs) will return a litany of locations where people are asking for advice about whether or not they should make a destructive, tragic decision about their unborn child. Yahoo! Answers often features such sad questions in sections regarding Women's Health, Pregnancy, and Adolescent. If people are directly asking for internet opinions about whether their unborn children should live or die, pro-lifers have a duty to speak up—and to go further by sharing local resources that can provide material assistance.

Yahoo! Answers is uncensored. Other forums are unfortunately run by administrators who want to prevent women from hearing the pro-life perspective. Ironically, one of the worst offenders is BabyCenter.com. You’d think that a site called BabyCenter would have no involvement in the end of babies’ lives, but you’d be wrong. On that site, there are two forums dedicated to encouraging abortions: one for abortions for socioeconomic reasons, and one for abortions done because the baby has been diagnosed with a disability, such as Down Syndrome. BabyCenter.com actually does provide extensive information about prenatal development, revealing the humanity of the unborn child—but keeps that information segregated from the forums where they are most desperately needed. The admins block pro-lifers on both of the abortion boards; abortion is never discussed in less-than-positive terms, and the unborn child is dehumanized to the point of obscurity. It's truly troubling and deeply depressing stuff, especially when one considers how many lives those two forums have taken in the span of roughly six years.

And yet, despite this, the censors haven’t won: BabyCenter’s direct messaging system remains available for pro-lifers to share the truth to women considering abortion. On BabyCenter, Yahoo! Answers, and a plethora of other sites, a compassionate, understanding pro-life advocate—taking a religiously neutral position, of course—can indeed provide a lifeline to women who are struggling.

I understand people feeling discouraged. Some days you look at the internet and see little more than pro-abortion trolling. But the internet is an incredibly valuable asset to the pro-life movement. It provides pro-life individuals with practical outlets to make their visions of peace and nonviolence into a reality. So hook up your laptop and get to it!

370 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 370 of 370
secularprolife.org said...

I disagree. To be pro-life is to erase women and to consider them to be secondary to unborn humans, even if you truly believe that you love women, if you know that women will be miserable, be harmed, and even die from the legislation that you support, and you dismiss it, or agree that pregnancy is tough but say too bad so sad, it shows that no, you really, truly value fetuses more than women.

secularprolife.org said...

Would it be ethical to create a new life just to use it to save the life of another?


Come to think of it, what's wrong with harvesting stem cells from embryos to save lives? Yeah, you're using them as a mere means to an end, but as long as you don't kill them, it's ok, right?

secularprolife.org said...

No--I don't appear to have said anything inaccurate. Rather, my point was that honest anti-abortion people would also support forcing cis-males to remain pregnant if cis-males were also capable of getting pregnant. Thus, the politically anti-abortion is misogynistic in practice, but *not* in theory.

"To be pro-life is to erase women and to consider them to be secondary to unborn humans, even if you truly believe that you love women, if you know that women will be miserable, be harmed, and even die from the legislation that you support, and you dismiss it, or agree that pregnancy is tough but say too bad so sad, it shows that no, you really, truly value fetuses more than women."

It's not so much that politically anti-abortion people (or at least the honest ones) value prenates over cis-females (and trans-males, for that matter); rather, they simply think that an individual who is more responsible for something occurring should receive less priority than an individual who is not responsible for this situation occurring (and in fact, this is the same rationale which is used to justifying forcing males to pay child support if these males previously consented to sex).

secularprolife.org said...

"Would it be ethical to create a new life just to use it to save the life of another?"

I am tempted to say that it depends on whether or not this new life should be considered a person. If not, then Yes, it is ethical to do this; else, it is unethical to do this.

"Come to think of it, what's wrong with harvesting stem cells from embryos to save lives? Yeah, you're using them as a mere means to an end, but as long as you don't kill them, it's ok, right?"

Even if I was still politically anti-abortion, then Yes, I would agree with you in regards to this on the condition that both of this embryo's parents consent to this beforehand. After all, isn't there a possibility of these embryos (or at least some of them) themselves benefiting from the medical advances that their stem cells would help produce?

secularprolife.org said...

Also, is it legal to, say, have parents force their minor postnatal children to donate their own blood and/or bone marrow in order to save lives? Serious question, for the record.

secularprolife.org said...

rather, they simply think that an individual who is more responsible
for something occurring should receive less priority than an individual
who is not responsible for this situation occurring



Yeah, it's about punishing people for having sex. BTW, they invent many many excuses, however, as to why men, and anyone else who harms someone does *not* owe their bodies/organs/tissues to that person. This 'responsibility' of body donation, and risk to life and health ONLY applies to pregnancy. I mean, they won't even demand that a man donate his tissues and organs to save the life of the fetus *during* the pregnancy, or the life of the child *after* the pregnancy. Heck, they don't even think the man should help to pay the woman's hospital bills - nope, it's all her fault for spreading her legs.


I think that you are forgetting how deeply ingrained the puritan belief is that a woman's place is in the kitchen, and that women can't dare enjoy sex for sex' sake. There is no visceral, hateful reaction to the thought of a man denying his child bone marrow, but you will find pro-lifers fainting at the thought that a woman might use contraception and therefore prevent a fertilized egg from implanting.

secularprolife.org said...

No, I don't believe it is.

secularprolife.org said...

Oh; anyway, thanks for explaining this part. Frankly, I might need to do more research on this.

secularprolife.org said...

After all, isn't there a possibility of these embryos (or at least some
of them) themselves benefiting from the medical advances that their stem
cells would help produce?


Yes. Well if that's ok, then, as you just stated, can't parents simply rent their children out to scientists, against the children's will, and those scientists can experiment on the child, provided the lives of other children can be saved? How much is too much?

secularprolife.org said...

"Yeah, it's about punishing people for having sex. BTW, they invent many many excuses, however, as to why men, and anyone else who harms someone does *not* owe their bodies/organs/tissues to that person. This 'responsibility' of body donation, and risk to life and health ONLY applies to pregnancy. I mean, they won't even demand that a man donate his tissues and organs to save the life of the fetus *during* the pregnancy, or the life of the child *after* the pregnancy. Heck, they don't even think the man should help to pay the woman's hospital bills - nope, it's all her fault for spreading her legs."

I wouldn't consider such politically anti-abortion people misogynistic *in theory,* though I will certainly *not* consider such anti-abortion people to be decent ones. And Yes, I certainly agree with you that they are very inconsistent about this and that this is a huge shame. :(

"I think that you are forgetting how deeply ingrained the puritan belief is that a woman's place is in the kitchen, and that women can't dare enjoy sex for sex' sake."

Sure--unfortunately, people with views such as that still exist today. :(

"There is no visceral, hateful reaction to the thought of a man denying his child bone marrow, but you will find pro-lifers fainting at the thought that a woman might use contraception and therefore prevent a fertilized egg from implanting."

Wouldn't these anti-abortion people (or at least many of them) at least consider it morally wrong for a male to use a condom during sex as well, though?

Also, out of curiosity--what exactly is your position on the idea of giving males some sort of child support opt-out?

secularprolife.org said...

Just as an aside, people with super rare blood types - in some cases, no more than 100 living people with these blood types - cannot be forced to donate their blood, and in fact, cannot even be compensated, as that would be trafficking in human body parts. They have to give it, freely.

secularprolife.org said...

If I was politically anti-abortion, then I would say that it would be too much to force a child to donate an organ to someone else and that it would be too much to have a child endure something which will *certainly never* benefit him/her himself/herself in any way whatsoever.

secularprolife.org said...

Yes, but I am presuming that these people are adults, correct?

secularprolife.org said...

You don't see them saying that condoms kill, do you? Whereas you will see stuff like this all over the place:

https://www.google.ca/search?q=the+pill+kills&safe=off&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=W_qMVPaHFs2togTP-4HgCA&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAg&biw=1920&bih=946

Also, out of curiosity--what exactly is your position on the idea of giving males some sort of child support opt-out?

