Thursday, April 10, 2014

No, I am not interested in "punishing" women for having sex

I went to law school. This has affected my way of thinking, for good and for ill. I am now fluent in legalese.

The purpose of legalese is to increase clarity. I realize that that's very difficult for non-lawyers to believe! But it's true, and in this post, I'll show you by translating some legalese. Please bear with me. I promise there's a pro-life point at the end.

It's been said that possession is nine-tenths of the law. I'm not sure that's right. Much of the law (I won't assign a number) is about the allocation of risk.

This is especially true of tort law. A tort is pretty much anything that causes damage to persons or property (other than damages that come out of violating a contract, which are handled, appropriately enough, by contract law). So torts encompass a wide range of things. If you ever go to law school, you will study many old-timey tort cases involving trains. But tort cases may also be about car accidents, slip-and-falls, dog bites, and all sorts of other routine matters.

Torts can be divided into two general categories. Intentional torts are instances where someone deliberately causes damage; for instance, punching somebody may not only lead to criminal charges, but also to a private lawsuit for the intentional tort of battery. Then there are the non-intentional torts, which are accidental. I've already mentioned some of those: slip-and-falls, and so on.

In a non-intentional tort, nobody has done anything criminal or morally abhorrent. But damage has been donein the form of hospital bills, a totaled car, or whatever elseand the court must decide who will foot the bill. Will it be the person who innocently caused the situation? Or will it be the person who innocently was minding her own business and was harmed by the situation? Neither option is ideal, but it has to be somebody. So the law's function is to allocate the risk of the accident.

When it comes to intentional torts, the court may not only order the perpetrator to pay for the actual costs of the damage, but also order additional payment to the victim"punitive damages," so called because their purpose is to punish the person who committed an intentional tort. But for non-intentional torts, punitive damages usually aren't on the table, because nobody needs to be punished; it's purely about compensation.

For non-intentional torts, a key concept is contained in the word "foreseeable." The court asks: who was in the best position to prevent this tort from happening? Put yourself in the shoes of the person being sued. Could that person have reasonably predicted that what happened was at least a possibility? If so, the risk will be allocated to that person. If not, the risk will be allocated to the victim.

The fact that something is foreseeable does not mean that it was intentional. (Remember, the fact that we're even talking about foreseeability probably means that it was a non-intentional tort.) A dog owner does not consent to her dog biting someone. A corporation does not consent to its employees doing stupidly dangerous things on the job. A grocer does not consent to a glass jar falling off of a shelf and injuring a customer. But they may still be liable for the damages caused by their torts. It happens all the time.

So when abortion supporters chant "Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy!" and accuse the pro-life movement of wanting to "punish" sexually active women (as if babies are punishments, as opposed to human beings), my mind always goes to the concept of foreseeability. When a person has sexual intercourse, pregnancy is a foreseeable result. That does not mean that the sexually active person has done something wrong or deserves to be punished. Let me repeat that: saying that pregnancy is foreseeable is not a moral judgment. It's just an acknowledgement that, let's face it, the cause of pregnancy is not exactly mysterious!

So the question is: who will bear the risk of the situation? Will it be the sexually active person, who did not intend for pregnancy to occur, but who at least has some control over the situation? Or will it be the unborn child, who has no control over the situation whatsoever, and whose very life is at stake?

The answer to that question is very easy when two lawyers are speaking to each other in legalese: it's all wrapped up in that one word, "foreseeable." But when trying to have that conversation in plain English, instead of having one word, you have... well, you have this entire blog post.

So don't knock legalese. It's actually pretty useful.


«Oldest   ‹Older   1001 – 1200 of 1389   Newer›   Newest»
myintx said...

No, you MADE up b s on Yahoo about me working for a CPC.

Not that there is anything wrong with working for a CPC, but your implication is that I stand to profit from being pro-life. You've been lying for YEARS even though I've told you REPEATEDLY I don't work for a CPC... typical pro-abort - a bald-faced LIAR.

myintx said...

Pretty sure that being fired simply because you are pregnant would be a violation of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act and leave an employer open to a lawsuit.

"do we as a society want irresponsible people raising kids" - probably not... but if a woman wanted an abortion but kept forgetting to get one, can she kill the baby when it's born? NO. So, she shouldn't be able to kill it before it's born either. Hopefully, she would be responsible enough to put the child up for adoption. Or, someone else would see what was going on and step in.

fiona64 said...

Sweetie, as I've already told you, I used to be an anti-choice dimwit just like you. I know every single page of your playbook because I used to use it.

Then, I got out of high school and into RealityLand. There's still time for you to grow up and realize that other people's medical decisions are none of your business.

myintx said...

It doesn't matter.... A child - born or unborn - is a human being and deserves a chance at life. His or her own mother should CARE enough to try her hardest to give her own unborn son or daughter a chance. As a society we should be helping women and encouraging them to care, not encouraging them to think about only themselves.

I noticed you said 'another' person. Guess you're admitting an unborn child is a person? ;)

fiona64 said...

Not my responsibility to be in in loco parentis for some feral kid whose parents can't be bothered ... no matter how many times you try to make it so.

fiona64 said...

Nope. Not one.

myintx said...

Common sense should......

myintx said...

Abortion and murder both kill a human being. Miscarriages and natural deaths are the natural deaths of human beings. Much bigger similarities than the difference of not having investigations into miscarriages. If a woman kills her newborn that no one knew about, hides the body and it's never found, it's still murder - even if there wasn't an investigation.

Not sure what your rant was all about. Are you saying you're OK with banning all abortions except those where there is a significant fetal defect or something? Many people would be willing to compromise with you on that. Or are you trying to use that to say that by wanting to ban abortion I should be willing to adopt? Which, of course, with pro-abort logic would mean that women could kill their newborns too if someone wasnt willing to step up to adopt.

I would have taken the serum when I was trying to get pregnant. Not all miscarriages are caused by defects in the unborn child. I would have taken the chance that the serum would help my body keep the pregnancy and hope that the baby turned out healthy - and if wasn't, I would still love my son or daughter - no matter what. But, if some other woman gives birth to a child with a defect and doesn't want him or her, she can put the baby up for adoption. There are places that specialize in adoption of special needs children. There are people in this world who CARE.

myintx said...

No, it is not selfish. If a couple doesn't want their IVF embryo's, they can pay to keep them in storage or put them up for 'adoption'. There have been cases of couples adopting IVF embryos before.

Not sure how you're making the connection that my child is an inconvenience. Then again, I don't claim to know how a pro-abort's mind works - after all, they support killing unborn children merely because they are inconvenient, unwanted, the wrong sex, etc. I'll never understand that.

myintx said...

Awww... you called an unborn baby a 'person'... :)

One person should not have a right to kill another person simply because he or she is inconvenient or unwanted.

myintx said...

The woman exists... so does the unborn child...2 individuals. BOTH should have a right to life.

myintx said...

I don't get to dictate anything. But I can VOTE for politicians who will make laws protecting the unborn. There are post-viability abortion laws in most states that say that a woman cannot kill her unborn child unless she meets one of the states exceptions - e.g. a DOCTOR determines the woman's health is at risk. We need to have laws that restrict the senseless killing of unborn children before viability as well.

myintx said...

How much time do you NEED wahwahwah? One day? Two? Glad you are thinking that the senseless killing of unborn children is wrong.

myintx said...

What a surprise, another LIE from a pro-abort. How old are you?

myintx said...

Nope... it was YOU. No proof was EVER presented. You're making up b s. Typical pro-abort.

TheDingus said...

If it's still in the womb at 34 weeks, it's not a newborn.

If it's out of the womb at 34 weeks, it's a newborn. Possibly a stillborn, but no longer a fetus.

Again: you cannot see the difference between INSIDE another person and OUTSIDE another person. Basically, you can't see women.

Now, let's deal with reality: a woman who must end a pregnancy of a viable fetus at 34 weeks for reasons to do with her health is not having an abortion. She's having induced labor or a c-section and giving birth. If she made it to 34 weeks she wants that child or children.

A woman who terminates a pregnancy at 34 weeks for reasons of fetal non-viability is most likely removing a dead or dying fetus from inside her, to protect her health and to avoid the unnecessary risks of labor and childbirth. The fetus is either already dead, causing sepsis, or incapable of life. To give full-term birth would be to cause suffering for no good reason, either to the woman, or to both the woman and the struggling fetus.

A real world example: a woman with a rather incompetent OB found in the 32nd week of a difficult pregnancy that she was carrying conjoined twins. Clearly she wants the children, since she struggled through eight months of a difficult pregnancy. However, the twins were joined in such a way that one would die during separation, and the other, if it survived separation at all, would live at best a brief life filled with surgeries and organ transplants.

That would be a situation you would call "partial birth abortion," and spend all your time worrying about the already dead fetus being dismembered (and it will be dead, either naturally or because it has been euthanized in the womb). Do you know why the already dead fetus will be dismembered? To make it safer for the woman. As per usual for anti-abortion folks, you'd prefer to increase the risk and suffering of the woman, for no reason. (But you're not interested in punishing women, or anything.)

How you hate women, to imagine they murder viable fetuses on the cusp of being born.

myintx said...

Looks like you drank the koolaid actually.

There are many people that wised up and became pro-life after years of being selfish and only thinking about themselves and their so-called medical decisions. Then they started caring about others.

dudebro said...

No. They told me, and then I passed the info along to the folks on Patheos.

myintx said...

Oh, is that why you support killing innocent human beings - because you don't want to be 'miserable'.... Cause it's all about 'me, me, me, me, me, OH, and me!'. Think there is a picture of a pro-abort next to the definition of SELFISH in the dictionary.

myintx said...


myintx said...

Guess 'doing the right thing' never crosses your mind does it? Or do you always think about 'me, me, me, OH, and me!' first?

TheDingus said...

So, you literally can't see the difference between a megalomaniacal mass murderer who built actual factories to deliberately slaughter millions of people, and A woman who doesn't want to have a baby? I mean, seriously?

You are free to consider developing embryos to be human beings, but you are not free to pretend they don't function as parasites on their mother's body. Because they do. I'll ask again: do you think babies develop by magic?

dudebro said...

Fiona nearly died so that she could give birth.

Did you nearly die for your kid?

dudebro said...

What could I gain from lying?

Are you worried that people might not consider your motives to be pure if you work for a CPC?

fiona64 said...

Then they started caring about others.

Nope. They don't care about others any more than you do. You've already told us that homeless people and starving children in the 3rd world are not your problem. Ditto those in need of living organ donors.

Because you're selfish. Just like every other anti-choicer.
You just have the extra helping of bitter because your diaper-clad anchor maneuver didn't work with your daughter's baby-daddy. ::shrug::

fiona64 said...

Awww... you called an unborn baby a 'person'... :)</i?

No, dumbshit, she didn't. But you keep fantasizing, okay? It seems to be what you do best.

fiona64 said...

Basically, you can't see women.

That is exactly her problem. Actual born, sapient, sentient women are not convenient little tabula rasas onto which she can project HER feelings. We have the audacities, unlike embryos, to have our own thoughts, beliefs and opinions which ::gasp:: do not align with her own.

Bottom line is, as I have said before, that she's a bitter single mom who thinks everyone else should have to suffer too.

fiona64 said...

Nope. Several people caught you out as working at White Rose CPC.

TheDingus said...

Finally we get to the heart of the matter. Because it is impossible to give a pregnant woman the right to live AND the developing embryo the right to live. Cannot be done.

