Sunday, June 26, 2011

Misplacing Responsibility For Sexual Satisfaction

Very often in the pro-choice pro-life debate, I see a tweet that screams "IT'S YOUR FAULT!". This is one of those tweets.  image

According to @pomegrenade, pro-lifers like @jenleaakins, and I suppose the rest of us, 'create abortions'.  I can tell you with 100% certainty, I've never had an abortion, therefore I have never created one. 

What @pomegrenade is probably saying is something like "people are going to have sex anyway" and "if you don't supply them with birth control, it's your fault if she gets pregnant.

So IF I choose not to supply, say Planned Parenthood, with condoms and birth control pills, I am creating abortions.  It doesn't matter that I wasn't in on someone's decision to have sex , but it's my fault if she gets pregnant.

Yes America, this is really the way pro-choice feminist liberals think.

61 comments:

  1. They're also convinced that legalized 'abortion saves lives.' You know, because if it were illegal, women would die because of it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. That's what they think Ben. That's not to say a few women won't take drastic measures, I have no doubt they will. A few do so now, and abortion is still legal. They will say that's our fault because we didn't pay for their abortions. Placing blame, rather than taking personal responsibility.

    ReplyDelete
  3. They're also convinced that legalized 'abortion saves lives.' You know, because if it were illegal, women would die because of it.

    Women did die of illegal abortions by the thousands pre-Roe and moreover in places that all abortions are banned regardless of the health of the mother there have been women who have, unsurprisingly, died there too—over eighty in just the first year of the ban in Nicaragua, for example.

    I think your comment is an excellent demonstration of the amount of willful ignorance one must cultivate to be an anti-choice activist.

    ReplyDelete
  4. And I think you need to back up your stat Null.. 80+ in Nicaragua?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Again, if you don't like BC don't use it. As far as paying for them through tax, well there are a lot of things people pay for that they don't like. I don't like my tax dollars going to two endless wars but I have no choice. Its a democracy and that's just part of democracy.

    Here are the stats for Nicaragua. http://uk.reuters.com/article/2007/10/02/idUKN0240981920071002

    And check out the story of "Rosa." Its so pro-life!
    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/23/world/main545560.shtml

    ReplyDelete
  6. Jackie, please, there are PUBLIC health clinics just about everywhere, for women to get bc. Taxpayers pay the tab, and I don't hear anyone complaining about it. The complaint is funding centers like PP, that use our money for overhead costs, so they can perform abortions.

    Thanks for the Nicaragua link. It contains a statement from a womens group on 80+ women dying, but nothing to back up that claim.

    About Rosa, or whatever her name is... It's sad that your outrage is toward pro-lifers and her fetus, rather than the monster that got her pregnant. Once again, pro-choicers could care less what happens to the rapist. He will go free and rape again thanks to you.

    As for a 9 yr old giving birth? Dangerous? yes. Impossible? no. Now she will grow up remembering the rape, and the 2nd rape when her baby was forcefully taken from her.

    Pro-Choice is Pro-Rape

    ReplyDelete
  7. Yeah, you can spout bullshit like "He will go free and rape again thanks to you" and I'm supposed to provide stats? Sorry, I only do that for people who have the faintest spark of intellectual honesty, not for blinkered, stupid ideologues upon whom such effort would be wasted.

    I wasn't aware that Jackie had such power over the capture and conviction of felons in Nicaragua.

    ReplyDelete
  8. No Null, you are supposed to provide stats to BACK UP what YOU stated as fact. Fact is, you can't back it up, because you made it up.

    If you can't restrain yourself from using profanity, than restrain yourself from commenting on this blog.

    ReplyDelete
  9. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "It contains a statement from a womens group on 80+ women dying, but nothing to back up that claim. "

    Yes it does. It comes from Human Rights Watch--which is a respected non-profit organization.

    "As for a 9 yr old giving birth? Dangerous? yes. Impossible? no"

    It is disgusting that you would suggest that. That is nothing but a form of violence. And are you a doctor? Do you know the physical and emotional toll a birth of the age can cause?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Sorry Jackie, an unsubstantiated comment by a pro-abortion human rights group, is not what I would consider a trusted source. I don't want you to think I dismissed it though. I am looking for a trusted source to back up your claim. If you find one first, please post the link.

    Everything is 'disgusting' to pro-choicers. To me, rape is disgusting. To me, forcing a 9yr old to have an abortion is disgusting. Pregnancy is not disgusting, even if the mother is still a child herself. And no, I am NOT advocating impregnating young girls. I would however advocate capital punishment for the rapist.

    ReplyDelete
  12. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8171047.stm
    "Accurate statistics of the impact of the ban in terms of avoidable deaths are hard to come by. One doctor said that of 95 women who died last year as a result of medical complications with their pregnancies, 13 could have been saved if they had been able to have therapeutic abortions."

    No specification was given about the 13 women, such as what stage of pregnancy they were at.

    My thought is that the stage was late term, maybe even full term or slightly before, because it would be rare for a pregnant woman to die early in her pregnancy.

    My point is that not giving specifics, leaves this open for guessing. Why do that? Why not just come out with data that tells exactly why these 13 women died?

    ReplyDelete
  13. I see you deleted a completely non-'profane' comment just because I had the effrontery to call you on your lying. Accusing me of having made something up when you had already been been pointed to a media source saying the same thing is an act of dishonesty. Logically, I couldn't be "making it up" if the figure was also reported by Reuters.

    Good to see you dispute the figure from Human Rights Watch as being from a 'pro-abortion' human rights group, even though that is not the primary focus of the HRC. This is exactly why it's a waste of time to try to give you facts and figures. Anything that doesn't come out of one of your anti-choice propaganda mills is going to be rejected on the flimsy basis that the source doesn't share your prejudices.

    My point is that not giving specifics, leaves this open for guessing. Why do that? Why not just come out with data that tells exactly why these 13 women died?

    Because the doctor may not have the files on hand, and if he or she did, it's not certain that he or she would have the right to release that information. The rest of the world may believe in medical privacy between a patient and her doctor, even if you and your anti-choice cohort want it effectively scrapped.

    Why even bother to ask this question? Is it your belief that therapeutic abortion is never medically necessary? If so, then come out and say it and you will be directed to any number of conditions where therapeutic abortions are indicated. And if you do accept that women can die without a therapeutic abortion, then there is no basis for doubting it happens in a situation where abortion is banned outright without exceptions for the health of the mother or fetus.

    To your credit, I think your doublethink here has to do with the fact that you don't want to see women die as a result of anti-abortion politicking. To your great discredit, your way of resolving the cognitive dissonance is to close your eyes, stop your ears, and pretend it doesn't happen.

    I see you also have not withdrawn your disgusting smears "He will go free and rape again because of you" and "Pro-Choice is Pro-Rape". Until you do, there is no reason to treat you with anything less than utter contempt.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "I see you deleted a completely non-'profane' comment just because I had the effrontery to call you on your lying." - If I could edit, rather than delete comments, I would. If you wish not to have your comments deleted, you will be civil and respectful.

    Reuter's is a news agency. I don't believe everything I read on the internet, and neither should you. The information necessary to validate the figure, would not intrude on any womans privacy. Pro-abortion activists hide behind privacy laws. Giving acurate data, such as the way Guttmacher does, does not intrude on anyone's privacy.

    "To your credit, I think your doublethink here has to do with the fact that you don't want to see women die as a result of anti-abortion politicking." What I don't want to see, is pro-aborts using raw, unvalidated figures, to further their abortion agenda.

    ReplyDelete
  15. If you wish not to have your comments deleted, you will be civil and respectful.

    But you can be as crassly insulting as you want. Nice. This hypocrisy is why nobody in their right mind would be civil and respectful to you.

    Reuter's is a news agency. I don't believe everything I read on the internet, and neither should you.