I've told you this before, if a woman chooses to have a child without the consent of the man, I do believe that he should be permitted to opt out. And especially if she takes his sperm without his permission - that's rape, in a sense. However, if both parents agree to have a child, and they bring that child into the world, then they both owe it their wallets, unless of course they agree to give it up for adoption.

This is the one issue that Lady Black and I disagree on, but I see her point, and can certainly empathize - once a child is born, a child that can suffer, you really don't want to see the child go without.

secularprolife.org said...

Yep.


However, they are not forced to donate as children, either.

secularprolife.org said...

"You don't see them saying that condoms kill, do you? Whereas you will see stuff like this all over the place:"

Do they say that female condoms kill and/or that tubal litigation kills, though?

"I've told you this before, if a woman chooses to have a child without the consent of the man, I do believe that he should be permitted to opt out."

Even if this sex was consensual, correct? Also, I don't think that you told me this beforehand, though I might be forgetting something.

"And especially if she takes his sperm without his permission - that's rape, in a sense."

I would call that theft, rather than rape.

"However, if both parents agree to have a child, and they bring that child into the world, then they both owe it their wallets, unless of course they agree to give it up for adoption."

OK; now, I have a question--if a female hypothetically utilizes a safe-haven law to anonymously give up her infant without the "baby daddy's" consent, then can the "baby daddy" get back this infant and force this female to pay child support for this infant in all such cases?

"This is the one issue that Lady Black and I disagree on, but I see her point, and can certainly empathize - once a child is born, a child that can suffer, you really don't want to see the child go without."

That is an *extremely* poor argument for this, in my honest opinion. After all, if (hypothetically) someone died when his or her child is extremely young, then while it would be great if this dead individual's extremely wealthy identical twin would pay large amounts of financial support to this child, this individual's twin should *not* be forced to pay anything to this child due to this being a violation of his or her rights. Do you see where exactly I am going with this?

However, as long as this remains the law, males should be given the opportunity to get sterilized in a safe, medical setting in a way which is 100% effective; currently, only castration appears to qualify for this, though I hope that this will eventually change. After all, telling most males to abstain from sex with females for life is *utterly* unrealistic and similar to what politically anti-abortion people tell females to do.

Frankly, in my honest opinion, there are four (or more, if I will think of more questions later) important questions to ask here:

1. Should one be able to transfer/give his or her property to someone else?
2. Should one be held responsible for what someone else does with this property after he or she transfers/gives it to this other individual?
3. Should one be held responsible simply for creating an offspring (regardless of whether this offspring is born or not yet), as opposed to being held responsible for an actual harm? For the record, this is an argument which Chalkdust appears to use.
4. Should we try achieving as much equality in practice as possible in spite of people's biological differences and in spite of all other considerations (such as prenatal lives, et cetera)? For the record, this also appears to be an argument which Chalkdust uses.

What exactly are your thoughts in regards to these four questions, Mirable?

secularprolife.org said...

For the record, I can see how questions #1 and #2 can apply to child support if one accepts the pro-choice view of personhood.

Also, as a side note, I don't think that I ever heard a convincing argument from Lady Black as to why exactly males should be forced to pay child support in all cases of consensual sex where a female decides to raise their child afterwards. Taking about the child's rights doesn't work for this; rather, this appears to be question-beginning due to the fact that, if I looked at this from a pro-choice perspective, I wouldn't necessarily agree that a child should always have such rights in the first place.

secularprolife.org said...

*question-begging (typo)

secularprolife.org said...

Thanks for this info.

secularprolife.org said...

That's a lot to unpack.

I will get to it tomorrow, as I just got home from a long day out and am totes pooped.

http://onlyfunnyjokes.com/bestoftheweb/photos/2010/04/sleepy-kitty.jpg

secularprolife.org said...

OK:

Out of curiosity, though, a couple of quick questions:

1. Do you have your own blog? If so, can you please post a link to it here? I think that you previously talked about this, though I don't remember exactly (my memory can sometimes fail me).

2. How old are you right now? I am currently 22 years old, but I am wondering as to what the age demographics on the SPL blog are.

3. Is your name Lily Bery? I got this impression from your Disqus user URL.

secularprolife.org said...

if I looked at this from a pro-choice perspective, I wouldn't
necessarily agree that a child should always have such rights in the
first place.



From a libertarian perspective, and Ann Morgan has made such an argument in the past. I see how it can also apply to pro-choice, but, I think that the argument made by prochoicers is that use of your body = a step too far, but of your wallet, not so much. And in fact, we can turn this around on pro-lifers, and ask them why, if people can be deprived of their bodies to sustain the lives of others, then why don't wallets also qualify? The rate of infant mortality would go right down if more pro-life Republicans would support the expansion of medicaid, which would specifically lower the rate of infant mortality amongst black people, which, I might add, should be a pro-life goal, as PL Tea Partiers routinely accuse Pro-choicers/liberals of inventing contraception and abortion to wipe out the black race. No, I'm not kidding. Head over to Allen B West sometime...



I also think that LB has great empathy for the suffering of the child once born, whereas, as has been stated, a zygote is a blank slate that may or may not become a child, it has no hopes no dreams no thoughts and may never have them.

secularprolife.org said...

I thought that you are extremely tired right now.

"but of your wallet, not so much."

Not quite--after all, not everyone should have a right to anyone else's wallet. After all, as in my earlier example, a child with a dead parent would not and should not have the right to the wallet of his dead parent's identical twin. In order for one to have rights to someone else's wallet, this other individual needs to have done something which would generate an obligation to the first individual. As for which things should generate obligations, well, that is what we appear to be debating here right now.

secularprolife.org said...

" And in fact, we can turn this around on pro-lifers, and ask them why, if people can be deprived of their bodies to sustain the lives of others, then why don't wallets also qualify? The rate of infant mortality would go right down if more pro-life Republicans would support the expansion of medicaid, which would specifically lower the rate of infant mortality amongst black people, which, I might add, should be a pro-life goal, as PL Tea Partiers routinely accuse Pro-choicers/liberals of inventing contraception and abortion to wipe out the black race. No, I'm not kidding. Head over to Allen B West sometime..."

I agree that politically anti-abortion people are inconsistent in regards to this.

"I also think that LB has great empathy for the suffering of the child once born, whereas, as has been stated, a zygote is a blank slate that may or may not become a child, it has no hopes no dreams no thoughts and may never have them."

The part about empathy appears to be irrelevant to this debate; after all, I also certainly have empathy for the child with a dead parent in my earlier hypothetical scenario. However, this certainly does *not* mean that I would support forcing this child's dead parent's extremely wealthy identical twin to pay child support/financial support to his child.

secularprolife.org said...

1) I don't blog, I am too damn lazy.


2) 40. Debating abortion is a relatively new thing for me, as, after college, I gave up on intellectual pursuits for a few years and just kind of vegged out. After playing WoW for a while, and only typing in half formed thoughts, I noticed that my ability to complete a coherent sentence was severely shot, as was my capacity for critical thought. Debating is one way to get back on track!



3) No, I just like flowers and fruits

secularprolife.org said...

I didn't realize that you are that old; I thought that you are in your 20s considering that you talked about having a boyfriend.

Also, thank you very much for your responses/answers here. :)

In addition, one more question, for now:

1. What race/ethnicity are you?

As for me, I am of Russian, Jewish, and Belorussian ethnicity/descent and would probably be considered either White or Middle Eastern (as per the likely 2020 U.S. Census categories) by race.

secularprolife.org said...