It's just a fact that complications of pregnancy and child birth kill women. Forcing a woman who knows a pregnancy is not a good idea to remain pregnant anyway only increases her risk of dying. Maybe she suffers from a medical condition in which pregnancy is contra-indicated; maybe she's homeless and unable to get proper nutrition. Say she knows she can't have a baby right now, so she either seeks an unregulated black market abortion, or attempts self abortion, and it kills her (and the fetus).

Say her medical condition is depression, so she opts out of the pregnancy by killing herself. Maybe she has a relationship with a physically abusive partner who has already threatened to kill her. (Did you know that homicide and suicide cause more deaths of pregnant women than medical complications of pregnancy?)

Force women to gestate and you WILL kill women.

So, as warm and fuzzy as it makes you feel to proclaim "all innocent human beings have a right to life" in reality you think pregnant women don't.

But I suspect you throw the term "innocent" in there on purpose, and to your mind any woman who would end a pregnancy is not "innocent." If she dies, oh well. Which is where the Constitution comes in. You don't get to impose the death penalty on people without due process of law, sweetheart. You really don't get to based solely on the fact that they're female.

TheDingus said...

Likewise, 70% of fertilized ova will never, ever cause a woman to go into labor and come out as a newborn baby, ever.

70%. Unlike you, nature protects the living woman, first.

lady_black said...

No, we do NOT. You can't vote away women's rights.

lady_black said...

You're entitled to your opinion.

TheDingus said...

It's quite easy to see that, for whatever reason, myintx is completely wrapped up in being lauded for being a mother. She gets direct emotional support from other anti-choicers for making the decision (while they all ignore that she indeed made a choice).

She seems to believe that having a functioning uterus is her greatest value in life. The thought that other women can choose not to create babies threatens her very reason for existence: to be valued and celebrated for her selfless fecundity. The idea that she could be valued and celebrated for HERSELF, her mind, her unique talents, is unthinkable. (Why, only baby murderers think of women that way!)

Having said that, no, it's not rape that she tricked her child's father. You're relieving him of all responsibility. Was he using birth control, himself? Did he perform his role in reproduction willingly? Then he is not a victim of rape, but of his own stupidity, if not vanity.

I feel sorry for both myintx and her child, frankly. But especially for her child, and more especially for her child if she's a girl, being taught that her only value as a human being is having a uterus.

TheDingus said...

I like to postulate a couple of Modest Proposals.

First,we can end this discussion right now by chemically castrating all males at puberty. This is allowable based on the fact that, according to anti-choicers, people have no right to either privacy or to determine the functioning of their reproductive organs. They can be returned to virility when they can prove they have the wherewithal to provide for a child, and have an affidavit in their hand that a woman wants to have their child. Not only would that end most abortions (not all, medical reasons for abortion will still exist) it would end most rape, and it would ensure the existence of wanted, cared for children. Win/Win/Win. All that has to happen is for men to be treated precisely as these folks want to treat women, and the conflict is resolved.

Or, alternatively, we could take note that embryo transplants are possible. We each register with the government as either pro-choice or anti-abortion. (Again, these people are fine giving the government the authority to oversee reproduction.) Then, when a registered pro-choice woman doesn't want to have a baby, the government selects, at random, a registered anti-abortion woman and transplants the embryo. The anti-abortion woman of course has no choice, as befits her beliefs. (Anyway, she doesn't believe in either the right to privacy or the right to bodily autonomy, and having a baby is just slightly "inconvenient.")

If an anti-abortion donor womb can't be located (since a great many folks opposed to abortion are male) the pro-choice woman has her safe, legal abortion.

I would predict that under that regime, the number of people registered as anti-abortion would drop to near zero in practically no time. Again: conflict solved.

TheDingus said...

Anti-choice people always ignore the hard questions. It's what allows them to be anti-choice. Indeed, I completely agree and empathize with their position, up to a point. That point is where the placenta attaches to the uterus.

They never go any farther than the point where the placenta attaches to the uterus, precisely because that's where the hard questions begin.

In a world that didn't have a long history of misogyny, they'd never get away with such thoroughly dishonest thinking. Unfortunately, in this world, it's a simple matter to disregard women.

dudebro said...

They go on and on about how the prenate is a separate individual, how it is entitled to the uterus because 'nature' yet, if you suggest that the woman do anything like, say, shutting off the blood supply to her lower body, they cry MURDER!

It's morally acceptable, in their world, to 'let someone die' by simply unhooking them from life support or denying them the use of your body. It is acceptable to remove a fallopian tube and let the embyro die that way. All indirect, morally acceptable killing.

But, literally *anything* that could possibly affect the function of the uterus = violent aggressive MURDERRRRRRRRRRR

TheDingus said...

It's every anti-choice person's problem, really. They spend so much time talking among themselves about ZEFs as if they exist in magic incubators attached to no one and nothing, they've become incapable of understanding that women make gestation possible in the first place, or that women are people, first.

(That myintx needs a good shrink who can see women as individuals, to gain some kind of self worth, is painfully obvious.)

TheDingus said...

You've boiled it down to precisely the heart of anti-choice argument: that men's sperm creates "babies." While it is certainly true that without sperm, there will be no babies (this being a secular site I won't mention the several times its been reported that women conceived supernaturally) so much more has to happen before there is an actual baby, it's not even funny. First: the woman's ovum has to be in the right state. If she's ovulated a little too early, and there's not enough nutrition left for the fertilized ovum to survive: no baby. If her fallopian tubes lack the proper motility: no baby. If she's too far along in her menstrual cycle, and beginning to shed her uterine lining: no baby. If her uterus rejects the fertilized ovum as a foreign invader: no baby. If the placenta doesn't attach correctly: no baby. If the developing embryo has some kind of lethal defect: no baby. If the woman dies sometime during the following six or seven months: no baby.

All that, and they still insist that developing fetuses, and even zygotes (!), are "individuals" and "babies." It's medieval thinking based on a patriarchal belief in male supremacy, basically. Why, that single cell from a man creates a whole baby, instantaneously!

(I sometimes think that ants and bees have it right...)

dudebro said...

The sacred sperm is entitled to the female body. Hence the hysteria over contraception!

I still love how they say that the man should have control of the pregnancy (birth if he wants it, abortion if he doesn't) because it's HALF HIS DNA!

TheDingus said...

I eat fertilized chicken eggs several times a week, since I keep hens and roosters. Only once have I cracked an egg to find a balut, and no, I didn't eat it. (It had been dead for quite a while.) The point is: I'm not eating scrambled chicken when I'm eating scrambled eggs.

Point two: my hens drop their potential chicks onto a pile of straw and walk away the vast majority of time. I do not consider them to be "murdering" their offspring, while you do. Gosh, don't they know they have the "responsibility" of caring for their fertilized eggs? Didn't they willingly have sex with Big Red? (He's a kind and handsome fellow, who only rapes them now and again; but mostly the sex is consensual.) Apparently they fail to see their responsibilities and instead have their cycle, then walk away and get on with their lives without the slightest existential angst.

Point three: when a hen does brood on a collection of eggs, occasionally I let her. I don't grab my hens and tie them down on top of the eggs to force them to incubate. You would. I bring her food and water, knowing that she won't leave the nest for 21 days. You'd demand that someone else bring her food and water, or just let her not eat or drink for 21 days, because the developing chicks are what's important, not her.

Sometimes I don't let a hen brood. Like say, it's August and very hot every day, and I don't want to lose the hen to three weeks of little water and food in extreme heat. Or, I just don't want the chicks right now. Then, I take the eggs and I eat them. (Oh yes: I do! I EAT those innocent little babies!)

Sometimes I do want the chicks; even then, not all the chicks actually hatch, though. Nature is like that: fertilization often amounts to nothing.

Here endeth the lesson in actual reproduction and choice.

You are a dishonest actor because you keep insisting that embryos aren't parasites without bothering to explain how they stay alive in the first place. We must then presume you think it's "magic" and have a poor opinion of your mental capacities. We will also assume that you're a coward because you won't just come out and say what you think: that it doesn't matter what happens to pregnant women.

TheDingus said...

But, you see, you're, completely, factually wrong. It's a matter of you choosing rhetoric over reality.

There are not two individuals in a pregnancy. There is one individual, who is reproducing. The end result MAY BE two individuals; that doesn't meant there are ALREADY two individuals.

myintx, stop and think: the VERY REASON you oppose women having abortions is that, by removing the embryo or fetus, they will no longer be alive. Can you describe for us how many "individuals" you know who would cease to live if someone else didn't eat and breathe for them? If you stopped eating today, would your born child starve to death? No? Then she's an individual.

Let's make a grisly comparison: I could asphyxiate you right now and your born child would still be a living individual. However, should I have asphyxiated you when you were three months pregnant, not only you would be dead, but so would your developing embryo, though I didn't lay a hand on her.

By the same token, when you were three months pregnant, I could asphyxiate your embryo, and YOU would still be alive! No, really!

It's an awfully strange "individual" who CAN'T EXIST AT ALL without another person being alive, dear.

TheDingus said...

Precisely. They really hate medication abortions for that reason: the medication acts on the woman's body, only. How dare a woman bring on her own period!

When we're at the point where a woman having her period is considered "murder" we're in a very bad place for women.
(Only men can decide whether or not she menstruates!)

Don't even get me started on ZYGOTES being called "individual human beings," and women therefore no longer being allowed control over their fallopian tubes, either. ("You murderous s/uts, your body ends at the cervix, and don't you forget it! The disposition of your ova is the purview of men!")

(Frankly, these people are nucking futs.)

It really does make me sad, the way they dismiss women so very completely, so very easily.

dudebro said...

Did you know that zygotes are rational? Yep. So are anencephalic babies. Both are rational, but the zygote has not simply expressed its inherent rationality yet, and the brainless baby is simply prevented from expressing its rationality.

Oh and coma patients are non sentient just like embryos because neither can immediately express rationality.

All arguments that I have read here at SPL. You should poke around a bit, and check out some of the other blog posts. Its comedy gold.

wahwahwah said...

You really should refrain from getting prickly with others about careless statements you make. I'm sorry that you're unable to be accountable for the things you say, but at the end of the day you, unfortunately, only harm yourself.

wahwahwah said...

"Then again, I don't claim to know how a pro-abort's mind works"

Ah, but you do, don't you? Every day, as a matter of fact. Sorry if I touched a nerve.

JamieHaman said...

Yes, really. Texas is an at will state for hiring and firing. a fired person has to have the funds to sue. No one is talking about women forgetting to get an abortion, then killing her child after it is born but you.
In so far as someone stepping in to save children from abusive parents, yes, fortunately that does happen. Unfortunately, there are some 400,000 children waiting for adoption in our system. They aren't being adopted, because they are too damaged, too old, too brown, too anything but caucasian male infants to be adopted. There isn't much reason to add to that now is there?
At what point to women stop being women and become state regulated incubators?

fiona64 said...

Your precious anti-choice governor just got charged with two felonies, dollface.

fiona64 said...

Ditto; I'm not interested in being governed by a criminal. Governor Good-hair was just indicted by a grand jury for two felonies.

fiona64 said...

more especially for her child if she's a girl, being taught that her only value as a human being is having a uterus.

She has a daughter; when I pointed out that myintx' attitude was teaching her daughter self-loathing, she said "No, I'm teaching her 'responsibility.' " Of course, with myintx, that probably means that her daughter is expected to wear a chastity beltl.

fiona64 said...

You certainly do get up in arms when people talk about your activities at White Rose. Why is that? What would any of *us* gain from lying about it?

Your constant pretense that you have no vested interest in the anti-choice position is risible.