    Hardly the point. The point is that if Reuters (no apostrophe) has reported the same figure, then I can hardly be pulling it out of thin air, as you accused me of doing. But I don't expect we'll see any admission from you about that, because that would conflict with your tactic of smearing everyone who disagrees with you and never admitting fault, while demanding "civility" and "respect" for your lies from other people. If you behaved in a way I could respect, then you'd find me respectful, but you have consistently chosen to behave as a malicious and mendacious propagandist and so I'm now treating you as such.

    The information necessary to validate the figure, would not intrude on any womans privacy.

    Sure, the person could present the general causes, then you'd whine "How do we know?! Where's the evidence these women suffered from these conditions?!" And even if you were presented with the evidence, which would violate patient confidentiality, you'd find some way of waiving it away as part of a 'pro-abortion agenda'.

    This may come as a shock, but the world doesn't revolve around you. A doctor giving an interview to the BBC, and the BBC reporter, are not obliged to present evidence sufficient to convince some random anti-choice ideologue on the internet they've never met or heard of.

    What I don't want to see, is pro-aborts using raw, unvalidated figures, to further their abortion agenda.

    In other words, "Don't bother me with the facts, I've already made up my mind." I guess I was wrong to give you the benefit of the doubt. You don't give a toss about whether women live or die as the result of anti-abortion policies, as long as you get sufficient plausible deniability—or even implausible deniability. Witness the fact that you refused to answer my question as to whether you believe that pregnant women can die of complications that can be treated by therapeutic abortion.

    You have also refused to address the unfounded smears you made that "He will go free and rape again because of you" and "Pro-Choice is Pro-Rape". I will continue to bring this up until you either formally withdraw them or back them up. You'll find it rather difficult in the latter case, considering that I have volunteered at a rape crisis/domestic abuse shelter, and I doubt very much if you have. Coincidentally, the person who ran that shelter invited me to volunteer after meeting me in the function of a clinic escort when I was in Kansas, so it stands to reason that she was pro-choice too, and not of the same mind as the screaming, red-faced, hectoring fanatics behind the police barricade.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Feminism is the radical notion that women are oversized children. Accountabilty and personal responsibility are liek icky and for grownups.

    Null needs to pay a little visit to Live Action films and watch the many videos of Planned Parenthood caught outright protecting rapists and molestors of underage girls. Then he needs to review the voting records of his favorite moonbat politicians-consistently lenient on career criminals and repeat ofenders. Gotta love liberal hypocrisy that will stand outside a prison wailing before the execution of a condemned criminal, then shriek about how crime is out of control. After all, DV shelters are just handy feminazi indoctrination centers, and jamming sharp instruments into the wombs of 12 year olds in order to kill another life is NOTHING like rape. Pregnancy and motherhood? Leik so totally rape. Keep opposing parental notification laws, morons-it proves over and over you care nothing for the safety of rape victims, only protecting the agenda.

    ReplyDelete
  17. "This may come as a shock, but the world doesn't revolve around you"

    That's exactly it. These doctors, Doctors Without Borders, doctors that work for The Fistula Foundation, UNICEF, etc, etc are on the front lines everyday and see things TAAG can only imagine. The exploitation of women including child marriage, rape, poverty, AIDS, lack of reproductive rights, etc destroy their lives. They just report the consequences. Its not their job to convince anti-choicers that these things happen. All they have to do it open their eyes and see.

    Abortion is a small part of feminism- but the most visible because its constantly under attack. Feminists like myself work to eliminate rape, incest, domestic abuse, child marriage, genital mutilation, exploitation of work, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Armored Saint needs a reality check: just because someone opposes the anti-choice agenda doesn't make one ipso facto a liberal.

    Null is also already well aware of "Live Action Films" and sees no reason to trust their 'gotcha' videos any more than I should trust James O'Keefe's.

    Then he needs to review the voting records of his favorite moonbat politicians

    And these would be...?

    Come on, you know my mind so well. Do tell me who my "favorite" politicians are.

    I'm always up for a good laugh.

    After all, DV shelters are just handy feminazi indoctrination centers

    *snort* *giggle*

    You do live in a world all of your own, don't you?

    I'd be bothered by your egregious misogyny if it weren't so obvious that you're completely out of touch with reality.

    Keep opposing parental notification laws, morons-it proves over and over you care nothing for the safety of rape victims, only protecting the agenda.

    Remind me again, how many rapists have been caught and convicted as a result of parental notification laws?

    ReplyDelete
  19. On further reflection, it really does say something about the misogyny of the anti-choice movement that they believe that a series of biased 'gotcha' videos allegedly showing the poor application of a right in practice means that 'we' get to take that right away from 'them'.

    It's the same perverse logic as voter caging and other challenges to disenfranchise voters, only even broader. In each election, there's little pretense that voter caging is anything other than a way of suppressing votes for a specific candidate. But imagine someone who said that the voting had been irregular in this or that election, therefore 'we' couldn't trust women with the franchise at all and ought to repeal the 19th amendment.

    This is the same flawed, misogynistic logic that groups like Live Action Films use. If we can catch group X seemingly doing something irregular, then we can justify denying a fundamental right to women.

    WRONG.

    Even if these irregularities exist, which I do not grant, that does not undermine the fundamental rationale for why abortion is a woman's right in the first place. Only someone who didn't give a damn whether women had equal rights or not could possibly find such a flimsy justification convincing.

    ReplyDelete
  20. LMAO @ 'protecting women from AIDS' meanwhile International Planned Parenthood is shilling for more sexual activity for HIV+ minors:

    http://www.ippf.org/en/Resources/Guides-toolkits/Healthy+happy+and+hot+text.htm

    Null and void-you're sooo right-I mean who cares if your daughter's bleeding out on an abortionist's table and you don't know where she is, as long as her privacy (and that of her molestor) is protected-anything else would be (shriek!) misogyny!

    Seriously doubt you'd be calling it 'flimsy justification' if prolifers had been caught on tape doing what Live Action caught choice nazis doing-you'd be shrieking 'liars' - like I said, liberal double standard, as usual. And you're so right, we can't really call ourselves wimmenz without our right to kill and solve our 'problems' with violence, eh Jackie? You know, like men do? Thanks for all the laughs. Leave responsibility to those of us who put on our big girl pants-motherhood is for grownups. You just keep taking the easy way out, k? Cuz growin' up is just too harrrrrrd and wimmenz are only empowered when it's easy and feels good and we ain't strong enough to step up. We'z jes sistahs doin' it for ourselves. LOL. Y'all are comedy gold. Equal rights for all-except the unborn, fathers, and prolife women. Now THAT'S equality. Snort.

    ReplyDelete
  21. LMAO @ 'protecting women from AIDS' meanwhile International Planned Parenthood is shilling for more sexual activity for HIV+ minors:

    Actually, they're counseling already HIV+ people (the word "minors" doesn't appear anywhere in the linked article, you dishonest hack) on how to have safe sex, the laws about disclosure, the fact that they should use protection even with other HIV+ partners, etc. How is this an objectionable thing to do?

    Null and void-you're sooo right-I mean who cares if your daughter's bleeding out on an abortionist's table and you don't know where she is, as long as her privacy (and that of her molestor) is protected-anything else would be (shriek!) misogyny!

    When underage girls (and boys for that matter) are molested, it is most often by a family member or close associate, and most of these times it's by one or both of the primary caregivers. So your position amounts to, in many cases, giving the molester veto power over the body of their victim.

    The likelihood that this scenario will play out is far more likely than your emotive nonsense about "bleeding out on an abortionist's table". Aside from the fact that it's much more likely to happen if you restrict abortion than keep it legal, it's also completely irrelevant. If my child is injured anywhere, far better for her to be near a trained doctor than not. You do realize that doctors who perform abortion go through medical school just like everybody else, right?

    Seriously doubt you'd be calling it 'flimsy justification' if prolifers had been caught on tape doing what Live Action caught choice nazis doing-you'd be shrieking 'liars' - like I said, liberal double standard, as usual.