No there will not be a need. Most abortions are elective, meaning non-emergency. Please do not confuse "elective" with "unnecessary." Elective means scheduled in advance, as in you are admitted for the purpose of a planned surgical procedure, as opposed to being rushed into surgery via the ER. Most surgeries are elective, PERIOD, regardless of what they are. Therefore, a woman having an abortion due to intra-uterine demise, or fetal defects, or as a result of rape are having elective abortions. So sorry, but those will always be with us. Your "politics" are poisoned, and we do not need any restrictions on abortion other than that doctor and patient both agree that it's the best course of action under the circumstances. JUST LIKE ANY OTHER SURGERY.

secularprolife.org said...

I was talking about this from a politically anti-abortion perspective (which, again, I *no longer* adhere to); obviously you and other pro-choicers would disagree with this.

secularprolife.org said...

I don't give a flying fuck what you or anyone else "believes" or "agrees to." There simply IS no "human right" to the body of another, nor should there be, under ANY circumstances. Even when it means the other person dies. In fact, strapping someone down against his will and stealing tissues from his body is classified as torture and is a definite violation of human rights. It just ISN'T DONE.

secularprolife.org said...

Boyfriend of 10 years. He is American, I am Canadian.

I am white, like snow white.

Czech, German, Scots-Metis

secularprolife.org said...

I will when men get pregnant.

secularprolife.org said...

So????

secularprolife.org said...

I thought that you are extremely tired right now.


I am, but I can handle short questions, and am still going through the final 60 emails in my inbox!

secularprolife.org said...

Yeah, that's not happening for a long time, if ever; thus, your position here appears to be sexist in practice.

As a side note, though, I *do* hope to eventually get pregnant if I will live long enough, though I am not counting on it.

secularprolife.org said...

Once again, you appear to be guilty of question-begging here. You might view such a position as extremely offensive, and that's your right, but telling this to someone who doesn't agree with you on this isn't going to make a valid argument.

Also, though, if one *does* advocate giving everyone such a right, then it would probably make more sense to punish people who refuse to donate body parts rather than to literally use force to force people to donate body parts.

secularprolife.org said...

Thank you very much for this info.

Also, I previously thought that you are American; I guess that one learns something new every day. ;)

secularprolife.org said...

My body parts outside of my head wouldn't mean that much to me if I would be able to get them replaced.

secularprolife.org said...

Fair enough; however, if possible, please try to respond to my long reply (you know which one--the one with four questions or so) to you tomorrow. :)

secularprolife.org said...

Yeah, I'll take a look at it in the morning.

secularprolife.org said...

Good. :)

secularprolife.org said...

Also, cis-males will obviously *never* accidentally get pregnant as a result of having sex with cis-females since that is simply not biologically possible for humans.

secularprolife.org said...

**So, if you kill someone in their sleep and they suffer no 'distress', that's OK?**


You are handwaving to try and excuse yourself. You flat out admitted you would kill an innocent man, KNOWING he was innocent, just to spare your precious self 9 short minutes of embarrassment to your sacred genitals.


It is irrelevent what I might or might not do. You do not get to play the 'innocent human beings should not be killed card' any more.


Whining about what I might or might not do is simply an ad hominem fallacy to try and distract from your hypocricy so you can keep playing a card you have no right to.

secularprolife.org said...

Well, first of all, in the thought experiment, you only have time to rescue one. However, anyone could conceivably pick up two infants in their arms. OR if you have anything that can be used as a slider(sheet, blanket, etc.), you could place the adult and two babies on it and drag them all out. I think the point is 1) time, and 2) the inability to manage both human beings and a bulky freezer at the same time. Also the point is that living human beings take precedence over property. And embryos in a freezer are property.

secularprolife.org said...

Yes, if they have female parts. None who have been completely transformed can.

secularprolife.org said...

**Out of curiosity: what if one would save one adult human being over 2+ human infants?**


That's an interesting question. A person isn't really obligated to save anyone, if they don't want to. They may or may not be an asshole for failing to do so.


It probably depends on the situation. As an infant weighs far less than the adult, I can imagine situations in which weight or space may be a factor, and you can save several infants in the space it would take to save one adult.


Also possible depending on the situation - if I save the adult, they may be able to help me save a *greater* number of infants immediately afterwards.


Also, arguably an adult may be responsible for being in the particular fix they are in, or may be able to save themselves, and refuses to do so.


It also depends on the particular SORT of infants and adults. I would probably save one *normal* adult before saving several severely retarded infants. However, if the *normal* adult were, say, Jeffrey Dahmer or Charles Manson, I would save the severely retarded infants first.


But all this is irrelevent to the embryo, an infant has *low* brain function. An embryo has ZERO brain function. The two are not comparable.

secularprolife.org said...

"Well, first of all, in the thought experiment, you only have time to rescue one."

OK.

"However, anyone could conceivably pick up two infants in their arms. OR if you have anything that can be used as a slider(sheet, blanket, etc.), you could place the adult and two babies on it and drag them all out. I think the point is 1) time, and 2) the inability to manage both human beings and a bulky freezer at the same time. Also the point is that living human beings take precedence over property. And embryos in a freezer are property."

OK; however, let's modify this scenario of mine--there are two buildings of approximately equal size both of which have fires which began at approximately the same time and spread at approximately the same rates and approximately the same distance. If there is an extremely serious possibility (which later turns out to be the case in reality) that one can only save the two or more human infants in one burning building or the one human adult in the other burning building , which one(s) would you yourself save, and would you consider it disgusting/atrocious/repulsive for someone to give an answer to this question which is different from your answer?

secularprolife.org said...

Does my revised hypothetical scenario work here?

secularprolife.org said...

** Right and left indicate economic ideals, not social ones. There are plenty of hard right libertarians who are pro-choice. **


The problem here, is that 'right' and 'left' are a deliberate oversimplification of political positions, in order to keep the democrats and republicans in power. That a libertarian would have the position you describe is not surprising. It is simply the democrats and republicans who like to pretend that it is.

secularprolife.org said...

**You appear to be question-begging here considering that not everyone agrees that there *shouldn't* be such a right**


And you are handwaving. While it is probably true that there are some people who think there SHOULD be a right to the kidneys and bone marrow of others (people can hold all sorts of odd beliefs), most pro-lifers who claim the embryo has a right to the mother's organs without her consent for it's 'very life' will turn around and deny a 5 year old leukemia patient and a 30 year old dialysis patient a 'right' to THEIR bone marrow or kidney without their consent, even though they may need it for their 'very life'.

secularprolife.org said...

Thank you for your detailed response to this.

Anyway, though, my point here is that this scenario doesn't appear to be a good one for determining which rights various individuals should have. After all, just because I would probably save my parents from one burning house rather than save, say, 5 strangers from another burning house (hypothetically assuming that I could not save both of these groups) certainly does *not* mean that I think that my parents should have more rights than these 5 strangers should have.

secularprolife.org said...

Yes, this is correct.

secularprolife.org said...

You are still evading the key issue here which is hypocricy. The pro-lifers keep proclaiming this great human right to the organs of others for one's 'very life', but then apply this supposedly 'great human right' ONLY to embryos and pregnant women, while handwaving it away in EVERY other instance.


If something is a 'human right', then EVERYONE has it, and the exceptions should be very rare. Prolifers want to apply this 'great human right' ONLY to the embryo, and handwave it away in the vast majority of cases.

secularprolife.org said...

"You are still evading the key issue here which is hypocricy. The pro-lifers keep proclaiming this great human right to the organs of others for one's 'very life', but then apply this supposedly 'great human right' ONLY to embryos and pregnant women, while handwaving it away in EVERY other instance.

If something is a 'human right', then EVERYONE has it, and the exceptions should be very rare. Prolifers want to apply this 'great human right' ONLY to the embryo, and handwave it away in the vast majority of cases."

Yes, I agree with this, and Yes, I agree that anti-abortion people shouldn't be inconsistent in regards to this.

secularprolife.org said...

Out of curiosity--do you think that *non-viable* embryos and fetuses should be considered the property of the women who are pregnant with them? Serious question, for the record.

secularprolife.org said...