Ann Morgan said...

**Miscarriages and natural deaths are the natural deaths of human beings.**

Sorry, you can't really gerrymander your way out with the 'natural causes' excuse. People go to great lengths to prevent deaths from 'natural causes' in born children. Where is all the research into preventing the 'natural causes' of miscarriage. According to you, if a fertilized egg is a person, and a severely disabled embryo 'deserves protection', we should be spending tons of money to prevent the miscarriage of defective embryos. For their 'very lives'. But no, you gerrymander your way around the question, because you are counting on those 'natural causes' remaining in existence, and protecting YOU from having to give birth to a severely disabled baby, while looking down your snoot at parents who weren't lucky enough to have their defective egg miscarry.

**Not all miscarriages are caused by defects in the unborn child.**

So, basically you're gerrymandering your way out of a real answer to my question, since I specifically stated that 75% of all fertilized eggs miscarry due to being severely defective. Rather than answer my question, as to whether you would take such a serum, which would save the 'very life' of the fertilized egg, but give you a 75% chance of having a severely disabled child, you pretend ignorance and misunderstanding of what I wrote, and babble about 'not all miscarriages are caused by defects'.

Timothy Griffy said...

"Having said that, no, it's not rape that she tricked her child's father.
You're relieving him of all responsibility. Was he using birth
control, himself? Did he perform his role in reproduction willingly?
Then he is not a victim of rape, but of his own stupidity, if not

Thanks. You've basically articulated the reason I felt uneasy myintx's alleged actions rape.

myintx said...

70% is different from NEVER.

Abortion is NOT nature. Abortion is intentional killing of an unborn child.

myintx said...

No one should have the 'right' to kill an unborn child. Rights given in error can and should be taken away.

myintx said...

If a woman's life is truly endangered from her pregnancy, she should be able to have an abortion to save her life. Otherwise, if a woman is SO PARANOID that she MIGHT have complications later in her pregnancy, she should have had her uterus removed a long time ago- before having consensual sex. Wanting an abortion because you MIGHT have complications later is a selfish excuse to kill another human being.

Homeless people can seek out help. There are places that will provide shelter, food and care to pregnant women. Being homeless is no excuse to kill an unborn child simply because he or she is unwanted.

After viability, "due process of law" means a DOCTOR determines if an abortion is truly needed. That's the way it should be before viability as well.

myintx said...

What you gain from LYING (which you are) is trying to insinuate that I have something to financially gain from being pro-life. Absolutely NOT TRUE. I have only ever donated time and money to the pro-life cause, NEVER made money from it. So, you can stop lying. Though you won't, because I've told you before and, like a typical pro-abort you continue to LIE.

myintx said...

Yes, you eat fertilized chicken eggs.... And yes, most of us eat chickens - does that mean it's OK to kill innocent human beings? The comparison between chickens and humans is lame.

Both a woman AND her unborn child are human beings. BOTH deserve a chance at life. A woman can GET HELP if she is having a difficult pregnancy. A chicken cannot pick up the phone and call people or places to see if they can help. A woman can.

Unborn children are not parasites. If they were, the CDC would list them as a known parasite. Hitler called Jews 'parasites' an an extremely lame attempt to justify killing them. Exactly what you are doing.

myintx said...

A fired person who was fired for being pregnant could contact the National Organization for Women for help, couldn't she? She could also get help by going to the media.

"There isn't much reason to add to that now is there? " So, a woman who decides her newborn isn't wanted can kill him or her now? Yes, many of the children in foster care are older... Newborns are... uh... Newborns... Most babies put up for adoption when they are born ARE adopted. Most adoptions these days are minority babies. Most adoptions work out. ALL abortions end in death.

Men and women have a RESPONSIBILITY to care for their offspring. That means they have to take the time to ensure their safety - even if that's just a 10 minute trip to bring their unwanted child to a fire station. What if the woman doesn't want to do that, but wants to kill her newborn so she can rush to a party she is late to? Is making her ensure her newborns safety making her do something against her will - oh the horror! If parents have to ensure their children's safety after birth, they should have to do it before birth too, as the child is the same human being before birth as he or she is after birth (just in a different stage of development).

myintx said...

An individual on life support is still an individual. You turn off the machine and he dies... He was still an individual. Relying on a machine or a person makes no difference in the fact that the individual is a human being.

myintx said...

Innocent until proven guilty... like Nagin was...

myintx said...

The March of Dimes goes to great lengths to prevent birth defects and miscarriages. The CDC has done research.

I did answer your question.

myintx said...

"One person does not have a right to another person's body, and after the baby is born, " She pretty much did.

Suba gunawardana said...

As I've asked before and you never clearly answered:

-What makes an unwanted human zef more valuable to you than a full-grown animal (or tree)?

-In general, what makes it wrong to kill humans but perfectly fine to kill non-humans?

-When you consider it's perfectly fine to kill non-humans (and many humans who are not zefs) how can you call yourself "pro-life"?

Suba gunawardana said...

This is not an allegation as I have no facts. This is the same question I have asked before:

For anyone to work so hard at adding more children to a broken system KNOWING many of them would end up abused & neglected, there has to be a clear motive. The only plausible/logical motives anyone could have are Pleasure (abusing children), Profit (selling children) and Control (punishing women).

The only remotely "excusable" motive among those is profit. Are you now claiming you are NOT in it for profit? Really? Then are you admitting that you are here just to punish women? (I sincerely hope it's not for the pleasure of abusing children).

JamieHaman said...

You must be exhausted from the conclusions you leap to. No I did not say it's ok for newborns to be murdered, and you know that. I do say with all the children in state custody, we don't need to have children for the sake of hoping some irresponsible women will give them up for adoption. Let them decide what they want to do. To run their bodies as they see fit. If they want to have and raise their baby, help them to do that. If they want to adopt that baby out, help them do that too. If they want an abortion, quit guilt tripping them, quit lying to them, and help them do that too.
At what point does a woman quit being a woman and a human being, and become a state regulated incubator? Once she is no longer a human being, what other rights will you take away?

Ann Morgan said...

No, you gerrymandered around it again. Whether or not the March of Dimes goes to great lengths to prevent birth defects and miscarriages is an entirely different subject to what I asked you.

I'd suggest you avoid practicing law, people in court rooms are actually expected to answer the question given to them, not comment on a different subject, and you would probably be disbarred for such behavior.

wahwahwah said...

I know whose picture is beside the definition of 'babydaddy oopsing skank.' Sorry that didn't work out for you. Really.

myintx said...

Who said the children would be added to a broken system? If a woman doesn't want her child when it is born, she can put it up for adoption. Most babies put up for adoption do get adopted. Most adoptions work out.

Oh.. I don't know... Perhaps I don't want to see unborn children get killed because I CARE about women and children(born and unborn)? That's the motive of most pro-lifers.

This is not an allegation, but since you draw the line at birth, your motives seem clear. It seems you don't care about children (born or unborn), you only care about women. After birth, you don't care if the child rots in the system... but you use the system as a lame excuse to kill unborn children.

myintx said...

"To run their bodies as they see fit. "- It's not 'their bodies' killed in abortions! It is the body of an unborn child - a human being. That human being should not be killed. Killing an unborn child has the same result as killing a newborn - a human being is denied a chance at a full and productive life. If you support one, you might as well support the other.

Men, woman, children AND unborn children are all human beings - all innocent human beings deserve a right to life. To help children achieve that right, that means men and women have to put in the effort to keep their children safe - even if they have to give up going to parties, or even if they have to take the time to bring their child to the fire station to hand them off safely. Is that 'forcing' someone to do something against their will? TOO BAD. If parents have to ensure their born child's safety, the should have to ensure their unborn child's safety. Doesn't mean they aren't human beings. It means they are parents.

myintx said...

If they were already there, a woman couldn't kill her unborn child, so, by default, it would give them a claim.

myintx said...

YOu asked "Where is all the research into preventing the 'natural causes' of miscarriage." - I answered. The CDC and MoD has done a lot. Check out their websites.

Ann Morgan said...

You're still gerrymandering and deliberately not answering the HARD question, which was as to whether you would volunteer to take a serum that would prevent severely defective embryos from miscarrying and guarantee they would live to at least 2 years of age, but NOT correct their defect.

Would you take such a serum, knowing that 75% of all fertilized eggs spontaneously miscarry as a result of being defective, knowing that this would save their 'very lives', but that the odds of you having a severely disabled child as a result would now be 75%. Or would you do more gerrymandering as to why you shouldn't take such a serum, count on odds and nature to spontaneously miscarry all these 'tiny lives' and continue to look down your holier-than-thou snoot at parents who weren't lucky enough to have a severely defective embryo miscarry and have an abortion instead.

You have gerrymandered around this question THREE times now. Do you honestly think me and the other posters here are so stupid that we haven't noticed your deliberate evasion of this and other hard issues?

Maybe you are that stupid, but other people here are not. We are not impressed by your continual evasions, your repeated use of sad little emotional buzzwords and guilt trips after being told they aren't working, or your history as an extortionist, rapist, enslaver, and hostage taker.

fiona64 said...

You know, sweetie, you remind me of a line from Shakespeare: "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

fiona64 said...

You don't understand how grand juries work, do you?

fiona64 said...

Only a dimwit would think so.

myintx said...

"to go to trial" - i.e. innocent until proven guilty.

You're welcome.

myintx said...

one person....

myintx said...

What exactly is the point of your scenario?

Suppose I answer 'no'. About the only thing that would change would be that perhaps pro-life laws should have an exception for fatal fetal defects. In NO WAY would me answering 'no' justify the killing of unborn children because a woman cannot afford a child (adoption) or because it's "not the right time for a child" or because of less than fatal defects like Down Syndrome.

Your hypothetical is a straw man.

TheDingus said...

Pray tell: how does the doctor come to know a woman is pregnant? In the world you'd create, a woman seeking to end her pregnancy would stay away from doctors like the plague. Waste of time and money, and insult to her liberty, to boot.

What if there are no doctors around who believe in abortion, a circumstance folks like you are working to make reality? Then the woman just dies, and that's fine by you? (So much for pro "life," huh?)

This absurd position tells me two things: you do understand that if it's a choice between the woman and her developing embryo, the woman's life is more valuable; and, you don't think women have the right to have agency over their own lives. If they'd like to SAVE THEIR OWN LIVES, they have to get PERMISSION from someone else. Do men have to get permission before they get to seek medical care, too? Why not?

How many homeless shelters are there, BTW? Because there were almost 4,000,000 babies born last year in the US, and about 240,000 abortions. You're proposing raising the birth rate, chiefly among poor women (rich women will always be able to get their Cadillac "D & Cs") and somehow picture there being enough beds for women to give birth and care for infants in HOMELESS SHELTERS.

You better get building.

TheDingus said...

You have something to e emotionally gain from being anti-choice.

conversate said...

Nailed it.

If not slut shaming, it just feels good to be heroic and fight off the abortionists, the gays, evil socialism. A modern day crusade.

TheDingus said...

I must say I'm surprised. Given your passion for "life" (that is, for biological existence in all its stages) I expected to be chastised for killing living, innocent baby chicks. But it turns out you do have a basic understanding of biology. You also understand that it's possible, and not immoral, to assign different values to different forms of life, such as finding human beings more important than chickens.

I would encourage you to apply your understanding of biology, and your ability to classify different forms of life, to women. You'll be much happier if you do.