    I am still not a liberal, no matter how many times you repeat it, therefore I cannot have "liberal double standards" by definition.

    And secondly, this "double standard" that you've conjured up out of your febrile imagination doesn't even make sense. How on earth could Live Action do the 'same' things that Planned Parenthood allegedly did?

    Equal rights for all-except the unborn,

    Who are not individuated, so it makes no sense to extend individual rights to them.

    fathers,

    Let me guess? You're an MRA, too?

    Please tell me which 'rights' of fathers are being abridged. You can do that after you tell me how many rapists have been caught and convicted due to parental notification laws.

    and prolife women.

    Please tell me how the rights of the wildly misnamed 'pro-life' women are being abridged too? Nobody is denying them any right, not even their right to get an elective abortion.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Armored Saint

    I don't see whats so offensive about that link. Teaching people with HIV to disclose their condition and to practice safe sex is not bad. Its actually very responsible. See PP cares about people and their health. You seem to care about people living the most horrific life possible if they don't believe what you believe.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Jackie-and I quote-"it's your right to decide when and IF to disclose your HIV status to your partner." Hey, no problem if the condom breaks and YOUR kid is infected, right idiot? If you'd actually READ that article you'd see how PP promotes the sexualization of minors-which means more abortions and is just plain good for business. Who cares who's spreading the plague as long as it feels good and we get to choose, eh? Autonomy is all and fuck anyone who gets hurt along the way. PP also panders to molestors and rapists by aborting their victims and not reporting (as seen time and time again by Live Action stings) but who cares about that as long as abortion stays legal? Misogyny, anyone?

    Null-it was unscrupulous doctors who performed back alley abortions before Roe, a fact prochoice loves to ignore-you also love to ignore that no records on maternal deaths from said abortions were kept pre-Roe, except when it works in favor of some lame talking point of yours. Rights of fathers? oh, you know, those tens of thousands of men who actually wanted their kids but were told to go fuck themselves because they aren't owners of a uterus? You know, that half of the population you love to ignore and pretend don't exist, like women who grieve their abortions, and women like me who stand against abortion, and everyone else who opposes your agenda. You do realize butchers like Gosnell went to medical school? Right? And charlatans like Carhart who have been up on health and safety violations numerous times but continue to enjoy the protection of the NAB? Please keep talking-it's painfully clear the only thing you aim to protect is the abortion lobby. Have a nice day.

    'PP cares about people and their health'-where is PP and prochoice when women die from safe legal abortion? Same place they always are. Dead silent.

    ReplyDelete
  24. PP also panders to molestors and rapists by aborting their victims

    So the fetus is the victim of molestation or rape, and not the woman? I mean, I know the life of the woman pales in comparison to the fetus for you people, but this is getting ridiculous.

    Null-it was unscrupulous doctors who performed back alley abortions before Roe

    Some of them were, some of them weren't. Some attempted to be very scrupulous in their treatment of women and their procedures, as far as circumstances would allow, because they were pissed off at seeing women putting themselves in danger by trying to self-abort. Some were quacks who did illegal abortions because they couldn't make it in above-board work. Some weren't doctors at all. It was the discovery that one of the most prolific, responsible, and successful of its abortion 'doctors' wasn't a doctor at all that led the Jane collective to consider doing abortions themselves.

    However, the point is that if abortion is legal and clinics are not forced to shut down, that leaves more options for women and they can seek out the best practitioners.

    you also love to ignore that no records on maternal deaths from said abortions were kept pre-Roe

    I 'ignore' it because it is not true. Coroners and medical examiners could and did certify that death was due to a botched abortion. Not necessarily all the time, but they did so often enough to allow us to make a general estimate, and their reports were kept on record.

    Rights of fathers? oh, you know, those tens of thousands of men who actually wanted their kids but were told to go fuck themselves because they aren't owners of a uterus?

    So in other words, in your world, a man should be able to use the woman he impregnates as an incubator, regardless of her wishes? That's a nice little Republic of Gilead fantasy you're cooking up there.

    You know, that half of the population you love to ignore and pretend don't exist, like women who grieve their abortions,

    And what of them? Who is denying their rights?

    If the existence of women who allegedly regret having had an abortion means we should eliminate the right to choose for all women, then what of the women who regret having given birth? They exist too. Motherhood is a complicated issue, and it cannot be shanghaied to serve your bumper-sticker-level understanding of the issues.

    ReplyDelete
  25. and women like me who stand against abortion, and everyone else who opposes your agenda.

    Again, who's denying your rights?

    The only thing that is being denied to you is the 'right' to trample all over other people in a fit of self-righteous vanity, which is a right you do not have under the Constitution. You do not have the right to impose theocratic rule on the rest of America, however much you may yearn to.

    Please keep talking-it's painfully clear the only thing you aim to protect is the abortion lobby. Have a nice day.

    Actually, my aim here is to establish for myself just how detestable the fanatics who want to establish a theocracy are. So far, it's hard to draw a baseline because you people keep on beggaring my worst assessment of your characters.

    'PP cares about people and their health'-where is PP and prochoice when women die from safe legal abortion?

    Where is the American College of Cardiology when people die from bypass surgery?

    You seem to have this absurd notion that we should find it shocking that complications can arise from medical procedures. All medical procedures have risks. Even going to the pharmacy can kill if the pharmacist fills the prescription incorrectly. That doesn't mean we do away with bypass surgeries and pharmacies, which have mortality rates far in excess of the largely non-invasive abortion procedures. If you can accept the death rates from these, then it's obvious you're simply hiding behind the exceedingly rare deaths from complications of legal abortion in order to push your retrograde, reactionary ideology.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Jackie - Armored Saint is right. From page 8 of the pdf 'Happy Healthy and Hot' "Some countries have laws that say people living with HIV must tell their sexual partner(s) about their status before having sex, even if they use condoms or only
    engage in sexual activity with a low risk
    of giving HIV to someone else. These laws
    violate the rights of people living with HIV
    by forcing them to disclose or face the
    possibility of criminal charges." This quote states it's wrong to force someone to disclose a positive HIV status. It should be wrong not to. People should have the right to be told the truth, especially when it comes an HIV+ partnert risking their life.

    http://www.ippf.org/NR/rdonlyres/B4462DDE-487D-4194-B0E0-193A04095819/0/HappyHealthyHot.pdf

    I wish you could understand how early sexualization of children, leads to the spread of HIV, other STD's, and results in pregnancy, which results in more abortion. Less sex, less STD's, less pregnancy, less abortion. It's really that simple.

    ReplyDelete
  27. TAAG:
    If you can't restrain yourself from using profanity, than restrain yourself from commenting on this blog.

    Armored Saint:
    Autonomy is all and fuck anyone who gets hurt along the way.

    ...but were told to go fuck themselves because they aren't owners of a uterus?


    I see this is another one of those 'standards' that is negotiable based the degree of ideological agreement with the blog owner.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Null - I'll ask Armored Saint to tone it down. Feel better?

    "I see this is another one of those 'standards' that is negotiable based the degree of ideological agreement with the blog owner."

    It also depends in what context the terms are used.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Null and void-you're sooo right-as a mother and midwife I'd know absolutely nothing about the 'complexities of pregnancy and motherhood'-from now on we'll just defer to your infinite wisdom, k? After all, you've got a vendetta to keep-gotta get even for that shitty childhood! Proaborts are oh so qualified to decide who should live and who should die. And fetuses aren't indivuated-well, except to the millions of women who have actually carried, birthed and loved them at ALL stages of development. Sorry, I realize that's too sciencey for you. The abortion issue is really quite simple, Null-either you choose life for your child or death. It really isn't too difficult to see which is the compassionate choice. Unless you're a proabort, of course. You do more good for our side with your blustering than you know. Please continue.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Armored Simp,

    You really do amuse me. You bluster and whine and then accuse other people of your own worst characteristics, but it's obvious even to the meanest intelligence (except, perhaps, for yours) that you didn't actually address anything I said.