That's a tough one. I would probably save the adult, and no I don't think it's heinous that someone else might make a different choice. The only thing I can say for certain is that I would save human beings, and any property can burn as far as I'm concerned, including freezers containing embryo.

secularprolife.org said...

**Do you also support males' right to determine the trajectory of their own lives, and not to have their life plans get derailed by a random biological occurrence?**


Actually, as a matter of fact, I do. Except in the case of marriage (which constitutes a contract) I think that if a woman legally has X number of months to decide whether or not she wants to gestate a child and get an elective abortion if she does not, then a man should also have X number of months to decide if he wants to be financially responsible for a child, and his X number of months will start when he first becomes aware of the existence of the pregnancy and/or child. There will be no nonsense of a millionaire football play having a one night stand with a woman who claims she is on the pill, but who, in fact, is not only not on the pill, but tested positive on her fertility strips early that day, then he never sees her again until 10 months later when she shows up with a month old baby and an army of lawyers demanding $5000 a month child support.


If a woman does not like this, then she should probably not have sex with men she is not married to without actually using one or more forms of birth control. If she is too stupid to understand that, too bad. One person's stupidity does not constitute a blank check on someone else's wallet.

secularprolife.org said...

Also, let's use my previous scenario, but have the choices be two or more pigs versus one human infant.

secularprolife.org said...

**Also, out of curiosity--what exactly is your position on the idea of giving males some sort of child support opt-out?**

(reposted from above)

Actually, as a matter of fact, I do. Except in the case of marriage (which constitutes a contract) I think that if a woman legally has X number of months to decide whether or not she wants to gestate a child and get an elective abortion if she does not, then a man should also have X number of months to decide if he wants to be financially responsible for a child, and his X number of months will start when he first becomes aware of the existence of the pregnancy and/or child. There will be no nonsense of a millionaire football play having a one night stand with a woman who claims she is on the pill, but who, in fact, is not only not on the pill, but tested positive on her fertility strips early that day, then he never sees her again until 10 months later when she shows up with a month old baby and an army of lawyers demanding $5000 a month child support.

If a woman does not like this, then she should probably not have sex with men she is not married to without actually using one or more forms of birth control. If she is too stupid to understand that, too bad. One person's stupidity does not constitute a blank check on someone else's wallet.

secularprolife.org said...

Thank you very much for your response here.

Also, I would like to slightly modify/amend your last paragraph here; frankly, if I looked at this from a pro-choice perspective, such a woman should only have sex (especially sex with no or "little" contraceptive usage) with males who consider opting out of paying child support to be morally unjustifiable and/or morally wrong. In other words, if a male has no moral or political qualms about someone opting out of paying child support, then a woman who is unsure as to whether or not she will get an abortion or who is unwilling to get an abortion should *not* have sex (especially vaginal sex) with such a male in the first place.

secularprolife.org said...

Point of fact, I would regard both you and myintx as assholes for killing a mind controlled rapist, knowing that he was mindcontrolled. But my personal opinion that you are assholes is irrelevent. Neither of you has an obligation to allow your body to be used by someone, regardless of his personal lack of evil intention, or how sad I might feel about it.


Also, myintx is a HYPOCRITICAL asshole. You are not. Myintx keeps weeping over how 'innocent human beings shouldn't be killed', but only wants to apply this to CUTE human beings, and handwaves it away if they are not so cute.

secularprolife.org said...

Point of fact, I would regard both you and myintx as assholes for killing a mind controlled rapist, knowing that he was mindcontrolled. But my personal opinion that you are assholes is irrelevent. Neither of you has an obligation to allow your body to be used by someone, regardless of his personal lack of evil intention, or how sad I might feel about it.

Also, myintx is a HYPOCRITICAL asshole. You are not a hypocrite in this matter. Myintx keeps weeping over how 'innocent human beings shouldn't be killed', but only wants to apply this to CUTE human beings, and handwaves it away if they are not so cute.

secularprolife.org said...

I've got a question--you think that married females should be able to get abortions without their spouse's consent, correct?

Also, frankly, I think that telling females to only have sex with males who have moral and/or political qualms about people opting out of paying child support to be a *much* more realistic piece of advice than lady black's previous suggestion that males should abstain from vaginal sex with any fertile and potentially fertile female for the rest of their lives (advice which I consider to be both *utterly* unrealistic and sexist in practice).

secularprolife.org said...

OH YES it DOES make a difference. No such right exists. No such right has ever existed. And no such right will ever exist. You can't make property out of human beings. I am not denying there are modern-day slavers (and that's what you're advocating, make no mistake), but nobody pays attention to them, and nobody ever will. We do have a constitution, and liberty here.

secularprolife.org said...

If he is mind controlled, then isn't he too being raped, in a sense? "Enveloped" as the MRA's say?

secularprolife.org said...

No I am NOT an asshole. "Can't help it" doesn't fly with me, and I am NOT obligated to allow an assault on my body, EVEN if the one perpetrating the assault "can't help it." That's irrelevant to my right of self-defense.

secularprolife.org said...

"OH YES it DOES make a difference. No such right exists."

Appeal to authority fallacy.

"No such right has ever existed."

Appeal to tradition fallacy.

"And no such right will ever exist."

Your prediction.

"You can't make property out of human beings."

Agreed.

"I am not denying there are modern-day slavers (and that's what you're advocating, make no mistake), but nobody pays attention to them, and nobody ever will."

I am *not* necessarily advocating this myself, though I am unsure that I would consider this to be slavery.

secularprolife.org said...

Oh that's an easy one. The human infant.

secularprolife.org said...

Yes.

secularprolife.org said...

If you use someone as a mere means to and, denying their free will, as you would an appliance or a machine, you are treating them as nothing more than an object, as 'property' to have your way with, and that = slavery.


Slaves were the machines of the plantation before machines were used to harvest cotton. Biological machines. They were used as human objects for the purposes of collecting cotton for their owners to make those owners rich.

secularprolife.org said...

Why?

secularprolife.org said...

Also, would you consider it repulsive for someone to choose to save the 2+ pigs instead?

secularprolife.org said...

Thanks for your response; it might very well be of use to me in future debates. :)

secularprolife.org said...

What if one pays these individuals for losing their body parts? After all, lady black said that slavery is only considered to be work *without* pay.

secularprolife.org said...

What the hell else will you call it when I'm not the master of my own body and someone else can put a lien upon my tissues? That's a slave. That is not liberty. That is not even humane. And for your information, smart-ass, there are no fallacies when discussing law. And when you discuss *rights* you are discussing law. I don't know where you live, but I live in the United States of America. We have laws here. And your rights never extend to the body of another citizen. NEVER. EVER. There is no basis in the Constitution upon which to assert such a right. That is my *legal* argument. Not a fallacy. I don't even owe blood or any body tissues to family members. Not to my husband, and not to my kids. If I should choose to donate them, that is a gift. Not an obligation.

secularprolife.org said...

Yeah, I would.

secularprolife.org said...

"What the hell else will you call it when I'm not the master of my own body and someone else can put a lien upon my tissues? That's a slave. "

What if you are getting paid for this? Also, technically speaking, you don't appear to be working in this scenario.

"That is not liberty."

Agreed.

"That is not even humane."

Well, I am unsure that locking up people in jail for life is humane, but we sometimes (rightfully and thankfully) do it.

"And for your information, smart-ass, there are no fallacies when discussing law."

Hahahahaha! This appears to be incorrect; after all, the law can be and sometimes is changed. Also, frankly, sometimes the law deserves to be changed even when it is unlikely to get changed, such as that part of the U.S. Constitution preventing naturalized U.S. citizens such as myself from running for U.S. President (or do you support that part of the U.S. Constitution?).

"And when you discuss *rights* you are discussing law."

Agreed.

"I don't know where you live, but I live in the United States of America."

I also live in the good ol' USA.