Unfortunately, you then immediately retreat to the "I'm too disingenuous to understand biology" position. Whatever else you think of them, developing embryos are parasites, in exactly the same way mistletoe is both a plant and a parasite. Here's the definition: "an organism that lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host's expense."

Hitler calling Jews parasites didn't MAKE them parasites. He was LYING.
And I'm sorry to inform you, but far from being "lame" his tactics quite nearly succeeded in wiping the Jews from the face of the earth.

So: a fetus IS a parasite (whatever else it is); and ONE WOMAN having AN abortion is not trying to wipe all babies from the face of the earth. (There's a post on this site about the inadvisability of calling people things like "baby killing Nazis;" you should read it.)

TheDingus said...

Hydatidiform moles, and other gestational trophoblastic diseases, are included in that 70% of fertilized eggs that will never cause a woman to go into labor and come out a newborn baby. These diseases are dangerous to women, can be or become cancerous, and are treated by D & C or surgical removal, aka, abortion, i.e, the ending of gestation.

Be that as it may, are you seriously arguing that a 30% CHANCE that there MIGHT BE a baby born at some time in the future is more important than the 100% reality that a woman is already a sapient, living, breathing human person? (What am I asking, of course you are. That's the entirety of the anti-choice position, isn't it?)

TheDingus said...

Neither you nor the state can know if pregnancy will be a threat to a woman. She can be six and a half months into a perfectly normal pregnancy and throw an embolism that kills her without anyone being able to stop it. Her life ends. Her life that she had a right to. The salient point is, there is no legal nor moral basis to REQUIRE people to risk their lives AGAINST THEIR WILL.

We don't assign rights to people based on percentages or on someone else's needs. They are individual and inalienable. We are born with them. Not fertilized with them, born with them.

A fetus has no right to life. That's because it has no right to use someone else's body against that person's wishes, anymore than you do. You have a right to life; you have no right to require me to feed you. Nor is it murder if I don't feed you, even if you'll starve.

TheDingus said...

Not proceeding with the long process of creating a baby you do not want and cannot care for IS being responsible.

I wish we could invent an artificial womb. I really do. You know what would happen then? We'd get to the heart of the matter: do sexually mature human beings have a right to determine if and when their DNA will be propagated into the world? Guess what the answer to that is - yes, they do. Men already have that right; you will never see a politician or an anti-choice activist suggest that men should be required to beget children whether they want them or not.

The question of women's responsibility to gestate, or right to choose not to, would be removed. No more talk about or perception that it's a nasty, misogynistic punishment for being female to force them through 40 weeks of pregnancy and hours of labor and the risks and pain for childbirth against their will. The argument would be: do all tax payers have to support all embryos in government or privately run artificial wombs? Who takes care of the babies when they are fully developed? How? What happens to them as they grow up? Cannon fodder? Low-wage workers? Slaves? What?

conversate said...

A libertarian (taxes are theft) asshat told me that if artificial wombs are ever invented, the woman has to pay to use one. If she can't afford it cus she's too poor, tough luck.

TheDingus said...

Sorry, you don't get to have it both ways. Either the fetus has its own body and its own life, or it doesn't. If it has its own body and its own life, you can't kill it by removing it from inside of someone else. If it dies because it's been removed from inside someone else, it obviously DOES NOT have its own life, and the rights of the person who does are paramount. If it doesn't have its own life, it likewise doesn't have its own rights; QED.

What makes this entire "controversy" so infuriating is that none of that is rocket science.

The anti-choice position wouldn't exist but for misogyny, plain and simple. Because tell us, myintx, do you think men should be required to sire children against their will? I assure you the process is not even remotely "inconvenient" for them. It's even pleasurable. So, why aren't you on here strenuously arguing that men MUST create babies,whether they want them or not? Because it's a natural fact that there are no babies without men. Why aren't men denying their unfertilized offspring the chance at a full and productive life when they masturbate into a tissue?

myintx said...

Even pro-life doctors would perform an abortion if that was the only way to save a woman's life - otherwise, you'd have 2 dead human beings, not just one.

In most cases, abortion isn't 'medical care' - it's an elective procedure that intentionally kills an unborn child.

Is it OK for a woman with a newborn who loses her job to kill her newborn so she doesn't risk going into a homeless shelter? No. She can put her baby up for adoption if she doesn't want to expose her newborn to the world of being homeless. There are options for women with newborns. There are options for women with unborn children too.

myintx said...

You likely do too....

myintx said...

You calling unborn children parasites does not make them parasites. The CDC does not recognize unborn children as parasites. An unborn child is NOT an invader - he or she is created by the mother and father.

Ann Morgan said...

**What exactly is the point of your scenario?**

Evasion noted.

**About the only thing that would change would be that perhaps pro-life laws should have an exception for fatal fetal defects.**

Since my scenario specified that my serum would keep the child alive until at least 2 years of age despite it's defects (which would still require expensive care and treatment), they would no longer qualify as 'fatal' any more than a defective heart valve, which in modern times can be repaired/replaced via surgery, or being born 3 months premature is necessarily 'fatal' NOW simply because it was in the past.

Or do you get to decide what is 'fatal' depending on not on what is actually fatal, but what might possibly inconvenience myintx vs other people. That's a poor standard of judgement, and btw, your evasion of my question by changing the premises has AGAIN been noted.

**In NO WAY would me answering 'no' justify the killing of unborn children because a woman cannot afford a child (adoption) or because it's "not the right time for a child" or because of less than fatal defects like Down Syndrome.**

Yes, sweetcheeks, it WOULD justify it. You have repeatedly babbled here about ALL 'defenseless, vulnerable, unborn children' being just as valuable as newborn babies, that children with severe disabilities should not be aborted or denied medical treatment after birth based on that fact. And again, you're changing my premises, by babbling about 'less than fatal defects such as Downs Syndrome'. Under my scenario, ALL defects would be 'less than fatal'.

Under that standard, you cannot validly deny medical treatment to defective embryoes necessary to preserve their 'very lives' such as my hypothetical serum that would prevent them from miscarrying. If you DO deny it, you are either admitting that 'unborn children' are less valuable than born ones, or that disabled 'unborn children' can be aborted, killed or denied medical treatment, or that you REAL standard is not 'concern for the vulnerable innocent lives' but merely using those lives as hostages to punish others, while never inconveniencing YOU.

**Your hypothetical is a straw man.**

No, my hypothetical raises valid issues, and exposes your real concern is not for the 'tiny vulnerable fertilized eggs' but merely for being able to use your pretended sad feelies for them to control and punish other people for having sex, and to use them as hostages in your extortion schemes against babydaddy.

Some advice, sweetcheeks? I am smarter than you can possibly believe. Your pat little pamphlets full of sad buzzwords are NOT going to have good answers for the questions I am going to ask you, nor are your insults and evasions going to pass unnoticed by me.

Arab225 said...

No, my point is that no child would receive $20,000 dollars worth of care if they were in the custody of their wealthy father. No child is entitled to that kind of money; it doesn't take a genius to see that. When child support gets to the point where it is a huge financial windfall, it becomes more mother support than anything else. And several judges have said the very same thing.

In case you forgot, a very wealthy man still has a legitimate right to direct the lifestyle of his child. After the proven needs of the child are taken care of, that should be it--no parent should be forced to subsidize the lifestyle choices of another! The custodial parent also has a duty to get a job and financially provide for their child as well. And like I said, there are very wealthy men who live very modest lives, and if the children were with him, they'd live that way also. So the "lifestyle" argument falls flat right on its face.

Arab225 said...

No, my point is that no child would receive $20,000 dollars worth of care if they were in the custody of their wealthy father. No child is entitled to that kind of money; it doesn't take a genius to see that. When child support gets to the point where it is a huge financial windfall, it becomes more mother support than anything else. And several judges have said the very same thing.

In case you forgot, a very wealthy man still has a legitimate right to direct the lifestyle of his child. After the proven needs of the child are taken care of, that should be it--no parent should be forced to subsidize the lifestyle choices of another! The custodial parent also has a duty to get a job and financially provide for their child as well. And like I said, there are very wealthy men who live very modest lives, and if the children were with him, they'd live that way also. So the "lifestyle" argument falls flat right on its face.

Ann Morgan said...

I was using the word 'person' in a generic sense, not specifically referring to an embryo. One person does not have the right to occupy another person's body. Neither does an embryo. An embryo is not a person, and it wouldn't have that right regardless even if it WERE a person, because no person has that right. Learn to parse a sentence. Moron.

Ella Warnock said...

Apparently at least one man she knows did sire a child against his will. Thus her unhappy conundrum.

fiona64 said...

You are always so delighted to be ignorant ...

fiona64 said...

Stop being deliberately obtuse for five seconds. I dare you.

fiona64 said...

Your hypothetical is a straw man.

That's rich, coming from the dimwit who "hypothesizes" about how we're all responsible for feral toddlers ... unless we're you, Mathilde, in which case we're not responsible for *anything.*

TheDingus said...

Um, you really have to stop just making stuff up.

Your anti-choice politician allies tried to pass a law that relieved anti-choice doctors from any responsibility if a woman died because the doctor refused to perform an emergency abortion:

Oct 14, 2011 - House Passes HR 358, the "Let Women Die" Act of 2011

Also see:

"Woman Dies After Catholic Hospital Denies Abortion"

As it is, doctors in the US who do perform abortions, do so at the risk of being killed - there's an incentive to do them!

How do you know if an abortion isn't medical care? Either you know everything about every woman who conceives (actually, you don't), or you just don't care.

Do you think women should seek medical care during their pregnancy? How about during childbirth? I'm going to guess that you'll say "yes." So, being pregnant entails medical care, but ending a pregnancy has nothing to do with medical care? Well, yes, it does: preventative care is medical care. Abortion ends the need for seeking further medical care, like you regularly getting your teeth cleaned ends the need for you seeking oral surgery sometime down the road.

As for women and newborns: we're not talking about newborns. But your belief that women should be incubators for other people, and infants should be raised in homeless shelters (which don't exist), is duly noted.

TheDingus said...

No matter how many times you appeal to authority to try to make your exceedingly ignorant point, it won't work.

The CDC is concerned with disease, with an emphasis on contagious diseases. Pregnancy is not a disease (although it can be: see gestational trophoblastic diseases).

Science describes parasites as deriving nutrients from their hosts. Please tell us where an embryo gets the nutrition it needs to live.

(Don't worry, I'm not holding my breath waiting for you to begin to deal with reality.)

TheDingus said...

Yeah, I'm familiar with that trick. My little brother's wife had three abortions along the way to finally having that anchor baby and them getting married. She claimed there was no type of contraception that she could use.

However, I will reiterate: if the man in question (even my little brother) voluntarily had sex without his own protection, he voluntarily sired the child. Not that that removes responsibility from the dishonest hussies who tricked them.

myintx said...

Your "generic sense" covered an unborn child :)

What one should not have the right to do is intentionally kill their own unborn son or daughter because they don't want their own unborn son or daughter 'occupying' their body - its beyond SELFISH.

conversate said...

You shouldn't have the right to kill anyone who occupies your body to save their life.


myintx said...

Your own unborn child.... unless the pregnancy truly endangers the life of the woman.

TheDingus said...

"Most women can do anything they were doing before they got pregnant."

Sure. Want to go for a five mile run during labor? Go for it! Want to go to work or attend classes? Just duct tape that infant to the wall while you're out. Need to go to the grocery store? Just leave the kid in its crib and go. Because bearing, birthing and caring for babies doesn't take any time, effort, or money, at all. (At least on your planet.)

Do yourself a favor. The next time you're out, spend some time watching a parent who has an infant and a toddler with her. How free is she?