    Again, if women who regret having abortions means that we should eliminate abortion for all women, just to protect the poor dears who may change their mind later, what does the existence of women who regret having become mothers do to that argument? Maybe we ought to force women to have abortions, just so they don't risk regretting having given birth. Or maybe we ought to leave the medical decisions up to the individual woman, and not try to legislate the matter either way, trusting women to make up their own minds without interference from the State, even at the risk that an unspecified minority might feel bad about it later. Wow, what a strange concept—trusting women to make their own medical choices. What might we call this unique and outlandish position?

    Love you bit about my 'vendetta' too. It's not immediately clear to me how affirming the right of women to make their own medical decisions and determine the timing of their reproduction for themselves constitutes any sort of 'vendetta', but hey I'm sure it makes sense in your god-soaked brain.

    And clue to the clueless: there is only one side that is arrogating to itself the right to decide who gets to live and who should die, and it's the laughably misnamed pro-life movement. By passing laws to restrict the access to abortion, they've created situations where women are put in potentially life-threatening situations when things go wrong with their pregnancies. The laughably named pro-life movement also has decided that it's not just pregnant women with treatable complications who deserve to be put at risk of life and limb, but also their abortion providers. Dr. George Tiller, Dr. Barnett Slepian, Dr. David Gunn, Dr. John Britton, James Barrett, Steven Rogers, Shannon Lowney, Lee Ann Nichols, Robert Sanderson, Emily Lyons, Dr. David Gandell, June Barret, Dr. Garson Romalis, Dr. Hugh Short, Dr. Jack Fainman, and five others injured in the same shooting rampage that took the lives of Shannon Lowney and Lee Ann Nichols. All these people are dead or wounded from attacks by the allegedly 'pro-life'. All because they were on some wannabe theocrat's list of who should die.

    And you're just as bad as they are. You have the same theocratic impulse, the same desire to enforce your religiously motivated bigotries on the rest of the population. Living, breathing, adult human beings matter less to you than the purity of your stink-ridden 'ideals'. I was a clinic escort precisely because people like you use every low tactic of brute intimidation, up to and including murder, to terrorize women into conformity with your odious ideology, where their entire existence is affirmed to be less valuable than that of the parasite drawing nourishment from her body. By extension of the logic, a woman's only value is as a passive receptacle where the conceptus can grow and be breached. No wonder why so many of your lot turn your backs at the moment of birth, affirming that both mother and child can sink into poverty for all you care, and dismissing even the most moderate attempts to ameliorate the very conditions you've helped create by forcing the woman to care for another child as mere 'entitlements'.

    ReplyDelete
  31. You're so right again, Null! It's prolife that's violent-tearing the arms and legs from a fetus and crushing its skull is the way to true peace. The 3700 fetuses that die daily in abortion mills can't really compare to all the abortionists shot daily and all the daily bombings-how could I have been so stupid? And why did no one ever tell me pregnancy was a deadly disease? Why, we're all dropping like flies-nevermind that that life threatening scenarios only represent 1 percent of abortions-pregnancy is sure to kill you regardless! And its really prochoice who cares about them after birth-by taxing them into oblivion whil providing for them with all those prochoice charities that care for the poor-well they would if they existed huh. I totally get it now! Life is just an entitlement granted on the whims of feminists! Please list those prochoice charities so us poor broodmares know where to get bread for the kiddies. 'A woman's only value is as a receptacle' after all, right? Those idiot prolifers dare to call women mothers and expect them to act like grown women? How medieval. Prochoice is smart to control women using fear and intimidation-we're all gonna die from those fetal terrorists-its kill or be killed.

    I won't be commenting here anymore, Null, but please continue to enlighten the world as to how forcing your own views onto your unborn child to the point of death is a woman's 'right'. We're just receptacles after all, and can't think for ourselves.

    ReplyDelete
  32. You are stupid if you think that there is any comparison to make between a collection of tissues that lacks sentience and an adult human being.

    And leaving aside your false equivalence, you failed to address the point once again. Those of us who are pro-choice do not tell women they must get abortions, but those on the allegedly 'pro-life' side do circulate the names of abortion providers and their photographs (sometimes with cross-hairs superimposed) and attempt to physically and mentally intimidate women seeking abortions. The fact that you're dodging all over trying to avoid this obvious point suggests that you're entirely comfortable with this aspect of the so-called 'pro-life' agenda. And why shouldn't you be? You've already signaled your complete disinterest in human lives compared to the 'purity' of your ideology, and it's really effective at changing the "facts on the ground" so you guys can swoop in and better target the clinics whose doctors haven't been assassinated.

    And why did no one ever tell me pregnancy was a deadly disease?

    If you don't know that pregnancy can result in life-threatening complications, then you should quit being a midwife before your incompetence kills somebody.

    Why, we're all dropping like flies-nevermind that that life threatening scenarios only represent 1 percent of abortions-pregnancy is sure to kill you regardless!

    Again, you're arguing against a strawman. No doubt you're too mentally deficient to take on the argument as stated, which is that if you want to eliminate abortion in 100% of the cases, then you're consigning those women with life-threatening conditions that are treatable with therapeutic abortions to the possibility of an early death.

    Furthermore, your figures are fictitious. In a Guttmacher Institute survey, they recorded that "Possible problems affecting the health of the fetus" and "Physical problem with my health" were reasons for 13% and 12% of abortions conducted during the survey period, respectively.

    ReplyDelete
  33. And its really prochoice who cares about them after birth-by taxing them into oblivion....

    Taxing who? The subject was poor women, and the party most responsible for shifting the tax burden away from the wealthy and to the poor and middle class have been the very people most ostensibly opposed to abortions. I've never heard any pro-choicer at all suggest we tax poor women "into oblivion". Rich women will always be able to get an abortion no matter how things go, because they can afford to fly to civilized nations where these matters are handled privately between doctor and patient.

    Please list those prochoice charities so us poor broodmares know where to get bread for the kiddies.

    Why would a food bank take an explicit position on abortion? It's not their job. I've never seen a so-called 'pro-life' food bank by the same principle. A pro-choice charity would be there to provide women with access to the means to determine the timing of their reproduction, because that's what pro-choice means, and there are such institutions serving women.

    I volunteer locally at a charity that delivers meals to HIV/AIDS patients. Should I ask them what their official stance is on the bank bailouts, diplomatic relations with Iran, and the death penalty?

    Those idiot prolifers dare to call women mothers and expect them to act like grown women?

    Actually, those idiot anti-choicers expect women to act like 50s hausfrauen and to submit to men to determine for them when and how often they will reproduce. In short, the anti-choice brigade is behaving like any other alpha status male primates.

    I won't be commenting here anymore, Null, but please continue to enlighten the world as to how forcing your own views onto your unborn child to the point of death is a woman's 'right'.

    Why should I when you've done it so well for me? It is indeed her fetus, and thus her right to determine whether to bring it to term or not. It is a part of her body, like any other set of her tissues.

    Since you're leaving, maybe TAAG would take up the cause of answering how the fetus gets the right to utilize the body of an unwilling woman for its own interests, or rather how the State gets the authority to subordinate the rights of the woman to what it decides in its omnipotent prerogative as being in the interests of the fetus.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Null - "Taxing who? The subject was poor women" Are you accounting for those 'poor' college students? You know, the ones going to college on OPM (other people's money), but earn little or no income of their own? They would be classed as 'poor', wouldn't they?

    "Pro-Choice" is SUPPOSED to offer choice, yes? If the choice a woman makes is to have her baby, where are the prochoice charities that will help her after the baby is born? There are none. Because the only 'choice' pro-abort charities help with, is to pay for helping women kill their babies.

    A fetus is a developing human being, and should have the right to LIFE. It should be a duty for the State, or any other governing body,to protect that life. Why isn't personhood taken away from newborns? They're dependent on their mother, they can't supply their own food, they can't change their own diapers, and they can't think any better than they could a week before they were born. Why should a newborn be considered a person, if he/she wasn't right before birth? Because they are human beings, just as they were before birth. And to that I ask, why should women have the right to kill them?