"We have laws here. And your rights never extend to the body of another citizen. NEVER. EVER."

Once again, appeal to tradition and appeal to authority fallacy.

"There is no basis in the Constitution upon which to assert such a right."

I know someone who appears to be very knowledgeable in regards to Constitutional law who might disagree with you in regards to this.

"That is my *legal* argument. Not a fallacy."

On the contrary, it very much appears to be a fallacy.

"I don't even owe blood or any body tissues to family members. Not to my husband, and not to my kids. If I should choose to donate them, that is a gift. Not an obligation.

As of right now? Yes, correct.

secularprolife.org said...

Your statement is goofy for a couple of reasons:


1 You appear to be trying to claim that it does not matter to you if you are forced to donate a kidney for someone's 'very life', because you, in turn, can get your missing kidney replaced. The problem here, is that unless kidneys can be grown in a vat, in which case your kidney would not have been needed in the first place, your replacement kidney must be taken from someone else. Who, in turn, according to you, can get THEIR kidney replaced from some 3rd person.


2. What this constitutes is a game of 'musical chairs' with kidneys and it is an extremely stupid game for a few reasons.


3. The first reason it is stupid, is that it started out short one kidney. Someone, at the end of this idiotic process is going to end up short one kidney, so why go through it?


4. A donated kidney, unless it is from an identical twin, is never a perfect match. Your game of musical kidneys is going to end up with several people with health problems, rather than just one.


5. Surgery is not free. Your game of musical kidneys means several people are going to have huge medical bills, rather than just one.

secularprolife.org said...

On that we can agree, however I am not a Libertarian either. That's just one more "groupthink" trap. I do tend to agree with them more than any other party though. I just like pragmatic conservative (as in small government) ideals and individualism. I have serious problems with some of their platform though. I think they have the right idea, but are too spineless on gay marriage. Leaving it up to the states is half right, but it should also be cleared up that it's not the government's role to dictate romantic relationships. As far as they are concerned it's a contract between two consenting adults. They shouldn't have any concern with whether those two adults are having sex, or what kind of sex they are having. It seems like they are missing the boat on making a good credible conservative argument in favor of full recognition for same sex marriage. They get enough right to let some stuff slide though I guess. Still not joining up though. I'll keep my vote unassigned and make whoever wants it earn it.

secularprolife.org said...

Why?

secularprolife.org said...

"1 You appear to be trying to claim that it does not matter to you if you are forced to donate a kidney for someone's 'very life', because you, in turn, can get your missing kidney replaced. The problem here, is that unless kidneys can be grown in a vat, in which case your kidney would not have been needed in the first place, your replacement kidney must be taken from someone else. Who, in turn, according to you, can get THEIR kidney replaced from some 3rd person."

I was talking about the future, when we will probably be able to use stem-cells and/or something similar to grow new kidneys for humans with their own DNA.

"2. What this constitutes is a game of 'musical chairs' with kidneys and it is an extremely stupid game for a few reasons."

This does not appear to be true in the sense that I was talking about this here (please see my response to #1).

"3. The first reason it is stupid, is that it started out short one kidney. Someone, at the end of this idiotic process is going to end up short one kidney, so why go through it?

4. A donated kidney, unless it is from an identical twin, is never a perfect match. Your game of musical kidneys is going to end up with several people with health problems, rather than just one.

5. Surgery is not free. Your game of musical kidneys means several people are going to have huge medical bills, rather than just one."

Since I was talking about this in a futuristic sense, none of these criticisms appear to be valid.

secularprolife.org said...

**Anyway, though, my point here is that this scenario doesn't appear to be a good one for determining which rights various individuals should have.**



Actually it is. As I stated in my above post, if there were a reason, such as space or weight, why I could either save several infants, or one adult, assuming they were of equal quality (the infants not being retarded and the adult not being a criminal) and I did not know any of them, I would save the several infants. This implies they have equal rights, and I am going for saving the greatest number.


The same is not true of several frozen embryoes vs a single newborn infant. Assuming there was nothing wrong with either the infant or the zygotes, I would still save the infant. For much the same reason I would save a single person rather than several rats. I am not saving the greatest number. A person has more rights than a rat, or even several rats, and an infant has more rights than a zygote.

secularprolife.org said...

"This implies they have equal rights, and I am going for saving the greatest number."

Where exactly did I imply that they have (and should have) equal rights?

Also, would you save your parents or 5+ strangers assuming that you could only save one group of people?

secularprolife.org said...

I am not sure what you are trying to say. However, it probably doesn't matter. So long a woman has a legal choice to end a pregnancy, I do not feel that she can validly CHOOSE to carry it to term, then demand money. Unless a man is married to the woman (which constitutes a contract), then if the woman could choose to have an abortion, the fact that she doesn't feel like having one cannot create a right to the man's wallet.


Rights come with responsibilities, and vice versa. For instance, an adult has the right to eat candy all day, since they are paying their own dental bills. A child does not pay their own dental bills, so they do not get to decide how much candy they get to eat. The person paying the dental bills gets to decide that. If the child wants the right to decide whether or not they can eat candy, then with that right comes the responsibility of paying the dentist.


Likewise, if a woman wants the right to choose whether or not to get an abortion, with that right comes the responsibility for paying for the child if they carry it to term. She cannot legitimately claim the right to have an abortion, but if she decides not to, the man has to pay. If the man has to pay, then the woman not have a right to an abortion. Claiming otherwise is acting like a spoiled child who insists they have the right to eat all the candy they want, but their parents still have to pay for the dentist.

secularprolife.org said...

Also, one more question: if you don't mind me asking, what is your sexuality (straight, gay, bisexual, et cetera)? As for me, I guess that I am very slightly bisexual, probably along the lines of being 99% heterosexual and 1% homosexual.

secularprolife.org said...

Thank you. ::: bows ::: Just throw roses. I am PRO life so naturally I am PRO choice.

secularprolife.org said...

You are not a Hicksite Quaker. No Quaker would ever say they attend 'church.'
You must be one of those Quakes who are just Protestants. Went to a conference in Ohio with those kind of 'Quakers.' They employ 'magic gestures.' Talk about 'notions.'

secularprolife.org said...

Make abortion illegal and you kill women. You are not pro life. You are pro death.


ILLEGAL ABORTION and sepsis and hemmorhage in CHILDBIRTH are the three leading causes of maternal death worldwide.


Abortion and contraception are human rights. How many peaches will you get if you harm the tree?

secularprolife.org said...

http://m.quickmeme.com/img/da/daafae6096ecac624273679382e6a01aae7b15a1b6c86ff21c40c821d81d06b8.jpg

secularprolife.org said...

That will never change. And I'd be very interested to hear ANY constitutional argument by which the government can steal body parts from a citizen for the benefit of another citizen. I don't believe anyone has such an argument. This has been tried. I am not appealing to "tradition." I'm appealing to the supreme law of the country. It is what it is. The fourth amendment wouldn't allow for this. So, not just "as of now." As of forever.

secularprolife.org said...

"That will never change."

In your opinion, though as I previously said a while back, this will become irrelevant once we are able to grow new body parts for people with their own DNA (using stem-cell research and/or something similar).

"And I'd be very interested to hear ANY constitutional argument by which the government can steal body parts from a citizen for the benefit of another citizen."

I'll see if I will be able to get this person to elaborate on this; I haven't talked much with him on Facebook over the last year or so, so I'll see what I can do.

"I don't believe anyone has such an argument. "

We will see.

"This has been tried."

Yes, though even court decisions can be and sometimes are repealed/overturned (or whatever the correct name for this is). Interestingly enough, though, (for the record, I obviously *oppose* this ruling) I think that the U.S. Supreme Court previously did say that it was okay to forcibly sterilize (some) people in its 1927 Buck v. Bell decision. Thus, to claim that U.S. courts *always* made good decisions appears to be an idiotic claim.