And that's before we get to the women who die due to pregnancy. Apparently, on your planet, corpses can do anything they were doing
before they died, too.

Now, I know, you're going to go off about "parental responsibilities" and that's fine. Parents do have responsibilities. The nature and extent of those responsibilities are serious: so serious, we don't FORCE PEOPLE to become parents. At least, we don't if we care about them and their offspring.

The two human beings involved in a pregnancy are the man and the woman. There is not suddenly a third person in the room because the man ejaculated.

Yes, there is help out there for women facing unexpected pregnancies, although the kind you offer is called "guilting and shaming them into having a kid they don't want and can't afford" while handing them a bag of diapers. Sometimes, that help is called "ending the unexpected, untenable pregnancy."

TheDingus said...

The right to abortion wasn't given. It existed already and was recognized.

myintx said...

The CDC has a list of known parasites - unborn child isnt on the list. The CDC also keeps track of pregnancy and abortion stats - so they are not just concerned with 'disease'.

By your definition, a newborn who breastfeeds is a parasite and a woman who could not afford to buy food for her baby could kill the baby... sure, she has other choices, but so does a woman who is pregnant - she can WAIT a short period until she gives birth and give the baby up for adoption.

myintx said...

Roe V Wade was the big mistake. It should be overturned so that states can make laws their people want to protect unborn children.

conversate said...

So you don't consider all human life to have equal value.

How sad

myintx said...

All innocent human beings should have a fundamental right to life. Parents have a RESPONSIBILITY (I'm so sorry, I know you HATE that word) to care for their offspring. That responsibility should start when their offspring are created - at fertilization.

conversate said...

I am innocent. I should be able to occupy your body in order to preserve my own life.

TheDingus said...

Of course it matters if you're relying on a machine or a person.

A mechanical ventilator is not a person. An IV bag is not a person. A dialysis machine is not a person. They are inanimate objects. They have no rights.

Women are people. They have rights.

Stop dehumanizing women.

TheDingus said...

The woman doesn't walk away. She literally can't. She either continues with the pregnancy, or must take steps to end the pregnancy. No walking away, there.

Of course we can say biology is destiny for one party and not the other. We deliberately have to introduce difficulties and obstacles in the way of women ending pregnancies in order to require them to reproduce. Or we deliberately don't introduce such difficulties and obstacles. Either way, history shows that women will end unwanted pregnancies.

What difficulties and obstacles do you propose introducing to require men to father children? HOW would you impose that obligation on them? Fact is, there's pretty much no way to force men to beget children, other than incarcerating them to harvest their sperm. So, you see, their biology is destiny in both directions.

While we're on the subject, which rights of men are alienable due to them being male?

myintx said...

I never said women weren't innocent. What I've been saying is that every innocent human being has an equal right to life. If a woman's life is truly endangered from her pregnancy and abortion is the only way to save her life, then she should be able to have an abortion - otherwise she and the unborn child should COEXIST for a few short months so that a new human being gets a chance at a full and productive life.

Do you have a COEXIST bumper sticker on your car? Pregnancy is the ultimate example of COEXISTence.

myintx said...

No it doesn't matter. A human being is an individual one second before birth and one second after. WHether it's connected to his or her mother or life support doesn't matter as far as being an individual goes.

Unborn children should have rights. A basic right to life.

I've never called women 'parasites'. You're the one doing the dehumanizing, not me.

TheDingus said...

Let's say someone's wealthy father brings in over $32 million a day (like each of the Koch brothers do). The wealthy father has his choice of two or three multi-million dollar estates to reside in; he can buy the most expensive clothes and cars and food and drink. He can sail the seas in a multi-million dollar yacht, and fly anywhere in his own private jet.

According to you, if he has children, they do not share in any of that. Apparently, they live in shacks while he lives in the mansion; they wear used clothes from the thrift store while he gets suits tailored for him from the finest silk; they walk or ride bicycles while he's chauffeured around in a Bentley; they eat mac and cheese and drink tap water while he eats Kobe beef and drinks Cristal; they have inner tubes that are towed behind his yacht; and they don't fly anywhere by any means...

You may say, well, the children of the wealthy man may enjoy the same standard of living as their father, but he doesn't HAVE to provide it for them. To which I say, as I already did, the wealthy man who would give the least pittance possible towards the maintenance of his own children is a dickwad of the highest order.

myintx said...

The story you cited happened in Ireland. In Ireland at the time (as it is now), it was legal for
doctors to perform an abortion if the mother's life is in danger.

But doctors screwed up. They didn't realize her life was in danger. The problem wasn't the law but doctor's incompetence.

Even pro-life physicians agree that if abortion is the only way to safe the life of a pregnant woman, then abortion should be allowed. The "let women die" B S is RHRC and Nancy Pelosi propaganda.

Men and women should CARE for their own sons and daughters - born and unborn.

TheDingus said...

The risks to women increase with *staying* pregnant.

The chances of the "unborn" being born remain one in four, while the "chances" that a woman is a living human being are 100%.

The risks of maiming, infertility and death for women *decrease* with safe, legal abortions and *increase* with unsafe, illegal abortions, or denial of abortions.

You would deliberately, and with malice aforethought, INCREASE risks to women, up to and including the risk of death, without their consent.

You feel that the ends justisfy the means, that's all.

TheDingus said...

I don't know why you think birth is a mile stone of life: you don't even think birth is important, being at most a minor inconvenience...

Viability is also a milestone of life.

All major organs are in place sometime AFTER 24 weeks (as opposed to your vague, smoke and mirrors "before 24 weeks; yeah, like 30 seconds before). They certainly aren't at conception.

Them "growing" isn't the issue: them being able to spontaneously function is the issue. That's why gestation takes 40 weeks, not 20 or 24.

As you point out, the brain continues to develop after babies are born; indeed, all things being equal human gestation should take many more months than it does, to produce the kind of precocious offspring other mammals produce (horses that can run right after being born, for example). Do you know why it doesn't? Because the baby's head would be too big to allow for successful birth. Humans only gestate for 40 weeks, even though development is not complete, because nature errs on the side of protecting the sexually mature adult, not the baby.

conversate said...

Yep and this:

The real reason women give birth when they do, Dunsworth says, is that it would take too much energy to feed a fetus for any longer. This is the “metabolic hypothesis” and it’s based on the finding that the maximum metabolic rate people can sustain is about 2 or 2.5 times their standard rate of using energy. During the third trimester, that’s exactly how much metabolic activity the pregnancy demands. Carrying a fetus for those final few months “is like being an incredibly good athlete,” Dunsworth says. No wonder it’s so exhausting.

Which is also why women's bodies wear out after too many pregnancies;

This basically shoots down the notion that pregnancy is as 'normal as breathing'

TheDingus said...

There is no such trend in pro-choice circles. It's just that we are being forced to confront the arguments of the anti-choice movement. Yes, forced. I'd be perfectly happy to never have another discussion on the topic, seeing as I believe it's an INDIVIDUAL CHOICE - not just having or not having a baby or an abortion, mind, but whether or not one believes a developing prenate is a person.

I do not. I have perfectly sound reasons for thinking that a gestating fetus is not a person with rights. You believe it is. Based on YOUR beliefs, and the fact that you're attempting to force others to live by them, now we have to discuss developing embryos AS IF they are persons, to counter YOUR arguments. MY argument would be: feel free to believe what you want and live YOUR life accordingly.

But you're not just arguing that because a fetus is a person, it has rights. You're also arguing that those rights alienate the rights of women. Given that postulate, it is incumbent on those of us who you're trying to strip of their rights to respond. And our response is: no person has the right to use another person's body against their will.

TheDingus said...

The word "human" is a word we can agree on. Genetically, something is human, or it is not. By that token, the hangnail on my pinky is human. That designation does not, in itself, grant it the rights of a person however. Just being "human" is not sufficient.

Then we get to the use of the word "killing." Right there is where the first branch occurs between anti-abortion and pro-choice. The anti-abortion person thinks ending a pregnancy is "killing." The pro-choice person does not, since quite simply you cannot kill what is not yet spontaneously alive. You can stop it from BECOMING capable of spontaneous life, by denying it access to what it needs to do so. But you cannot kill it; it has no life of its own.

A woman seeking an abortion is not going after a group of human beings based on some innate characteristic of that group. A woman seeking an abortion just doesn't want to have a baby; she isn't running around saying "kill all the embryos!" You don't see pro-choice activists picketing in front of OB/Gyn's offices to encourage women not to have children, do you?

Every appeal to "eugenics" and "slippery slopes" is pure hogwash so long as INDIVIDUALS have the right to choose FOR THEMSELVES. The true "slippery slope" is the introduction of governmental authority over reproductive rights. The most obvious example is Adolf Hitler, who outlawed abortion first thing when he took power; he needed that army, by god. Then it occurred to him that he was fine with Jewish folks having abortions; in fact, he'd force them to, and force them to be sterilized. Mao Zedong felt the same, that: the state owns the means of reproduction. The removal of the right to choose is the biggest slippery slope imaginable.

TheDingus said...

It's okay because women do have sentience and sapience, and in order to not "kick" the literally brainless embryo "while it's down" you have to strip women of their rights. Why is it okay to kick women when they're up?

TheDingus said...

BS argument. The point at which the baby becomes INDIVIDUAL is the point at which it can be given INDIVIDUAL rights. That happens at live birth, and no sooner. For instance, my mother suffered a still birth once, due to the umbilical cord asphyxiating the baby in the birth canal. Pray tell what rights that baby was ever able to exercise? But here is the crux of the question: was the POTENTIAL for it to one day exercise rights MORE IMPORTANT than the actual rights my mother ALREADY had?

The ability to remain individually, spontaneously alive is the stage of development that matters. Women are at that point, even while reproducing. Developing embryos are not.

TheDingus said...


A house is not a person.

Houses do not have rights; people do.

Women are people, and they have rights. Before you strip them of their rights, wholesale, based on gender, and without the slightest due process of law, you have to come up with a better reason than "because I, Doug, think embryos are human beings." I mean, that's nice, and all, but I don't think that. Furthermore, I have a right not to.


TheDingus said...

You live in fantasy land.

Once you've granted the government the authority to compel reproduction; once you've denied citizens the right to determine their own reproductive functioning, the cat's out of the bag. It's real sweet to "think" that the government won't overstep it's authority to force women to bear children by also denying them access to contraception: but what, pray tell, is to stop them? The rights of the woman to control the functioning of her own body? Whoops: there is no such right, is there?

TheDingus said...

Gosh, looking at that picture, it's really hard to tell. Where is that human organism living? How is it staying alive? What's that appendage leading away from it, and to whom does it attach?

TheDingus said...

Do tell, how do embryos use their rights? Do they opine on blogs or street corners? Do they associate and assemble with others? What religious beliefs do they hold, and how do they exercise them? What property do they possess? Do manufacturers make guns that small? Do they need more privacy than they already enjoy? If we extend them the right to due process, what would they testify in court? (How would they testify, at all?) How do we serve a warrant or subpoena on them? (Using a speculum, one presumes.)

You were saying something about the living having a use for rights???

Concerning the one right they could use, that of enslaving another person, why do they have that right while the rest of us don't?

Coyote said...

"You live in fantasy land."

Not at all; I simply try looking at things from an honest perspective; I am unsure if you are trying to do the same, though.

"Once you've granted the government the authority to compel reproduction; once you've denied citizens the right to determine their own reproductive functioning, the cat's out of the bag. It's real sweet to "think" that the government won't overstep it's authority to force women to bear children by also denying them access to contraception: but what, pray tell, is to stop them?"