    ReplyDelete
  35. Null - "Taxing who? The subject was poor women" Are you accounting for those 'poor' college students? You know, the ones going to college on OPM (other people's money), but earn little or no income of their own? They would be classed as 'poor', wouldn't they?

    Sure, if you like. I don't know any pro-choice pundits or politicians suggesting that we tax women going to college into oblivion either.

    "Pro-Choice" is SUPPOSED to offer choice, yes? If the choice a woman makes is to have her baby, where are the prochoice charities that will help her after the baby is born? There are none.

    We've been through this already. If you're just going to babble the same nonsense, then there's no reason to reply.

    Again, why would a charity take an explicit position on abortion if the services it provided had nothing to do with abortion or women's reproductive health? It wouldn't. There are no overtly "anti-choice" food banks anymore than there are overtly "pro-choice" food banks, because taking public stands on irrelevant issues does nothing to further the services they provide and might alienate some part of their volunteer and donor base.

    Do you expect the March of Dimes to take positions on the Palestine/Israel question? What is the official position of the Muscular Dystrophy Association on gun control? What does Habitat for Humanity have to say about a national balanced budget amendment?

    Because the only 'choice' pro-abort charities help with, is to pay for helping women kill their babies.

    This is a lie and you know it. If we regard Planned Parenthood as a "pro-abort charity"—which is a formulation you've already been told is absurd: nobody is telling all pregnant women that they must abort—they provide a range of services, including contraception, checkups, prenatal care. But they do not branch out into anything a birthed fetus may need for the entirety of its life, because that is not their job. Their job is reproductive health, and they do that job whether or not a woman wants to keep the fetus (see above about prenatal care).

    A fetus is a developing human being, and should have the right to LIFE.

    Why?

    It should be a duty for the State, or any other governing body,to protect that life.

    Why?

    Why isn't personhood taken away from newborns?

    Because they are physically individuated from the mother. We've been over that too, and you have no rational response to make, so you ignore it.

    They're dependent on their mother....

    WRONG.

    They're dependent on someone. It doesn't have to be the mother. Back in the day, many upper-crust children had a wetnurse. There was little to no maternal interaction at all, even for something as intimate as breast feeding. And today, children can take formula which can be provided by any caregiver, male or female. You also don't need to be a baby's biological mother to change a diaper. Anybody can do it.

    Moreover, the newborn is not physically attached to the inside of the woman, being carried around by her and having her health jeopardized (even in "low-risk" pregnancies) by a cascade of hormones released by the fetus to extract the maximum amount of nourishment from its host body. That does tend to make a qualitative difference.

    ReplyDelete
  36. "Sure, if you like. I don't know any pro-choice pundits or politicians suggesting that we tax women going to college into oblivion either." - But they will be taxed heavily when they get out of college and into the workforce.

    "There are no overtly "anti-choice" food banks anymore than there are overtly "pro-choice" food banks, because taking public stands on irrelevant issues does nothing to further the services they provide and might alienate some part of their volunteer and donor base." Wow Null, I didn't realize feeding hungry babies was 'irrelevant". Alienating the volunteer and donor base? If they are not willing to help women with all their choices, they shouldn't be referred to as 'pro-choice'.

    Your comparison to March of Dimes etc, are ridiculous. Why don't you try the US Army? You know, the soldiers that help kids after their community is obliterated.

    "If we regard Planned Parenthood as a "pro-abort charity" - you've already admitted that they help women with nothing if they make the choice to give birth. As for contraception and basic women's healthcare, there are public healch centers (tax payer funded) that take care of poor women.. and they don't do abortions.

    The answer to your WHY?... because they are human beings. It's really that simple.

    Yes Null, it's true that other women cared for someone elses (usually rich women) baby. It wasn't uncommon for a slave to nurse the owners wifes baby either. It's the same today, with day care.. pawning your kids off on someone else to raise.

    ReplyDelete
  37. But they will be taxed heavily when they get out of college and into the workforce.

    That depends on their income.

    Wow Null, I didn't realize feeding hungry babies was 'irrelevant".

    Are you functionally illiterate? Read the sentence again. It is abortion which I was clearly saying was irrelevant to the issue of feeding hungry babies. Which it clearly is.

    Alienating the volunteer and donor base? If they are not willing to help women with all their choices, they shouldn't be referred to as 'pro-choice'.

    You are functionally illiterate. Here, let me break it down for you in simple terms. Imagine you run a food bank in a town where the support for abortion rights and opposition to them run 50-50. Knowing that you rely heavily on contributions of food and money from the community do you a) bring in a raft of irrelevant political issues like abortion and make them official policy or b) keep your trap shut and accept help from people on both sides of the abortion issue?

    Charities run by sane people whose object is to be an aid to the community and not a soapbox for pushing one's ideology choose b). The reason that the volunteer and donor base I was talking about might have been alienated is precisely because FEEDING HUNGRY PEOPLE IS NOT EXCLUSIVELY AN PRO-CHOICE ISSUE. Now, we've already established that you don't give a damn one way or the other, which is possibly why you're having a problem conceptualizing this, but for the most part feeding the poor and hungry is something that both pro-choice and anti-abortion people can agree on, and introducing irrelevant political commentary as official doctrine can alienate people who might otherwise be willing to help.

    Your comparison to March of Dimes etc, are ridiculous.

    No, they aren't. They're all examples of charities that do not take official stances on irrelevant political issues.

    you've already admitted that they help women with nothing if they make the choice to give birth.

    Lying to me about what I have said is not a tactic that is wildly successful, and makes you look stupid for trying it. I have already explicitly stated the contrary: "Their job is reproductive health, and they do that job whether or not a woman wants to keep the fetus (see above about prenatal care)." Hint: women generally only get regular prenatal care if they have decided to keep the baby.

    ReplyDelete
  38. As for contraception and basic women's healthcare, there are public healch centers (tax payer funded) that take care of poor women.. and they don't do abortions.

    So what? Food stamps might feed poor HIV+/AIDS patients in San Diego; should I stop volunteering at the charity I mentioned above just because they have this alternate source of food? Since when did charities have to emulate the capitalists and find only unfilled niches in the 'market'?

    The answer to your WHY?... because they are human beings. It's really that simple.

    So they're "developing human beings", therefore they're "human beings". I'm getting a little dizzy on this merry-go-round. You elide the difference between "developing" and "human being" as if there's no distinction at all worth remarking there. So I guess we can call an acorn an oak, and an (avian) egg a bird.

    Lastly, you're missing the point entirely about my last paragraph. I often see anti-choice ideologues make the false equivalency between newborns and fetuses, but anybody can feed, diaper, and care for a newborn, therefore there is no specific onus on the biological mother to be the caregiver. She can give it to the father to care for, a family friend, or even pass it off to an orphanage or (in some places) simply leave it at a hospital or fire station. There is as yet no way for anyone else to carry a fetus, so this is an imposition on the woman if she doesn't want to bear the fetus to term. At this point, it is only partially formed and not individuated from her body. (BTW, nailed it: "Because they are physically individuated from the mother. We've been over that too, and you have no rational response to make, so you ignore it.")

    You may not want to deal with this issue, but it's the central issue at hand: by what right do you force a woman to subordinate her bodily autonomy and her right to make her own medical decisions just so that her body can nourish and incubate an unwanted fetus? That is arrogating to a fetus a right nobody else has. You may cast it as a simple right to life, but my right to life doesn't mean that I can compel you to give me a kidney if I need it or even a pint of whole blood. The anti-choice ideology asserts a kind of 'right' we haven't seen in operation since the 13th Amendment was passed: to wit, the 'right' to use another human being's body for one's own naked self-interest.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Nullifidian -

    says you:

    "You are stupid if you think that there is any comparison to make between a collection of tissues that lacks sentience and an adult human being"

    Exactly how sentient is a newborn, one hour old? One week old? Check you def. of sentience, ok? Obviously sentient individuals are being aborted under current laws. If sentience is your argument for personhood, then mothers should be able to "choose" to hire someone to kill their babies after they are born, also - you know, if they aren't going to have a good quality of life, or if they are interfering with her career choice, or school, or whatever......