"I am not appealing to "tradition." I'm appealing to the supreme law of the country. It is what it is. The fourth amendment wouldn't allow for this. So, not just "as of now." As of forever."

But the U.S. Constitution itself can and sometimes is changed; after all, the 18th Amendment previously get repealed by the 21st Amendment (or something along those lines). Thus, you *do* appear to be guilty of an appeal to authority and/or of an appeal to tradition fallacy here.

If I will have a debate with someone about whether or not naturalized U.S. citizens such as myself should become eligible to be U.S. President after they reach 35 years of age, and this other individual tried using the U.S. Constitution to back up his argument that this part of the U.S. Constitution should not be amended (or whatever the correct term for this is), then I will accurately accuse this individual of being guilty of the is-ought fallacy and laugh really hard at what this individual said for a very long time.

secularprolife.org said...

What about of trans-women with penises?

secularprolife.org said...

Also, please don't forget to respond to my long post from yesterday (the one with the four questions) if you are able to do this. :)

secularprolife.org said...

Also, out of curiosity--do you yourself think that naturalized U.S. citizens who are 35+ years old should become eligible to be U.S. President?

secularprolife.org said...

Shit, I forgot. Thanks for the reminder.

secularprolife.org said...

No.

secularprolife.org said...

No problem! :)

secularprolife.org said...

Do they say that female condoms kill and/or that tubal litigation kills, though?

I haven't heard them talk about female condoms at all, or other barrier methods.

Remember, the great advantage of the pill is that a woman can *always* be ready for sex without having to go to a great deal of effort, and taking a tiny pill enables her to do so in secrecy.

I have seen two responses to tubal ligation. 1) if you don't want to get pregnant, get a tubal ligation the moment you hit puberty 2) tubal ligations are an abomination, as the purpose of sex is to procreate.

Even if this sex was consensual, correct?

Biology is not destiny, for either the man or the woman.

I would call that theft, rather than rape.

Yeah, it's stealing. Just like a man steals from a woman when he rapes her and she is then forced to bear his child. The rapist gets to pass his genes along whilst donating zero resources. That is one reason why rape evolved, according to some scientists - rape is a way for males to transmit their genes to the next generation with zero effort on their part.

can the "baby daddy" get back this infant and force this female to pay child support for this infant in all such cases?

That's a good question. I would assume so.

Do you see where exactly I am going with this?

No. And I don't feel like using my brain this morning. Brrrr.

After all, telling most males to abstain from sex with females for life
is *utterly* unrealistic and similar to what politically anti-abortion
people tell females to do.



Agree.


1) yes


2) no


3) no. Which brings to mind, to be completely fair, if the woman is force to donate her body to her unborn human, then the man should be as well, and this should also apply after birth and even after the kid has been given up for adoption. If you create it, you owe it period. This is the only way to be fully consistent, imo.


4) Well, that depends. If we are going to force women to gestate, then yes, no one else should have fully bodily autonomy either, if it has been established that people have a right to other people's bodies.



Obviously, that would be bad, as that would be slavery, so in this case no, we shouldn't seek equality:P


Men often do lose when it comes to family law, and that is regrettable. This is largely because for hundreds, even thousands of years, women were property and their job was to make babies for the man, and those babies were his property. He could ditch her and he'd keep the kids. This is how they do it in Islamic countries. Also, before the days of court ordered child support, men could literally run around, knock up as many women as they wished, skip town, and she's stuck with a kid and grinding poverty. So things have swung in the opposite direction, and many *good* men have been caught in the crossfire.

secularprolife.org said...

hehe. JDC upvotes *all* of your posts.


I think you have a fan:P

secularprolife.org said...

Yes, I think so too. :)

secularprolife.org said...

Frankly, what I hope to eventually (maybe a couple of/several hundred years from now) see would be a reality in which there would no longer be *any* discrimination worldwide against *anyone* as a result of his or her sex/gender/sexual orientation/gender identity/race/ethnicity/et cetera. In addition, I would seriously hope that such a reality would have things such as free, 100% effective/efficient contraception* (which is less drastic than castration and ovary removal, obviously; though, for reference, I would still think that elective castration should be an option for those who genuinely want it during this time (I am unsure about elective ovary removal, which I certainly *don't* recommend)) for everyone worldwide, cheap or free anti-aging technology for everyone (so that everyone or almost everyone is able to stop and reverse the aging process), a Western European-style social safety net, things such as good education, cheap or free (meaning paid for by the government) artificial wombs (so that everyone or almost everyone will be able to afford them), cheap "designer babies", and (if this ever becomes possible) safe technology to change one's sexuality and/or gender identity (in both directions) for individuals who genuinely want to utilize such technology.

What exactly are your thoughts on such a reality? Frankly, it appears to be pretty great to me, though unfortunately, we are an *extremely* long way from achieving such a reality right now. :(

secularprolife.org said...

For reference, if you are wondering: While I myself prefer pussy (hey, you brought up this term here!), I also sometimes get "pretty hungry" when I see dick and balls (Yes, I plan on getting myself castrated, but I *am* attracted to men's balls). The rest of a man's body is often (but *not* always) not that physically/sexually appealing to me, though. Frankly, in regards to the rest of a man's body, I appear to be *extremely* picky to the extent that 90+% of men are probably not good enough for me. However, even if I did find a man who was good enough for me (and, to me, even such a man would *pale* in a physical/sexual sense in comparison to many women), I still *wouldn't* want to have sex with him (even if STIs and STDs were hypothetically *not* a problem/an issue) unless I myself already fully transitioned into a female/woman by that point in time. Also, I would like to point out that, at least throughout all of my life so far, I appear to literally have *zero* physical/sexual attraction to males which have more than a minuscule amount of body and/or facial hair. Sorry if I am being too detailed here, but I asked you a question, and thus, I feel a need to reciprocate by answering this question myself.

Also, out of curiosity, but extremely random question--What exactly is your height? As for me, I think that I am 1.83 meters (or 6 feet and 0 inches); frankly, I myself am *extremely* pleased with the fact that I am apparently taller than 98% or 99% of all women. :) Heck, if I will ever transition from male to female in the future, then I will be one tall woman, which definitely pleases me *a lot.* :)

secularprolife.org said...

No.

secularprolife.org said...

It's still legal to forcibly sterilize some people and I have no problem with it. In cases (for instance) where a person is so profoundly damaged that they will never pass the mental age of an infant of three months. The reason? Such a person will never be competent to consent to sex (or anything else for that matter). Therefore any sex would be rape, and this person should never be forced to undergo either birth or abortion. That would be torture. I have read of such a case, and I agree with the sterilization as a humane measure. But I'll say it would have to be a VERY hard luck case like the one I just mentioned. That wouldn't be right for someone with Down syndrome. And NO, there is ZERO chance of the fourth amendment being overturned. It's part of the original bill of rights. None of the bill of rights have been considered for overturning by any serious legal minds. I'm not taking about prohibition and the repeal thereof. That didn't give rights to anyone. It was bad law, and it was repealed unanimously. In fact it was the only constitutional amendment EVER to deprive people of liberty, and it had a very short life, as it should have. One day was too long, and nothing good ever came of it. You can't claim the same thing about any part of the bill of rights.

secularprolife.org said...

Who cares if everyone does not agree that they have no right to my body or its contents?
I am not interested in their opinion.
I will kill them if they try to do something about it.

secularprolife.org said...

"And NO, there is ZERO chance of the fourth amendment being overturned. "

I wasn't talking about repealing the Fourth Amendment; heck, it appears to be a pretty good amendment. I was simply stating that the U.S. Constitution can be and sometimes is changed/amended.

secularprolife.org said...

Why not, exactly?

secularprolife.org said...

Also, frankly, I find your position here to be extremely offensive.

secularprolife.org said...

"I will kill them if they try to do something about it."

And you could go to jail for doing this.

secularprolife.org said...