What is to stop them? Well, that depends on what their rationale for an abortion ban is; if they pass an abortion ban because they support prenatal rights, then their rationale for this wouldn't justify banning all contraception.

"The rights of the woman to control the functioning of her own body? Whoops: there is no such right, is there?"

Again, it all depends on how one views it; for instance, one can state that one *does* have a right to bodily autonomy but that this right shouldn't be as broad as it currently is.

Coyote said...

Also, as a side note, though, I would like to point out that even in the event of an abortion ban, females would still be able to have certain forms of sex which *do not* have any risk of pregnancy, such as lesbian sex, sex with trans-men, sex with eunuchs, et cetera.

Ann Morgan said...

**Your "generic sense" covered an unborn child :)**

No, sweetie, it does not. The fact that one person does not have the right to occupy another person's body is an entirely different subject from the question of whether an unborn embryo is a person. To claim it is, is nonsensical. Is a hookworm a 'person' merely because it is inside my body? One person does not have the right to occupy another person's body. Neither does an embryo or a hookworm. That doesn't define either the embryo or hookworm as a 'person'. What it does do is point out that even if either of them WERE a person -which they are not - they still would not have a right by virtue of being a 'person' to occupy someone's body, because no 'person' has that right in the first place.

** their own unborn son or daughter**

You are deliberately anthropomorphizing the embryo.

**- its beyond SELFISH.**

Some problems with your statement:

1. You trying to sneak in the assumption that the embryo is a person and it is even POSSIBLE to be 'selfish' towards it.

2. You are making the assumption that 'selfishness' is morally wrong.

3. You do a lot of things *I* regard as pretty fucking selfish, not to mention immoral, towards real people with actual brains. Including, offhand, your lack of concern for the lives of homeless people and children in 3rd world countries, your act of rape and attempted enslavement of babydaddy, and the fact that you NOW have admitted that you would deliberately deny hypothetical medical care to 75% of ALL 'tiny innocent defenseless unborn lives' that they need for their 'very lives' simply for YOUR own convenience, a figure that makes all the abortions that occur look like a mere drop in the bucket, yet continue to try to impose 'responsibility' based on a combination of your sad feelies and a desire to punish and control people.

Sorry, sweetcheeks, on the scale of 'selfishness', acts such as yours which are 'selfish' against actual real people, including allowing homeless people and 3rd world toddlers to die, raping and attempting to enslave babydaddy, and hypocritically letting the 'tiny unborn vulnerable lives' die for YOUR convenience, while demanding that everyone else 'take responsibility' far exceeds any possible 'selfishness' a person can commit against something with no functional brain.

Here's the sort of person I am, sweetiepie. I would give 3 pints of blood willingly (and turn white as a sheet) to someone like the comic book character Morbius the Living Vampire, before I would give a single drop unwillingly to your precious sacred fertilized eggs.

Ann Morgan said...

**All innocent human beings should have a fundamental right to life. **

And yet you have admitted that you would deny medical treatment to the 75% of 'innocent vulnerable fertilized eggs' that currently die, and allow them to die rather than saving their lives, for no apparent reason other than YOUR convenience.

Ann Morgan said...

You shouldn't have the right to kill anyone who occupies your body to save their life.

Yes, you should.

Ann Morgan said...

Oh, it gets worse. I asked her if she would take a hypothetical serum that would prevent all miscarriages - bearing in mind that 75% of all fertilized eggs miscarry due to defects - and ensure the child would live to at least 2 years of age, but NOT correct any of the defects that normally would cause it to miscarry, meaning that she would save all those 'tiny innocent lives' and by her own claim, being defective or disabled is not a good enough reason for abortion or denial of medical treatment. She says she wouldn't, and that an 'exception' should be made for 'fatal defects'. Only problem is, if my serum lets them live, then whatever is wrong with them, is no longer fatal, and who knows, todays incurable defect may be tomorrows easily fixed problem 2 years from now, and don't all the 'tiny innocent lives' deserve a 'chance for life'? Especially since the 75% of eggs that are miscarried make the number of abortions look like a drop in the ocean?

But apparently whether or not a 'tiny innocent life' deserves a 'chance' or whether or not a defective embryo should be denied medical treatment is entirely dependent on whether it is likely to inconvenience myintx, or to inconvenience other people.

Ann Morgan said...

Anyway, myintx is pissed at me since I can pretty much outholy her with both hands tied behind my back. Her supposed 'taking parental responsibility' by not having an abortion is a highly skewed way of saying that she got pregnant on purpose without asking babydaddy in order to make an anchorbaby to entrap him, and when he wouldn't be guilt tripped by her anchorbaby hostage into lifelong enslavement, her stupid and unethical act backfired on her and left her stuck with anchorbaby. Getting stuck and having her own crime backfire on her is what she calls 'taking responsibility'.

I, on the other hand, have voluntarily taken responsibility for helping care for my mentally handicapped younger brother. Since I didn't give birth to him, according to myintx, I really shouldn't even have any 'responsibility', yet have voluntarily taken it anyways. If ANYONE is in a position to demand that people 'take responsibility' it is me, not her. Yet I do not, in fact, demand it. It is not for me to say how others should live their lives or what burdens they should have to be strong enough to bear, especially against their will. The fact that I took responsibility does not give ME the right to decide that, and myintx's sad feelies and acts of rape and attempted enslavement sure as fuck don't give HER that right.

Douglas Noble said...

Dingus, with the exception of Stewie Griffin, all newborn babies are void of the cognitive abilities to exercise speech, religion, assembly and others mentioned. You have invalidated your assertion we are awarded individual rights at birth.

conversate said...

I know. I get all of the updates by email. You've been rockin' it!

Ann Morgan said...

**She only cares about prenatal life.**

Not precisely. She also apparently cares about random toddlers that are clinging onto people's legs, in their garages, houses, or busy streets. Basically her value for any 'life' is as a hostage, to extort and control others (but never herself), and since the value of a hostage is pretty much dependent on it's value to the person you are trying to extort, and most people DON'T value fertilized eggs very highly, she wants to do what has been done with paper (fiat) currency, and have the government force people to accept a very high value for something that actually has very little actual value.

conversate said...

The US constitution applies to those who are born, only, and those rights are granted at birth.

conversate said...

yeah, she gave indication of that a few months back, when she made some comments along the lines of 'suing his ass off' if he leaves you high and dry with a kid

Ann Morgan said...

Conversate, on the subject of IVF embryos, here is the big elephant in the living room that myintx no doubt wants to gerrymander away. The plain fact is, freezing embryos is fatal to the embryo 50% of the time. If the law EVER really treated an embryo like a 'person' except for pretending it is a 'person' for the purpose of using it as a hostage to control the sexuality of women, it would have to put anyone and everyone involved in freezing embryos into jail for mass murder, since if they are 'persons', then creating them and then putting them through a freezing process that will kill 50% of them would be no more morally acceptable than deliberately getting pregnant with twins, and then after they are born, putting them into the freezer until one of them is dead from hypothermia.

conversate said...

Yep. And sometimes 100s of embryos are harvested...

I also like to explore the rape exception. If pregnancy is a minor inconvenience, then what is wrong with forcing a rape victim to give birth? And, if it's ok to kill a rape embryo to spare the rape victim more torture, then why can't that rape victim also safely kill her rape newborn/toddler/etc if it is also a source of mental pain? This also destroys the responsibility objection - since it clearly demonstrates that the ''rights' of the unborn are not intrinsic, but in fact exist only in relation to the mother's duties.

Douglas Noble said...

I was not tracking that. Can you show me where it states this or where it is implicit that the U.S. Constitution only applies to those who are born?

(Hint: you wont find in in the 14th Amendment)

Ann Morgan said...

you may have noticed that myintx tried to gerrymander her way out of my serum question by calling it a 'straw man'. Asking someone what they would do with future technology that doesn't violate the laws of physics is not a 'straw man'. To claim it is, is absurd. I might point out that my own sister has Rh- blood, and a hundred years ago, would likely have given birth to severely deformed or dead children as a result. Today, a simple injection fixes the problem. Would it have been a 'straw man' if someone 100 years ago had asked what someone would do if the Rh problem could be fixed? Obviously not. Myintx's 'straw man' claim is shorthand for 'I don't want to answer this, so I will insult the question instead'.

conversate said...

conversate said...

Yep, that's typical for her.

conversate said...

and this:

Douglas Noble said...


conversate said...

I've got a horse outside.

Douglas Noble said...


I made a request to show me where in the U.S. Constitution it states this or where it is implicit that the U.S. Constitution only applies to those who are born. Can you give me a succinct summary and show me your comprehension on this subject?

There is a bit of mention of the 14th Amendment in these articles when I contested that your answer will not be found in the 14thA. Here's why 14thA arguments don't hold relevance in this debate: it's about citizenship.

Our Bill of Rights is a charter of human rights, civil rights and legal protections. These rights are not exclusively for U.S. citizens but for everyone under the U.S.'s jurisdiction. It's not like it can be open season on non-citizens because they have no rights if they enter our country. A French citizen that is not a citizen of the United States, but he will have his right to life, right to free speech and free exercise of religion recognized by our system and if he faces our legal system while in the States, he will be given a fair trial, he will have legal representation even if he can't afford it and protection from cruel and unusual punishment.

These are all rights all of humanity is entitled to whether you live in America, Europe, Africa or the Moon. If you live in a repressed part of the world, it doesn't mean you don't have these rights, but that you are being denied them.

And then there is personhood arguments, the distinction between being a natural person and a legal person which has added nothing edifying to the argument by rejecting being categorically human isn't enough to satisfy being a natural person and define them out of personhood.

You know what, I know the Constitution is silent about being born as a condition for being granted rights, but it doesn't matter. I will summarily accept for the sake of advancing the discussion that the Constitution says you must be born to be granted rights. I will simply say the Constitution is wrong then. The Founding Charters and the direction the Founders/Framers put us on is hallow to me, but I have graduated beyond needing Founding Father authority to tell me what is right for human rights and how they have fallen short and how proceeding generations are surpassing them in their ideals.

Timothy Griffy said...

"I made a request to show me where in the U.S. Constitution it states
this or where it is implicit that the U.S. Constitution only applies to
those who are born. Can you give me a succinct summary and show me your
comprehension on this subject?"

What would it matter if conversate did this? After all, you hold that if conversate is right, then the Constitution is wrong.

Douglas Noble said...

Prochoicers are often guilty of the same behavior really. Prochoicers can make long winded debates that deny the preborn isn't human or are subhuman. After exhaustive rebuttal, they can switch to the bodily autonomy argument. One could ask, "If your position is that the mother's right to evict supercede's the preborn's right to life, then why are you even debating their humanity?"

But as for you: it matters because the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. But at the same time, there is nothing gained from making an argument from authority.

I revere the Constitution, and ironically the whole point of having a Constitution is to be able to point at it and say, "Hey, you can't do that, it's against the Constitution." But at the same time we should be able to explain why a tenet of the Constitution is valid without just leaving it at "because it's in the Constiution."

And we shouldn't hold it as inerrant as a fundamentalist would hold the Bible because they have gotten it wrong. They were wrong that our slave population should be counted as 3/5ths persons for tax and representation purposes. And just keep in mind that the Constitution does provide a legal avenue in which we can all lose our rights like speech, privacy, right to a fair trial and protection from cruel and unusual punishment: it just needs the ratification.

myintx said...

I never admitted ANYTHING. I said I would have taken the drug.