    Jackie - going way back to an early comment -

    "Again, if you don't like BC don't use it."

    Yeah, yeah.....and "if you don't believe in abortion don't have one". Oh, and we should have told folks "if you don't believe in slavery, don't own one". Or maybe -"if you like Jews, don't kill one".

    ReplyDelete
  40. Nulliwhateveryouare-

    Says you:

    "You may not want to deal with this issue, but it's the central issue at hand: by what right do you force a woman to subordinate her bodily autonomy and her right to make her own medical decisions just so that her body can nourish and incubate an unwanted fetus? That is arrogating to a fetus a right nobody else has. You may cast it as a simple right to life, but my right to life doesn't mean that I can compel you to give me a kidney if I need it or even a pint of whole blood. The anti-choice ideology asserts a kind of 'right' we haven't seen in operation since the 13th Amendment was passed: to wit, the 'right' to use another human being's body for one's own naked self-interest."

    And you, One of no faith, are arrogating to women a privilege that no one else has. That of being able to arbitrarily end the life of anther human being,without a formal charge, without due process, without a declaration of war, without a legal argument of self defense. Without an appeal process for the condemned.

    Do tell, what is a uterus for? Just to build up a needless supply of blood and tissue to dump every month? Just to hold up your bladder? How 'bout those ovaries?

    That's right - a uterus is in a woman's body to house and grow fetuses. Therefore, in the absence of 100% fail-proof birth control, every woman knows that having sex can result in her body doing exactly what it was designed to do, i.e. getting pregnant. Therefore, when a woman exercises her choice to have sex, she acknowledges that there is some chance of her body functioning normally, and becoming pregnant. Therefore, having sex = consent to the risk of becoming pregnant. But wait! No fear! We have (as you say) arrogated to said woman the right to hire someone to kill a human being, based upon her own personal reasons, or for absolutely no reason at all. Throw out responsibility for one's actions. Throw out being accountable.

    Sorry, if a woman knows sex can cause pregnancy, she is not killing a predator that commandeered her uterus for it's "own naked self interest", she's killing an invited guest.

    Oh. By the way, pick which argument you want to camp on, ok? If a fetus has commandeered a uterus for "it's own naked self interest" (nasty little fetus!), wouldnt' that be a demonstration of sentience? So if that little fetus has the feeling, experience, and subjective reasoning to be able to use a woman against her will, then we shouldn't be dismembering it and hacking it to pieces, yes? geez, I'm getting confused......

    It is not morally acceptable for one human being to take the life of another human being.

    Elective abortion can only be ascribed to the complete selfishness of the woman who hires a practioner to perform it. Period.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Armored Saint! Where did your blog go??????

    :(

    ReplyDelete
  42. Exactly how sentient is a newborn, one hour old? One week old? Check you def. of sentience, ok? Obviously sentient individuals are being aborted under current laws.

    Sentient: responsive to or conscious of sense impressions

    It is not obvious to me that sentient individuals are being aborted under current laws. First off, the rock bottom point at which there is theoretically sufficient neurological organization for the fetus to have any sensory ability at all is 24-25 wks. after conception.

    Secondly, the fetus is entirely enmeshed in its own little world. Developmental data shows that it doesn't come straight out of the womb capable of interpreting and responding appropriately to sensory stimuli. This happens post-natally, as the newborn learns to distinguish between itself and the outside world. It can't even pass a mirror test until 12-18 mos. out of the womb. Given that, I'd say that the conclusion that fetuses are not sentient at any stage is not only consistent with the evidence, but is also generously conservative.

    If sentience is your argument for personhood....

    You can stop there. My argument has always been that it makes no sense to confer individual rights on something that is not individuated.

    And you, One of no faith, are arrogating to women a privilege that no one else has. That of being able to arbitrarily end the life of anther human being....

    Actually, that's not what I'm doing, because a) it's not my privilege to grant and b) a fetus is not a human being.

    And the legal folderol you recommend would not only extend legal rights to fetuses without reason, deny abortions to everybody but the richest who could afford the drawn out legal process, would swamp the judicial system, and would result in pregnancies being delayed until (if the abortion were granted) it would be a late-term abortion that your lot find so distasteful.

    Do tell, what is a uterus for?

    Nothing. To say that it is intended "for" something would be to confuse function for purpose.

    What's the argument here? That women can become pregnant, therefore they must be forced to give birth, whether or not they agree to it? One of the functions of a penis is sexual activity. Maybe we should also establish a rule that men can stick their penises in women for the purpose of sex without their consent. After all, it's what the penis is "for".

    Therefore, in the absence of 100% fail-proof birth control, every woman knows that having sex can result in her body doing exactly what it was designed to do, i.e. getting pregnant. Therefore, when a woman exercises her choice to have sex, she acknowledges that there is some chance of her body functioning normally, and becoming pregnant. Therefore, having sex = consent to the risk of becoming pregnant.

    Your logic breaks down with too many "therefores". An equivalent argument can be stated that there are, yearly, between 30,000 - 50,000 deaths from motor vehicle accidents. (It's been going down as more emphasis has been placed on making cars safer.) Now, I drive anyway despite knowing the statistics: did I thus give implicit consent to die in a car accident? Could anyone who killed me by their reckless driving plead that I "knew" the risks and went out on the roads anyway, therefore shifting the burden of guilt onto me and letting him off? The answer here is "no".

    ReplyDelete
  43. Throw out responsibility for one's actions. Throw out being accountable.

    And here's where your argument breaks down again. You'd have to show that abortion is wrong first before you try to assert that it is an inadmissible way of "taking responsibility for one's actions". You can't simply assume what you're trying to prove and make that the foundation for your argument. It's begging the question.

    geez, I'm getting confused......

    You seem easily confused. One does not have to believe that fetuses are sentient to use terms like "self-interest" as a capsule way of saying that "the fetus has evolved over many millions of years to automatically and unconsciously release a series of hormones that dangerously raises the mother's blood sugar, blood pressure, and throw other aspects of the maternal physiology into havoc just so that it can have greater nourishment and oxygenation". I could have said it the longer way, but I assumed that anyone reading it would be capable of understanding a metaphor when they see one. I am sorry that this assumption didn't hold in your case.

    It is not morally acceptable for one human being to take the life of another human being.

    That's all very well, but you haven't established that this is true, and you haven't established that the fetus is a human being.

    Elective abortion can only be ascribed to the complete selfishness of the woman who hires a practioner to perform it. Period.

    Even assuming this misogynistic caricature were true, which I do not grant for a moment, does the State have a compelling interest in forcing the kind of 'responsibility' where women are compelled to incubate fetuses they don't want? If you answer "no", then we have no problem, but if you say "yes", then I'd like to see an extremely convincing argument. Right now the theocrats are some of the biggest threats to individual liberties, and instituting a policy of forced birth based on no rational argument at all, but rather an ill-considered mass of religiously-based prejudices is theocracy in action.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Null - I'm going to ask you nicely to stop insulting posters here. Comments like "You seem easily confused" and "Are you functionally illiterate?" are out of line.

    "And the legal folderol you recommend would not only extend legal rights to fetuses without reason" - Again, no one should have the right to kill a human being.

    Regarding the sentience argument - Sentience is irrelevant, no one should have the right to kill a human being.

    Regarding 'developing human being' vs 'human being' - There is no difference between them, except it is still legal to kill a human being in the womb.

    ReplyDelete
  45. TAAG,

    You were deliberately misconstruing what I said so as to ignore the force of the argument. That is far more destructive of discussion than being called on it.