So, to clarify: You support Buck v. Bell, correct?

secularprolife.org said...

Try to take my kidney or my fetus and we will see what happens. The right to self defense is absolute. I am starting to wonder if you are entirely crazy or just experimental.

secularprolife.org said...

Rude and boring. Ann and myintx in a conversation is unreadable.

secularprolife.org said...

How is forcing women to gestate and give birth against their will NOT a form a violence against them?

secularprolife.org said...

Nope. I would be standing my ground. Self defense is legal. Even more legal than it used to be because now I have no 'duty to retreat.'
Do not talk about the law if you know nothing about it.

secularprolife.org said...

Citation to case law needed saying that the right to self-defense is 'absolute'.

secularprolife.org said...

There are no fallacies when discussing law? ROFLMAO

You really are that cognitively impaired!

secularprolife.org said...

Fourth Amendment, huh? So, was _Roe v. Wade_ decided on Fourth Amendment grounds?

secularprolife.org said...

Your gynocentric biases have been noted, 'nurse'.

secularprolife.org said...

Hold your breath. And twirl. Better yet - twirl while holding your dick. Be careful. Easy to fall down doing that.
You want a conversation with me? Stop acting like such a shitweasel.

secularprolife.org said...

Ah, penis envy from the plump dumbling. No surprise there. And you concede the point about the right to self-defense being 'absolute'. Maybe you can ask the pretend law student ladyblack to cite some cases for you.


You're just an internet bully. I don't want a conversation with you. You're good for an occasional laugh--at you--and that's about it.

secularprolife.org said...

Aha, you're anti-catholic, too. Why am I not surprised?

secularprolife.org said...

Yep, you're an asshole, for sure. No doubt about it.

secularprolife.org said...

I have dicks. I also have a couple of excellent dick links. If you go to this one you will never think of dicks in the same way again.
http://www.luriddigs.com/
If you have a bagina, you can have all the dicks you want.

secularprolife.org said...

I have a vagina. I can have all the dicks I want.

secularprolife.org said...

She doesn't envy you, then.

secularprolife.org said...

You're damn straight I am. Not so much anti-Catholic, as anti-Catholic hospital. I don't care what those men in dresses want to do with their own lives. But I want them keeping their rosaries off patient's ovaries.

secularprolife.org said...

Partly. But we weren't talking about Roe, so that's neither here nor there. That's what happens when you butt in without reading the entire thread.

secularprolife.org said...

You *claim* to be a nurse.

secularprolife.org said...

Lose the threats, plump dumbling. Why don't you just kill yourself? The world could do with one less pro-abortion nut.

secularprolife.org said...

Ain't looking for that slut's envy.

secularprolife.org said...

Way to miss the point entirely.

secularprolife.org said...

Men would have to be beyond desperate to go anywhere near your dried-up pro-abortion snatch.

secularprolife.org said...

Way to post mindless crap in support the plump dumbling.

secularprolife.org said...

The Fourth Amendment is not relevant here. Go back and retake your imaginary law class.

secularprolife.org said...

3 at a time!

secularprolife.org said...

You're a bigot in so very many ways.

secularprolife.org said...

Yes, although personally I would not really understand the point of a woman deliberately deciding to retain ownership of a non-viable fetus or embryo. But it's not really my decision to make on anyone else's behalf.

secularprolife.org said...

Anti-life, anti-male, anti-catholic...

secularprolife.org said...

I'm going to assume for the sake of argument that the *quality* of the infants and the adult are equal. That is to say, none of them are fatally ill and going to die shortly, none of them are severely retarded (or extraordinarily gifted), the adult is not a criminal, and I don't know any of them.


That being the case, I would probably save the two or more infants.


In regard to your question about the pigs, here is what I would do in various scenarios:


1. I am not sure if I would save a pig or frozen embryoes. It would depend on several things, such as whether this was a pig that was a pet or prize stud (thus looking forward to a fairly long comfortable life rather than being bacon next week). Also, whether or not any of the parents of the embryoes were now infertile and this was their last chance for a baby.


2. I would save almost all born human beings, even severely retarded ones before any number of pigs. With one exception.


3. I would save a pig before I would save a serial killer like Charles Manson.

secularprolife.org said...

Yes, unless the person was Charles Manson or someone like that.

secularprolife.org said...

Greg - I am actually opposed to the current fuss over 'gay marriage' for a similiar reason. Mind you, I agree it is not the government's or anyone else's business which adults are having sex with which adults, in what numbers, or combinations.


That said, I think 'marriage' has become pretty much of a con (it doesn't have to be, but that is what it has become), which people buy into partly because they've been sold on the ideas that it firstly 'validates their relationship' and secondly, getting permission from some self-appointed third party somehow magically transforms 'evil' sex into 'legitimate sex'.


I don't agree with either notion, I don't need other people to tell me if my emotions are valid or not, and hardly see how getting the permission of some third party can turn 'evil' into 'good'. That's ludicrous to me, and I don't see how gay people buying into the same particular con that straight people have bought into will improve matters.

secularprolife.org said...

**Ah, penis envy from the plump dumbling.**


No penis envy here.


Adam got the ability to pee standing up.


Eve got multiple orgasms.

secularprolife.org said...

Who or what is your baby-talk supporting? It only seems to be embarrassing you. Please continue. It's fun to watch.

secularprolife.org said...

Coyote - since you mention you are only 22 years old, I am going to tell you a few things about the pro-life politicians you may be unaware of.


1. Politicians very often will loudly claim to be in favor of a position or passing certain laws that they know are never going to be passed. They may even actively write up and attempt to pass such laws. They are putting on a dog and pony show to get votes from certain people in favor of this position who are to naive to know that it is a dog and pony show, and the politician is putting it on knowing that the laws will not be passed.


2. Myintx talks like a parrot and squawks certain words she has learned will get sad feelies from people, like 'person', 'human being' and 'right to life'. These are NOT magic words. They have very complex legal meanings, imposing numerous rights and responsibilities on both 'legal persons' and on society.


Even assuming that what myintx claims to want, and laws were passed tomorrow declaring a zygote to be a 'legal person', what would then happen would NOT simply be what myintx imagines, and drug and surgical abortions that give her sad feelies would simply go away like an old fart, and otherwise everything else would go on the way it does.


Sorry, no. The resultant laws would probably be hundreds of pages long and the cost to society would be astronomical. The 'rights' of 'legal persons' including the right to life and numerous others cover many things other than simply violent death. Among other things, you cannot throw the body of a 'human being' out in the trash. So all tampons and pads will have to be given to the police, and tested for the presence of a zygote, as well as the presence of any substance that might prevent a zygote from implanting. Myintx's claim that the police would only investigate if it 'seemed suspicious' is ludicrous. Death certificates must be filled out on ALL dead 'human beings', suspicious or not, and the police will determine if things are suspicious, not her. And there's definitely a motive, such as the $250,000 it costs to raise a child. Human beings can and have been murdered for far less money than that.


I might also mention that failure of the police to do this will result in armies of lawyers having a feild day suing the negligent police department on all sorts of grounds. The police cannot discriminate against any sort of group, or fail to investigate their deaths or file a death certificate on them. Do you think the police are going to let themselves get sued because it would be inconvenient to myintx? She just thinks they would, because she's a spoiled idiot.

secularprolife.org said...

Filthy dirty girl! I like that in a person.

secularprolife.org said...

Nonsense. You have never seen me, let alone my snatch.
::: singing :::
"... Oh-oh, yes I'm the great pretender.
Pretending that I'm doing well
My need is such I pretend too much
I'm lonely but no one can tell ..."

secularprolife.org said...

I have the distinct feeling that he has never seen anyone's and never will.

secularprolife.org said...

That might account for its attitude.

secularprolife.org said...

I guess he thinks women admire misogyny and immaturity.

secularprolife.org said...