If it's all about the woman's body, should a woman be able to take a drug that she knew would cause her child to be born with no arms and legs? (A drug that had no medical benefit for the mother)

myintx said...

So, you're OK with killing babies?

myintx said...

I think laws against the killing of unborn children are right. And, I think there are too few laws. We need more laws to protect unborn children. A majority of people in this country want abortion generally illegal after 12 weeks - they see the humanity of the unborn child and think he or she deserves a chance at life at some point in the pregnancy.

TheDingus said...

I've noticed this little trick you like to use in discussion: you talk of a new born infant to make one point, then revert to developing embryo to make another. Maybe you think you can hypnotize people into not being able to tell any difference, even after I've told you the very obvious difference twice now: one lives outside of and in spite of another person; the other lives inside and because of another person. As I said, this difference seems both obvious and meaningful to those of us who still think of women as persons. You never think of women, much less think of them as people. (3/4s of a year being a "short period" during which you seem to think nothing at all is demanded of the woman!) It's the weirdest thing.

It's not my definition that leads you to posit the frankly ridiculous notion that people are free to murder newborns because people are free not to gestate embryos; you're the only one in this discussion who can't tell the difference between gestation and live birth.

Anyway, here's where the difference comes into play: a newborn infant at its mother's breast is taking nourishment from her mother but doesn't HAVE to. She can take nourishment from a bottle, or an IV. She can metabolize the nourishment and eliminate the waste from it by herself, too.

A developing embryo HAS to get its nourishment from its mother's body, pre-metabolized BY its mother, with the waste eliminated by its mother, too. Guess what? First, it has to have its mother's PERMISSION. Because it doesn't own its mother's body.

Thank goodness, neither do you.

TheDingus said...

Funny, I cited two stories, not one. In the first story, politicians in America did there best to make sure doctors here can let women die just like they do in Ireland.

That's "Pelosi propaganda?" Say what? They passed HR 358; that's not propaganda, it's plain fact. Us noticing isn't us having delusions, the way you pretend that PR disaster by the Republicans never happened.

The doctors in Ireland didn't realize her life was in danger? Where'd they get their medical degrees, a Cracker Jacks box? Her family was begging for them to perform an abortion; they let her get so sick, SHE DIED. "Whoops" is your response? (Of course it is; you're fined with hundreds more American women dying every year, after all.)

That woman lost her life. She lost her life because doctors felt she didn't have a RIGHT to it, since she was reproducing. The FETUS had a right to it, not her.

Exactly what you believe, my dear.

Why should I give a fart in a wind storm what pro-life doctors "believe?" I'm an adult human being with rights, among them right to seek medical care without getting my government's, or your, permission.

Stop infantilizing women.

TheDingus said...

The majority of people having sexual intercourse are over 20, too. Think there's a correlation?

Yes, indeed, there are crazy people in this world. So saith the woman who is teaching her daughter she's worthless except for her uterus.

TheDingus said...

I'm not that desperate for the approval of misogynistic strangers.

myintx said...

I'm teaching my daughter that ALL innocent human beings should have a right to life. AND I'm teaching her that she needs to take RESPONSIBILITY for her actions, not take the easy way out.

I am teaching her to CARE!

TheDingus said...

Given that you're fine with stripping women of their rights, without due process of law, and you think "innocent" people deserve rights, I am left to extrapolate that you think women are not "innocent." (Heaven knows you'll never say it straight up, being as dishonest as you are.)

Your feeling that every "innocent" (there's that adjective again; wonder what you mean by it?) person should have equal rights is laudable. They SHOULD. (Of course it helps if they if they are actual people, which you define differently than I.) But we run into a conundrum with pregnancy. Because only one "person" in a pregnancy CAN be given rights. Either the woman has rights; or the fetus has rights. They both can't due to the fact that to give the fetus rights you must strip the woman of hers, being that only she can act on rights. Embryos and fetuses have no means with which to exercise their "rights" you see.

I mean, right off the bat her right to be secure in her person free from unwarranted searches (her right to privacy) has to go. That's because you can't tell just by looking at a woman that she's (a) had sexual intercourse or (b) is pregnant or (c) is not pregnant or (d) was pregnant yesterday but isn't today.

You see, it's simply not the government's business if she's had sex or is or isn't pregnant. Not even a little bit.

Now, because developing embryos literally can't exercise rights, the government must exercise those rights for
them. But first, they have to have a good reason to abridge women's
rights, which already exist. "You're female and your neighbor said you
had sex last month" is not a good reason, I'm afraid.

You're so right: pregnancy is the ultimate example of coexistence. Thing is, you can't force coexistence, it has to be chosen. Most beautiful thing in the world, when chosen. Most oppressive and dangerous thing in the world if not. For instance, do you think the Yazidis and ISIL should be forced to coexist?

TheDingus said...

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Amendment XIV, Constitution of the United States

Zygotes, embryos and fetuses are not citizens of the United States. Furthermore, they are not under the jurisdiction of the State; they are under the jurisdiction of their mother's body. You may want to change that, but you haven't yet. (And you never will, either: 60% of people agree with Roe.)

Blanket prohibitions of abortion deprive women of their right to be secure in their persons; deprives them of liberty and property, and possibly of life, without due process of law; and deny them equal protection of the laws since there is no corresponding deprivation of the same rights for men; aka, such laws are discrimination based on gender. Go on now, try to convince men that they must now sire children whether they want to or not.

Stripping women of their privileges and immunities as US Citizens based on their gender, in order to give previously unrecognized rights to fetuses, absolutely denies women equal protection.

Roe was rightly decided based upon a simple reading of the Constitution. Fetuses don't have rights, and if they did, they wouldn't have MORE rights than any other person.

TheDingus said...

You continue to say women are no different than life support machines.

Calm down a little and realize that NO ONE, and I mean NO ONE, is claiming that women should be able to kill babies one second before birth. No woman would WANT to, either. That you hate women so much you can imagine such things is horrific, given your own gender. (Or is it that you thought about killing your own baby one second before birth? Asoku...)

You don't call women parasites because they aren't. But we're still waiting for you to explain where and how developing embryos get their nutrition to stay alive, honey. (Hint: from someone who is not them, the way mistletoe gets it from an oak tree that is not them, either. Such a biological relationship is called "parasitism." You could look it up.)

lady_black said...

Myintx would never take your serum, and neither would I. She'll just babble on about "responsibility" (of others, of course) and insist that those who die of natural causes aren't quite as dead as those that are aborted.

lady_black said...

I agree that abortion wouldn't always be right for myself, and that's as far as I'm willing to go. You may be aware of my personal history of having the issue thrust upon me at a tender age (so young as to not fully comprehend it at the time.) I almost lost my mother to a pregnancy that went south very quickly when I was ten years old. At the time I just didn't understand why the doctors were hesitant to help mom. I was only told that she had "lost the baby." In actuality, she was allowed to lay there, bleeding while the pregnancy went on, and eventually given a D&C to save her life. When I was grown, my mom and I had an adult discussion about the abortion. She never really got over the hurtful attitudes shown to her by medical professionals, and the guilt tripping she was subjected to. It should have been a no-brainer, really. There was never going to be any "baby" from this pregnancy, and the doctors had to have known that. I don't ever want any mom or her little girl subjected to such treatment, EVER. It's inhumane, and it's misogynistic, and it hurts real people. So no, I will never say that abortion isn't right. I can't make that call for someone else.

lady_black said...


lady_black said...

You lie. You do NOT think, and that's what's wrong with you. People like you nearly killed my mother.

lady_black said...

No. Actually she didn't.

lady_black said...

Have they been doing in-utero circumcisions very long? This is news to me.

lady_black said...

NO it did not. She was speaking of her opposition to circumcision, which I do not share, but she has every right to oppose. That is by definition only done on a born person. Your selfishness shaming in regard to the health of a stranger is duly noted and rejected. That will never go anywhere with me.

lady_black said...

You are anthropomorphizing again.

lady_black said...

All pregnancies have the capacity to endanger lives.

lady_black said...


lady_black said...

Yeah, I can't go along with the idea that myintx actually "raped" anyone, and I do not absolve the deadbeat "baby daddy" of ANY responsibility. He also is responsible for his own gametes and where they go. It's already too easy for men to claim entrapment, as though their sperm were stolen from them. Sometimes, in spite of everyone's best efforts, an accident happens. If the guy in question did nothing to prevent an unplanned pregnancy, then he deserves at least 50% of the blame.

lady_black said...

Women and men lie to obtain sex. The fact that a woman may lie doesn't absolve the man of responsibility for child support. Where was HIS responsibility in the matter? You claim you're sterile? Too bad. You're still wearing a condom, like it or not. Until I see a sperm count indicating the man fires blanks, he's potentially fertile. End of discussion.

lady_black said...

She wouldn't even need to cut off blood supply to her entire lower body. Have you heard of uterine artery embolization? It's used as an alternative to hysterectomy in women with fibroids. I went for a consultation for this procedure, but ultimately decided on hysterectomy when the problem wound up being more complicated than fibroids. I'm pretty sure uterine artery embolization would preclude any existing pregnancy from continuing. And it wouldn't result in the "dismembering" the antis are so fond of imagining.

TheDingus said...

"Thus, ideally (and if implemented correctly), laws in regards to child
support and anti-abortion laws aren't meant to punish people for having

Which begs the question: how would such laws be "implemented correctly?"

I refer you to the Voting Rights act. Knowing full well the speciousness of that sort of argument - that foreseeable results don't matter because those results are a by-product, not the "intent" of certain laws - voting laws were adjudicated based on the results on the ground, not rhetoric about their "intent." If the result was lots and lots of black people couldn't vote, laws was struck down.

Not to mention, compulsory child support and compulsory child bearing are not remotely the same. There is no direct physical impact to the man's body to pay to support his own child, and it certainly won't possibly kill him. To even remotely make that comparison, we'd have to force men to become the direct caregivers of their children, whether they had the means to or not. Just helping to pay to feed, clothe, house and otherwise care for them is not anything like being solely, biologically responsible for whether they exist at all.

Your analogy to the prohibition of alcohol was much closer to the mark. We know people drink alcohol, whether legally or not; we know putting the manufacture of alcohol into an unregulated black market makes the product more dangerous, leaving the producers free to make poisons; we know we encourage the development of organized crime to meet the demand. It's childish to say "well, then, those people who die or go blind or are shot by Mafioso shouldn't drink" when you KNOW they will, and the means to make it safe is available.

When you remove safe options, you deliberately introduce unsafe ones; in the language of this blog, that women will choose unsafe options is foreseeable. That some women who are coerced into remaining pregnant will die of complications of pregnancy is also foreseeable. It's a lie to suggest she wouldn't choose the safe option, if it was available, so, no you're not giving her a choice. You're just trying to excuse yourself from any moral responsibility for killing people, frankly.

conversate said...

Is that anything like uterine ablation?

TheDingus said...

I take your point, but think you're overlooking reality.

If, before the divorce, the couple's children lived in a mansion, had beautiful furnishings and clothes and all the latest gadgets, were driven around in a chauffeured luxury automobile, vacationed at a villa on the Riviera, and went to an expensive prep school: that was the lifestyle their father's wealth provided them.

The couple divorcing doesn't mean the children's life style - which he can AFFORD - should suddenly change.

If he wants to direct his children's lifestyle, let him be the custodial parent. If he's not the custodial parent, he should pay the custodial parent to maintain the lifestyle HE WOULD provide them if he was.