    Furthermore, you're not beneath throwing out far more reprehensible accusations. You still have not justified your baseless smears of "Pro-Choice is Pro-Rape" and "He will go free and rape again thanks to you [Jackie]."

    Nor did you rein in any of Armored Saints repeated intemperate insults to the posters on this board either now or in the past. So there is a double standard here, with the anti-choice side (including yourself) getting the kid glove treatment no matter how nasty you get, and those who disagree with you being constantly pulled up for their allegedly "bad behavior", which is no worse and often better than that exhibited by the blog owner and friends.

    Again, no one should have the right to kill a human being.

    Again, this an assertion, neither part of which has been demonstrated.

    Regarding 'developing human being' vs 'human being' - There is no difference between them, except it is still legal to kill a human being in the womb.

    That sounds like a major qualitative difference to me. So perhaps the reason for this lies in the fact that the fetus is not legally (or even physically) an individuated human beings, upon whom individual rights can be bestowed.

    ReplyDelete
  46. "You were deliberately misconstruing what I said so as to ignore the force of the argument. That is far more destructive of discussion than being called on it." No, I was simply attempting to compress the discussion. For someone to be able to meet you point for point in a discussion, they would have to be able to sit at the computer 24/7. Most of us don't have that much time.

    "Pro-Choice is Pro-Rape" and "He will go free and rape again thanks to you [Jackie]." are both attacks on a movement, a view, not an individual. Had I said Jacke was ugly, fat, or ignorant, THAT would be an attack on her personally, which imo is out of line.

    "You seem easily confused" and "Are you functionally illiterate?" are personal attacks, and therefore, out of line.

    I try to keep the profanity at a minimum, because it is offensive to some readers.

    Human Being - a member of any of the races of Homo sapiens

    "So perhaps the reason for this lies in the fact that the fetus is not legally (or even physically) an individuated human beings, upon whom individual rights can be bestowed."

    Individuate - 1. To give individuality to. 2. To form into a distint entity.

    Who is keeping fetuses from being granted individuality? That's right.. Pro-Abortion advocates. The fetus IS a distint individual, with his/her own DNA.. you just can't get much more individual than DNA.. oh wait, yes you can.. a fetus has his/her own fingerprints also.

    "Regarding 'developing human being' vs 'human being'" Change the word 'developing' to 'pre-born'. See how that works.

    ReplyDelete
  47. No, I was simply attempting to compress the discussion.

    So how does whining "Feeding hungry babies is irrelevant? You monster! What about the hungry babies!?!" compress the discussion?

    You were lying about what I said to score a cheap rhetorical point and I called you on it. Now you're lying about deliberately misconstruing my use of the word "irrelevant", despite the evidence being readily reviewable above.

    "Pro-Choice is Pro-Rape" and "He will go free and rape again thanks to you [Jackie]." are both attacks on a movement, a view, not an individual.

    What abjectly dishonest babble. You were specifically directing your smears at Jackie.

    And even if they were "attacks on a movement", you didn't bother backing any of them up with evidence. So why in the hell should anyone give you an ounce of credibility or intellectual respect?

    I try to keep the profanity at a minimum, because it is offensive to some readers.

    The "minimum" being that those on your side of the issue can use it, and those who are not on your side cannot. We've been through that too.

    Human Being - a member of any of the races of Homo sapiens

    And how does a fetus count as a member of the species Homo sapiens?

    Individuate - 1. To give individuality to. 2. To form into a distint entity.

    Who is keeping fetuses from being granted individuality? That's right.. Pro-Abortion advocates.


    Oh, absolutely. We're the ones with the nefarious scheme to keep fetuses physiologically dependent on the mother's uterus.

    The fetus IS a distint individual, with his/her own DNA..

    That is an assertion, not evidence. The fetus is physiologically bound to and dependent on the mother. Therefore it is not individuated. It is not formed into a distinct entity, because it is still a part of the mother's body.

    "Regarding 'developing human being' vs 'human being'" Change the word 'developing' to 'pre-born'. See how that works.

    Okay, you've turned it into an oxymoron. A human being isn't a separate being at all until it is born. Until then, it is bound to the mother's physiology and is a projection of her body. This is why it makes no sense to extend individual rights to a being which is not yet individuated.

    If you want a less controversial example than the "right to life", perhaps the right to habeas corpus might serve as an example. You couldn't ever lock a pregnant woman up, because it would violate the right of the fetus to not be imprisoned without charge or trial. And the regressive theocrats like locking up pregnant women.

    Such a situation is a legal absurdity, but it's the natural consequence of treating a fetus like it's a person under the law.

    ReplyDelete
  48. "Now you're lying about deliberately misconstruing my use of the word "irrelevant", despite the evidence being readily reviewable above." My argument is that pro-CHOICE only offers help IF the choice is abortion.

    (For review purposes, your comment was posted July 4 @ 10:30pm)

    Your statement was: "There are no overtly "anti-choice" food banks anymore than there are overtly "pro-choice" food banks, because taking public stands on irrelevant issues does nothing to further the services they provide and might alienate some part of their volunteer and donor base."

    All you've done, is solidify the fact that the 'choice' in pro-choice, is abortion.

    I'm not done, but I am out of time.. later!

    ReplyDelete
  49. TAAG- Your arguments is this, "Pro-choice is murder because I say so. (*hands on hips, stamp foot, storm out of room)

    As far as, "He will go free and rape again thanks to you [Jackie]." You were specifically saying that I support rapists. So just stop with your ridiculous hopscotch.

    And Armored Saint comes on to this blog with barrels blazing. She has called us morons, murderers and other slurs. She is clearly emotionally unstable. But she's on your side so thats fine.

    ReplyDelete
  50. My argument is that pro-CHOICE only offers help IF the choice is abortion.

    And your argument is false, as I have repeatedly shown. Planned Parenthood offers prenatal care among its range of services, a service which is for women who decide to bear their fetuses to term. They do not offer help for every thing that a person may need in their lifetime, because that is not their focus. Their focus is on reproductive health. As such, they also offer contraception, pap smears, health checkups, and even sexual heath checkups for men.

    Also, I am pro-choice, and I do help feed people, including families with children. But the organization that I volunteer at doesn't take official political stances on things outside of its purview, for reasons which I have exhaustively explained again and again. All a generalization like the one you offered needs is a single counterexample, and I am it.

    So, both when addressing institutions and on individuals, your claims are false. And you keep on making the claims, knowing full well they are false.

    All you are affirming is that you are willing to be dishonest in the cause of removing reproductive rights from women.

    ReplyDelete
  51. "TAAG- Your arguments is this, "Pro-choice is murder because I say so. (*hands on hips, stamp foot, storm out of room)" No, Pro-choice is not murder, abortion is murder. Perhaps not in a legal sense, but it is in a moral sense.

    "As far as, "He will go free and rape again thanks to you [Jackie]." You were specifically saying that I support rapists. So just stop with your ridiculous hopscotch." Let's talk about parental consent for abortion, shall we? Most pro-choicers are against parental consent laws. They would prefer that a young girl be able to go to the abortion clinic without having to tell her parents she was pregnant. What if her uncle raped and impregnated her? She goes and gets an abortion, and her uncle gets off scott free. Pro-choice, and by default you, support that. Therefore you support rapists. Having said that, I realize you would not intentionally let a rapist go free.

    Regarding Armored Saint, she is a valuable asset to the pro-life movement, and her comments here will be missed.

    My preference is to have a discussion, not a screaming match filled with profanity. And yes, I have been guilty of that too. We can all try to do better.

    ReplyDelete
  52. TAAG,

    So forcing a victim of rape to bear her rapist's fetus to term helps catch rapists how, exactly?

    I'm going to ask the same thing of you that I have of AS: how many rapists have been caught and convicted due to parental notification laws?

    ReplyDelete
  53. Null - continuing where I left off -

    "You were specifically directing your smears at Jackie." See my last comment

    "And even if they were "attacks on a movement", you didn't bother backing any of them up with evidence."