I have never seen the shitweasel make a pleasant or informed remark. It has even snarled at its fellow fetus freaks - for no good reason. Purity perhaps.

secularprolife.org said...

The fetus 'life' IS my life - a fetus is alive like my arm is alive - until so late in gestation that abortion is moot. Science is your friend.

secularprolife.org said...

There are a number of occasions when killing is acceptable and legal = assisted suicide, defense of self or others, war, police work, execution, abortion.
You cannot give a right to the fetus you have not taken from the host.

secularprolife.org said...

Self defense isn't necessarily defined by hitting someone back. You can duck. You can block. You can leave the room. In that situation, violent self-defense isn't needed. Of course, you aren't going to allow the hitting to continue, correct? I've never been struck by a patient, because I'm great at ducking and blocking. But there have been plenty of attempts. I've even had canes swung at me. That's a pretty good indication to stop what you're doing and try again later. Sorry about your employer's reaction. You do know that employers are required to post conspicuous posters in the workplace concerning what the procedure is if you are injured on the job, right? You are also entitled to written information at hire, and after reporting an incident.

secularprolife.org said...

I don't have a bigoted bone in my body. Just an issue with bishops practicing medicine without a license. I will tell you this. I regard all religions as being equally idiotic. That doesn't mean I'm bigoted, though. I'm an atheist. I have many believing friends and family members, and I don't hate anyone for their faith. That would be bigoted. Now, so long as those of faith do not attempt to force their beliefs upon my life, we'll have no problems. When their beliefs affect any part of my life, including but not limited to health care, then we have a problem.

secularprolife.org said...

Some people are just angry. I tell myself that it's better that they "yell at strangers" rather than friends and family.

secularprolife.org said...

What on earth do you mean by "here?" If you think the fourth amendment has nothing to do with the government's lack of ability to steal organs or tissues from one citizen for the benefit of another, you're delusional. That was the gist of the conversation you still insist on butting into without even knowing what you're talking about. The conversation I was having with Coyote is over, and the conversation is over with you too. You have nothing of value to add.

secularprolife.org said...

Go argue with the state of PA. Don't bother arguing with me. You don't pack the gear.

secularprolife.org said...

I do not know if it is better or not. Might act as a kind of safety valve.
I can remember being as angry as AOG. I was not a happy or productive person. Anger expands to fill the psychic space available. And it leaks out when you do not need it or want it. And people start to run when they see you coming.

secularprolife.org said...

Well, I left the room. Not good at ducking and dodging.


I was not given the information about the existence of workman's comp at any time there, including after I reported the incident (which was right before I went home for the day because I couldn't see good without my glasses) I don't remember if it was posted anywhere, as this was about 20 year ago. Possibly it may have been posted somewhere, and I simply didn't read it, as work places tend to post a lot of crap irrelevent to me, so I get to ignoring most of it.


There were a lot of things that went on in that particular nursing home that I found to be both immoral and peculiar.

secularprolife.org said...

Well, that was federal law 20 years ago, and the nursing home nursing supervisor likely violated company policy by not filling out an incident report when the incident was reported. That's as much to protect themselves as to protect you. I can't say much about your attitude of not reading posters concerning your rights, other than it's not wise. There are all sorts of legal requirements that you be informed of various rights, and it's your responsibility to keep yourself informed. Of course, knowing what you're supposed to do when injured on the job is extremely important information. What if you were seriously injured, and required hospital care?

secularprolife.org said...

You are a good example of restraint and general good humor for me. I have never experienced a raging MagnaDave. And I do not want to ever. You are really effective and can be scathing (without being particularly abusive) now.

secularprolife.org said...

**nursing home nursing supervisor likely violated company policy by not filling out an incident report when the incident was reported**

I have no idea if an incident report was filled out or not. All I know is that when I reported it, they did not tell me of the existence of workman's comp, and simply got pissy because I said I could not continue to work that day without my eyeglasses.

** I can't say much about your attitude of not reading posters concerning your rights,**

If I know a poster is about my rights, I would read it. As I said, I didn't even know such a thing as workman's comp existed at that time, or what it was so wouldn't have read a poster about it. There are too many irrelevent things for me to read them all, so I tend to filter them out. Same thing where I work now, a lot of people in the company are too lazy to properly address emails, so send them to the whole company, so we get emails about issues in another building 50 miles away that have nothing to do with us. Bad habit, maybe, but I can't spend 4 hours a day reading irrelevent stuff.

**What if you were seriously injured, and required hospital care?**



I did have insurance through that job, and was aware of it. But it didn't cover eyeglasses.


There's too much screwy bureaucracy and government programs nowadays, anyway, and not enough common sense. It doesn't seem much like real life to me, it seems like a bunch of frantic paper shuffling, and I have serious doubts that it's sustainable.

secularprolife.org said...

Don't know what happened to my other reply. But there is way too much paperwork shuffling and unproductive legalistic BS in our society today. Which is one of the things I did not like about working in the nursing home, there was so much paperwork to do to DOCUMENT the cares on the residents, that there was not time to actually DO the cares. Instead, the time was spent filling out reports that the cares had been done. When in fact, they had not been, there wasn't time to do them, largely because too much time had to be spent filling out all the paperwork claiming they had been done, in order to satisfy about 200 pages of state requirements or whatever.

secularprolife.org said...

I ended up skipping my meal break most days, in order to actually do the cares. This pissed off my supervisors, they said the state required me to have a meal break. So I clocked out, stood in the stairwell, then clocked back in 2 minutes later and went back to work. This seemed to make them happy. I don't know why.

secularprolife.org said...

Let me explain something to you that isn't drilled into nursing assistants. All that documentation (some related to state requirements, and some to protect the liability of the institution and it's employees) is necessary, whether you deem it "busywork" or not. Documentation should be as streamlined as possible, and the better health care facilities are moving to electronic documentation. In nursing, the saying is "not documented, not done." Ideally the documentation should be initials on patient flow charts detailing the care each resident needs. More detailed nursing notes can be written as required (for example, to prove Medicare is getting it's money's worth, one nursing note per shift is required). Look at it this way... good documentation will protect you in a court of law when you're being accused of neglect or abuse. You don't know enough about the subject to be opining on it. You would find out very quickly how important it is if you were running the show.

secularprolife.org said...

**In nursing, the saying is "not documented, not done."**

Only problem is, that it was 'documented'. But it wasn't actually done.

**Look at it this way... good documentation will protect you in a court of law when you're being accused of neglect or abuse.**



That's great. Problem is, the abuse and neglect can still be going on, regardless of what the documentation says. Being 'protected in a court of law' by such lies might be wonderful for the nursing home, but it's not really going to help the patient.

secularprolife.org said...

Marriage is probably an antiquated idea, but it serves some legitimate purpose. I agree that a lot of people view it horribly wrong, which is probably the cause of the fuss. From a strictly objective view, marriage is a contractual arrangement. The only thing it really affirms is that two people agree to share decisions, consequences, finances etc. It's kind of like a mini-corporation. Romantic ideals, sex, and familial issues are just none of the governments business. I think the gay rights activists are being a little short sighted, they better be sure to argue for full divorce rights as well. To me it would make more sense to argue that ALL marriage be viewed by the government as a civil union.

secularprolife.org said...

Words to live by, Dave -- something I'm prone to forget if I'm "Fatigue Posting" -- thank goodness no recent examples leap to mind? (hope, hope, hope ...)

secularprolife.org said...

You're not 'using science' either, killer nurse. I doubt you're competent to use science, and your legal knowledge is pretty darned lacking, too, racist "ladyblack".

secularprolife.org said...

But the racist lady-black claims to know all about science. She's a killer nurse after all!

secularprolife.org said...

No point in arguing with racist garbage like you, killer nurse.


As far as packing the gear, take your misandrist attempts at insults and shove them up your fat ass!

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 370 of 370   Newer› Newest»