If, before the divorce, he really did make them live in a shack, eat mac and cheese, and wear hand me downs, then fine: continue. If, before the divorce, he provided them with a lifestyle steeped in wealth, yes, he has the obligation to continue to do so, in exchange for not giving it to them directly as the custodial parent.

fiona64 said...

Your "generic sense" covered an unborn child :)

Only an idiot would think so.

myintx said...

Unborn children ARE human beings.

myintx said...

What exactly do you think I lied about?

People like you are responsible for the deaths of about 50 million unborn human beings.

myintx said...

Slaves weren't considered full people at one point in our history. There were selfish slave owners that said it was legal... Guess what? The Constitution was amended! It should be amended again to give unborn children a basic right to life.

There was a pregnant man once. He shouldn't have been able to kill his unborn child. Unborn children should have the same basic right to life as every other innocent human being.

TheDingus said...

Wow. Do you know when and why the 14th Amendment was written?

Apparently not.

I couldn't make this level of ignorance up.

You do understand that the women slave owners raped didn't consider their fetuses slaves until they could actually work, right? But they did consider women their property, kind of like you do.

No point, I suppose, in reminding you there's a difference between
living inside and because of someone, and living outside and despite of
someone. (Again.) Whichever: one person cannot be owned by another. Not even by an embryo.

There was not a pregnant man once. That was a hoax.

Timothy Griffy said...

"Prochoicers are often guilty of the same behavior really. Prochoicers
can make long winded debates that deny the preborn isn't human or are
subhuman. After exhaustive rebuttal, they can switch to the bodily
autonomy argument. One could ask, "If your position is that the
mother's right to evict supercede's the preborn's right to life, then
why are you even debating their humanity?"

I have to admit you do have a certain point here. I've long considered the personhood status of the prenate to be irrelevant, and have declared such numerous times, including to other prochoicers. OTOH, the "pro-life" position is double-pronged--not just that the prenate is a person, but also that it's right to life supersedes the woman's bodily autonomy. It does make a certain amount of sense to attack both prongs, especially if you really don't agree the prenate is a person. Not having a stance on the former, I naturally attack the latter.

"But as for you: it matters because the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. But at the same time, there is nothing gained from making an argument from authority."

Ah, but in this case, it does. "Pro-lifers" are not merely making the philosophical argument that abortion is morally wrong. And here you would be right there would be nothing to be gained by making an argument from authority. If that were the case, probably half of us wouldn't even be here. As long as you keep your moral judgments off my body, I could care less what you thought about abortion.

But "pro-lifers" want to give their moral judgments the force of law. And here, the Constitution not only matters, it is *the* authority. In that context, it doesn't matter whether the Constitution is wrong, and your request becomes a bit hypocritical.

So, is your position on abortion merely philosophical, or you advocating that your moral position needs to have the force of law?

lady_black said...

That you "think" or that you are even capable of critical thought about anything. I don't know how old you are, but your grasp of what life was like for women pre-Roe is appalling. If you are under age 55-60, talk to your elders and ask them about it. You plainly don't have a clue. And I would see a HUNDRED fetuses perish to save the life of my mother. I'm grateful for the additional life she had.

lady_black said...

Up to a certain point, no they are not. "Human beings" don't require the use of someone else's lungs.

lady_black said...


Ann Morgan said...

** I said I would have taken the drug.**

Now you're lying. But let's pretend you aren't. So now we have this serum that ensures that the 75% of defective embryos which would have miscarried are born alive. According to your standards, women should probably be obligated to take such a drug, because of the 'tiny innocent very life'. The long term result of this is first of all that 4 times as many babies are born as were before, meaning your population goes way up, and that 3 out of every 4 of these babies born is now severely defective. Tell me, what's your proposal for feeding all these defective babies? Who takes care of them after their parents die? How can a 25% minority of functional people possibly provide care for all the defective ones? Even if they did absolutely nothing else, like growing food or manufacturing cars, there would still not be enough people to do so. Have you thought about such questions? Or do you just think about your sad feelies and this little mental image you have of a tiny embryo with a cute head lying on a manger of straw, surrounded by a halo and angels?

**If it's all about the woman's body, should a woman be able to take a drug that she knew would cause her child to be born with no arms and legs? (A drug that had no medical benefit for the mother)**

How about this? You've claimed that ova have no rights and are not 'human beings'. Can I perform a genetic manipulation on an unfertilized ova to switch off the genes for arms and legs, then fertilize the ova and carry it to term? Knowing that this would result in a baby with no arms or legs? If not, why not, since you've claimed that unfertilized ova have no rights.

Arab225 said...

Here's the problem with your argument, such extravagant spending by the Koch brothers is entirely discretionary and liable to revocation at any time. There is no law telling millionaires or billionaires how to spend their money; that would be ridiculous. For example, Warren Buffett lives in an average home, drives an average car, and wears average clothes--and if he had custody of any children, they'd live that way as well. So are you telling me that in the event Mr. Buffett fathers a child out of wedlock and does not have custody, he should be forced to pay for the mother's unilateral decision to have the child live an extravagant lifestyle contrary to his own?

No court would barge into a wealthy custodial parent's home and demand that they buy their child expensive things under the guise of it being in its best interest. Such a thing would infringe upon that parent's fundamental right to direct the lifestyle of their child as they see fit, and would not stand to constitutional scrutiny. Why then should a wealthy non-custodial parent be forced to subsidize the lifestyle choices of the custodial parent?

Child support should be for the reasonable needs of the child. It should not be so much that it violates the parent's right to direct the lifestyle of their child or acts as a huge windfall for the custodial parent. In fact, many judges have said the same very same thing. In many instances appellate courts have disapproved child support awards that exceeded what could be deemed to be the child's reasonable needs--for example, Strahan v Strahan or Heins v Heins. What you're advocating for is hidden alimony not child support.

Arab225 said...

Well I was specifically talking about in the cases were the parents were never married, like in some kind of liaison between a professional athlete and a hooker. However, in the case of a divorce, I still find high child support awards inappropriate. This is because the purpose of child support is not to provide for the accumulation of capital by children, but is to provide for their reasonable needs.

As the court indicated in Harmon v Harmon, an award that was not based on the child's actual needs would trespass upon the right of parents to make lifestyle choices for their kids. If during the marriage chauffeured automobiles, expensive vacations etc were entirely discretionary, why then should it be mandated upon divorce? I mean if the father was still married, or had custody himself, he could cancel those things without a moment's notice. I can't see why the fact that he got divorced should change something that was once discretionary into something that's calcified. Child support shouldn't be about maintaining the ex-spouse's standard of living so that it will trickle down to the child--that's called alimony not child support.

Timothy Griffy said...

"If during the marriage chauffeured automobiles, expensive vacations etc
were entirely discretionary, why then should it be mandated upon
divorce? I mean if the father was still married, or had custody himself,
he could cancel those things without a moment's notice. I can't see why
the fact that he got divorced should change something that was once
discretionary into something that's calcified. Child support shouldn't be about maintaining the ex-spouse's standard of living so that it will trickle down to the child--that's called alimony not child support."

I'm with TheDingus on this. Where you've gone wrong is the notion that child support is about maintaining the noncustodial parent's standard of living. Sure, the noncustodial parent may well benefit by maintaining the child's standard of living. But that is an unintended consequence. It's not a matter of calcifying something that was once discretionary. It's a matter of not arbitrarily punishing the noncustodial parent through the child.

I'm sure TheDingus will be able to put it better. But that is the basic idea.

Timothy Griffy said...

"Not to mention, compulsory child support and compulsory child bearing
are not remotely the same. There is no direct physical impact to the
man's body to pay to support his own child, and it certainly won't
possibly kill him. To even remotely make that comparison, we'd have to
force men to become the direct caregivers of their children, whether
they had the means to or not. Just helping to pay to feed, clothe,
house and otherwise care for them is not anything like being solely,
biologically responsible for whether they exist at all."

For my part, it isn't about making a comparison between the physical impact of pregnancy vs. the financial impact of pregnancy. However, the issues do overlap. And the overlap is sufficient enough that if an argument is strong enough to force one, it is strong enough to force the other, other things being equal. So the rule of thumb is that if an argument can't be used against abortion, then one can't turn around use the exact same argument for involuntary male child support.

TheDingus said...

Such spending (which isn't extravagant to the Koch Brothers; $20K to them is like 2 cents to you) is not entirely discretionary after a divorce. It would be if the father is the custodial parent. But if, when he was a custodial parent, his children lived a life of wealth and privilege, and he has the means to maintain that life, he absolutely should. He's not divorcing his children; it's not their fault they no longer live in his mansion. Or he should be the custodial parent. Otherwise, he doesn't get to punish them because HE got a divorce.

There certainly IS telling millionaires and billionaires how to spend their money (their fondest oligarchic fantasies to the contrary). Such as, they have to maintain their own children. There is no "forcing" there. Maintaining his own children is his responsibility, whether he's married to their mother, or not.

Mr. Buffet is a fine case in point. He lives an average life, and since he lives an average life, the children living with him live an average life, too. Asking him to INCREASE their standard of living after a divorce would be wrong; asking him to MAINTAIN their standard of living is perfectly acceptable, because he would do if they lived with him. What you want is to be allowed to DECREASE children's standard of living, because by golly that beyotch doesn't deserve it...

We're not talking about the ex-wife here, dude. We're talking about the man's children. When they reach age 18, that beyotch won't be receiving the means to care for them any longer, you know.

Man up and take responsibility.

TheDingus said...

I say we make myintx's house an official safe drop off point for all the unwanted babies she wants to be born...

Timothy Griffy said...

I think we are talking past each other here. I have always had reference to what happens after sex. I don't favor any proposal to force anyone to reproduce.

So far as I know, no one's rights are alienable due solely to gender. Everyone, male or female, has the right to equal standing under the law.

TheDingus said...

It would be no crime, either, to rescue no one and nothing in the hypotheticals you present. Because running into a burning building at risk to yourself cannot be COMPELLED. Understand?

You fail to grasp that your anti-abortion argument is the equivalent of saying the person who didn't rescue the 1,000 fertilized ova or the two 90 year olds is guilty of murder because they made a choice, and inherent in that choice was the ending of lives.

Nope. I may be a hero for saving the three toddlers or the President, but I'm not a murderer for not saving the IVF embryos or the two 90 year olds, nor am I a murderer if I stood there and saved no one, because I didn't want to risk myself.

You cannot compel people to assume risks.

TheDingus said...

Um. Women CAN end their own pregnancies. They will, too, even if you make it a crime.

If I invite you into my home for dinner, that doesn't mean I have a duty to feed you for the rest of the year, does it?

Do yourself a favor and stop living in la la land.

TheDingus said...

Once again it falls to me to point out that the only person in this conversation who can't tell the difference between a baby and a developing embryo is you.

TheDingus said...

A developing embryo or fetus is alive, but it is not spontaneously alive by itself; it is not an individual. The woman is spontaneously alive whether she's pregnant, or not. She is an individual.

A developing embryo arises from a part of the woman's body, her ovum. Or you people so far down the rabbit hole now that you don't think her ova belong to the woman, either, the way you think her uterus doesn't belong to her?

A developing embryo can only exist BY being a part of a woman's body: her uterus. No implantation, no baby.

The developing embryo has no brain and no possible way to MAKE a choice in the matter. We deprive it of nothing.

You wish to take away the right to make CURRENT choices. If that's okay, why isn't also okay to take away FUTURE (i.e., completely hypothetical) choices?

«Oldest ‹Older   1001 – 1200 of 1389   Newer› Newest»