    Have you seen the the LiveAction videos? Of course you have.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTxsWZz9whg

    "So why in the hell should anyone give you an ounce of credibility or intellectual respect?"

    I could say the same about you, but I'm tryin to break myself from inflicting personal insults.

    "Okay, you've turned it into an oxymoron. A human being isn't a separate being at all until it is born. Until then, it is bound to the mother's physiology and is a projection of her body. This is why it makes no sense to extend individual rights to a being which is not yet individuated."

    A developing human being, in the context indended, is a pre-born human being, as opposed to a already born, or post-born human being. Though a fetus is attached to his/her mother, it is not a 'projection', such as a tumor would be. Whereas a tumor would continue to grow in place unchecked, a fetus won't. Appx 9 months after conception, that fetus will be born. The fetus is an individual with his/her own DNA and circulatory system, only being connected to his/her mother to sustain life. It's much like a patient in the ICU connected to life support. The patient would die if the hospital disconnected the machines, though they normally don't dismember the patient while doing so.

    "You couldn't ever lock a pregnant woman up, because it would violate the right of the fetus to not be imprisoned without charge or trial."

    Locking a pregnant woman up does not endanger the fetuses life. The fetus goes where his/her mother goes.

    "Such a situation is a legal absurdity, but it's the natural consequence of treating a fetus like it's a person under the law."

    Natural consequence? Only in YOUR mind.

    ReplyDelete
  54. "So forcing a victim of rape to bear her rapist's fetus to term helps catch rapists how, exactly?"

    No one has said that. What we have said is that abortion clinics fail to report the molestation of young girls who are pregnant due to being molested. The crime should be be reported, and the perpetrator jailed.

    ReplyDelete
  55. See my last comment

    I did. I have no reason to believe that you were any more honest in your last comment than you have ever been heretofore.

    Have you seen the the LiveAction videos? Of course you have.

    Yes, I have. They do not establish evidence of a movement-wide conspiracy to suppress evidence of rape and molestation, nor do they even provide reliable evidence of what happened in the scenarios they purport to depict. All I know from the video is that someone purporting to be an underage girl (but wasn't) told a fictional story about having been impregnated (though she wasn't) by a much older man (who didn't exist) in a setting that is just a generic office that the video purports to belong to Planned Parenthood with a person in the video who may or may not work for PP. I'm sorry, but if they're prepared to lie to get their gotcha videos, then it's perfectly possible that they'd throw together a little set piece in some other generic office room with someone who wasn't a worker at PP at all.

    As evidence of widespread wrongdoing, this is about as impressive as the New York Sun's evidence of life on the moon.

    Appx 9 months after conception, that fetus will be born. The fetus is an individual with his/her own DNA and circulatory system, only being connected to his/her mother to sustain life.

    Thanks to the wonders of cell division, every sperm and egg has its own DNA too. As far as a circulatory system, it is entirely dependent on the mother's circulatory (and alimentary and respiratory) systems.

    It's much like a patient in the ICU connected to life support.

    Actually, it's nothing at all like a patient in the ICU connected to life support. For one thing, the life support in question isn't another human being's body. That is the key difference.

    And anyway, that's a slippery analogy for you, because people are unhooked from life support all the time, especially if they've signed living wills stating their intention not to be kept on it. Weird concept, being free to do what one wants with one's own body, even if death is the consequence, isn't it?

    Locking a pregnant woman up does not endanger the fetuses life.

    You really do love to deliberately misconstrue a discussion, don't you? It doesn't help you make your case, because I remember full well what I had said from a few messages ago, and it just makes you look dishonest.

    Again, the issue was about granting rights to the fetus. Not just the rights you'd find it more convenient to talk about, but all the rights to which a legal person is entitled under the present system of jurisprudence. One of those rights is the right to habeas corpus: you cannot be locked up without charge or trial. So why shouldn't we grant a fetus these rights if it is (or should be) a person under the law? Where do you draw the line?

    The fetus goes where his/her mother goes.

    Exactly my point. Thanks for conceding it.

    No one has said that.

    My apologies for thinking that you'd remember that you're anti-abortion. As far as you're concerned, a rapist or a molested girl should be forced to bear her attacker's fetus to term.

    What we have said is that abortion clinics fail to report the molestation of young girls who are pregnant due to being molested.

    Great. Now if you can find evidence of that beyond generalizing from some dubious videos of questionable provenance, then we'll be getting somewhere.

    Meanwhile, you also have this question to answer: "how many rapists have been caught and convicted due to parental notification laws?"

    ReplyDelete
  56. Whoops. That should read "...a rape victim or a molested girl...."

    ReplyDelete
  57. Regarding the comments below that I made, it was not intentional to have them back to back as if AS was the only person using profanity. She wasn't. I apologize to her if it came off that way.

    Regarding Armored Saint, she is a valuable asset to the pro-life movement, and her comments here will be missed.

    My preference is to have a discussion, not a screaming match filled with profanity. And yes, I have been guilty of that too. We can all try to do better.

    ReplyDelete
  58. The LiveAction videos are scenarios, but the abortion clinic workers featured in them would have done exactly the same thing had it been actual 13yr olds.

    "Thanks to the wonders of cell division, every sperm and egg has its own DNA too." No, the egg has the same DNA as the woman, likewise w/ the sperm/man.

    "As far as a circulatory system, it is entirely dependent on the mother's circulatory (and alimentary and respiratory) systems."

    The fetus has a separate circulatory system, it's obvious that the oxygen comes from the mother. No one disputes this.

    "Actually, it's nothing at all like a patient in the ICU connected to life support. For one thing, the life support in question isn't another human being's body. That is the key difference."

    My point is that the patient, like the fetus, will die without that lifeline.

    "And anyway, that's a slippery analogy for you, because people are unhooked from life support all the time, especially if they've signed living wills stating their intention not to be kept on it. Weird concept, being free to do what one wants with one's own body, even if death is the consequence, isn't it?"

    I know someone personally that was unhooked from the machines. I don't know if he had a living will, but regardless, all hope was lost. He didn't die, he rallied. My point being, that there is always hope.

    "No one has said that.

    My apologies for thinking that you'd remember that you're anti-abortion. As far as you're concerned, a rapist or a molested girl should be forced to bear her attacker's fetus to term."
    (change 'rapist' above to 'raped')

    It 2 different things. The rapist should always pay for the crime. And yes, the girl should carry the baby to term. I don't believe in killing children, in this case a fetus, for the crimes (sins if you will) of their fathers.

    "Meanwhile, you also have this question to answer: "how many rapists have been caught and convicted due to parental notification laws?""

    Not as many as it should be. Do you know why? Because rapists are protected. I'm not referring to the rapist in the dark alley, but to the fathers, boyfriends, even husbands that rape. When we have the guts to put them were they belong, maybe that answer will improve.

    ReplyDelete
  59. "When we have the guts to put them were they belong, maybe that answer will improve."

    When America takes rape seriously. America (the judicial system, cultural assumptions about rape, the police culture, etc) protects rapists. It is believed that almost 90% of rapes are not reported. And out of the ones that are only 30% go to trial and only 2% convicted. The average time a rapist spends in jail is 6 months. (you can find these stats on the FBI website or any research report made by David Lasak. The numbers may be slightly different but you'll find them pretty close)

    None of this has to do with abortion. Forcing women to carry to term a product of rape will not do anything to assuage these dismal statistics.

    ReplyDelete
  60. TAAG,

    You brought up rape and sexual assault (or maybe I did, whatever) and have meshed it in with the abortion debate. The dismal treatment of rape victims within the judicial system is something I have personally experienced and have witnessed. May I suggest a thread where we can (respectfully) explore this issue more from both sides.

    ReplyDelete
  61. The article about Rosa is where rape was introduced into this thread.

    "It is believed that almost 90% of rapes are not reported."

    I can believe it, and I agree, this subject needs further discussion. Watch for a rape discussion thread soon.

    ReplyDelete