How Many People Did God Slaughter in the Bible? Steve Wells Has Written a Book Documenting Every Kill

Steve Wells is the author of the brilliant Skeptics Annotated Bible website. It was only a few months ago when he published a print version of the site — a massive tome that chronicles the messed up shit in the holiest of books.

Now, Wells is back documenting something else just as interesting. For years, he has been blogging about the people God kills in the Bible.

How many people are we talking about? Wells knows the answer, to the best of anyone’s knowledge.

His latest book, detailing God’s loving, caring bloodlust, is called Drunk with Blood: God’s Killings in the Bible (the completely revised second edition):

Each chapter in the book describes a killing. When death estimates are required, Wells offers an educated guess and explains how his numbers aren’t just being pulled out of nowhere.

Below is an excerpt from the introduction of the book:

In January of 2009, I started to document God’s killings at my blog, Dwindling in Unbelief. I began with Genesis and worked my way through the Bible, writing a post for each killing event and keeping a running count of the number of victims as I went along. I don’t think it had ever been done before, which is a shame, since God is so proud of his killings.

You don’t believe me? Well, here, I’ll let him tell you directly.

I kill … I wound … I will make mine arrows drunk with blood, and my sword shall devour flesh. Deuteronomy 32.39-42

Bible believers, on the other hand, are less proud of God’s killings. Oh, they like a few of them — Noah’s flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, Jericho — those that can be made (with considerable dishonesty) into cute children’s stories. But the rest are either completely ignored or completely unknown to believers.

I believe that most believers would stop believing in the Bible if they knew what was in it. And this is particularly true of God’s killings. All of the stories are absurd from a historical standpoint; they could not have happened the way they are told in the Bible. But what is even more damning is their unspeakable cruelty and obvious immorality. If the killings described in this book actually happened, then the God of the Bible is not the kind of god that believers pretend him to be.

In this book, I’ve tried to count all of God’s killings: those that are numbered in the Bible and those that are not; the ones that God did himself; those that he instructed others to do; and those that, while he may not have taken an active role in, met with his approval.

Of course, some killings are easier to count than others. When God burned to death 250 men for burning incense in Numbers 16.35, we know how many were killed. But how many did God drown in the flood or burn to death in Sodom and Gomorrah? How many first-born Egyptian children did he kill? There’s just no way to know for sure.

So I have two tallies: one for the killings in which numbers are given in the Bible, excluding the others; and another that uses both the biblical numbers and estimates when numbers are absent.

But what about the killings that God apparently approved of, but didn’t take an active role in?

Take the story in 1 Samuel 18.25-28, for example, in which David buys his first wife with 200 Philistine foreskins (Killing 70). Did God approve of that killing?

Well, yes he did, if you believe the Bible, that is. God approved of everything David did, including all of his killings, with only one exception: the killing of Uriah. How do we know this? Because it says so in the Bible.

David did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, and turned not aside from any thing that he commanded him all the days of his life, save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite. 1 Kings 15:5

Drunk with Blood includes a separate account for each of God’s 158 killings. They are presented in the order that they occur in the Bible, along with the number killed, either the Bible’s number or an estimate, or both. In each account, I’ve made an effort to quote enough of the actual story from the Bible (using the King James Version) to make it unnecessary to refer to the Bible itself. Still, I encourage everyone to read these stories in the Bible. It is nearly impossible to believe in the Bible once you have read them.

How many did God kill?

Here’s the total, if you use only numbers that are provided in the Bible: 2,821,364.

Who has killed more, Satan or God?

How many did Satan kill in the Bible?

I can only find ten, and even these he shares with God, since God allowed him to do it as a part of a bet. I’m talking about the seven sons and three daughters of Job (Killing 133).

There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job…And there were born unto him seven sons and three daughters. Job 1.1-2

And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? Then Satan answered the LORD … put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face. And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the LORD. 1.8-12

And there was a day when his sons and his daughters were eating and drinking wine in their eldest brother’s house … And, behold, there came a great wind from the wilderness, and smote the four corners of the house, and it fell upon the young men, and they are dead. 1.13-19

So it seems that both Satan and God share the blame (or the credit) for killing Job’s children. If so, then the tally would be:

God: 2,821,364

Satan: 10

Estimated totals

When the Bible doesn’t say how many were killed, I try to provide a reasonable estimate.

For example, the Bible says that Job’s ten children were killed in God and Satan’s bet. The Bible also says that all of Job’s slaves were killed, though it doesn’t say how many slaves Job owned. But since he was a wealthy man (“the greatest of all the men of the east”), he must have owned many slaves. So I guessed that fifty slaves were killed, and I gave both Satan and God credit for their killings.

I made similar estimates for the other killings when a number was not provided in the Bible. I tried to give an idea of my thinking for each estimate at the end of each killing account.

When there was no clear way to get a number directly from the Bible itself, I used estimates from Colin McEvedy and Richard Jones’ Atlas of World Population History.

Using these estimates, I came up with the following grand totals for the number killed by God and Satan in the Bible:

God: Approximately 25 million

Satan: 60

The Apocryphal Killings

The “Apocrypha” (or “Deuterocanonical Books”) are considered sacred scripture by more than a billion Christians, members of the Catholic, Orthodox, and Coptic churches. Another billion or so (the Protestants) consider them non-canonical and exclude them from the Bible. It’s one of the many things that divides the followers of Jesus, contrary to Jesus’s prayer in John 17.21.

That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

From which we can conclude two things:

1. Nothing fails like prayer (even when Jesus does the praying), and

2. God didn’t send Jesus.

But whatever their canonical status might be (I’ll let the Christian’s fight that out), there are many impressive killings in these disputed books — killings that were inspired, commanded, or performed by God, and therefore deserve to be included in this book.

So I’ve added another chapter to the second edition of “Drunk With Blood,” which I guess could now be called, “Drunk With Blood: The Catholic Edition.”

(I used the Douay-Reims Version for the Apocryphal killings since that translation is in the public domain and is the traditional Roman Catholic translation of the Bible.)

The book also includes a several-page-long catalogue of all the killings, with both the actual numbers in the Bible and Wells’ estimates when the Bible is unclear:

Just like Wells’ other project, this is a wealth of knowledge for anyone who has a desire to show the bad side of the Good Book. Drunk with Blood is now available on Amazon, so check it out!

About Hemant Mehta

Hemant Mehta is the editor of Friendly Atheist, appears on the Atheist Voice channel on YouTube, and co-hosts the uniquely-named Friendly Atheist Podcast. You can read much more about him here.

  • Mitch

    Sounds like excellent summer beach reading! I’ll be sure to pick up a copy as soon as I can.

  • cag

    And this does not include the parts that were edited out of the bible.

    • islandbrewer

      Oh, those were edited out because they were contradictory and made god look bad. So totally different from what was left in.

  • Nox

    A worthwhile project. One small caveat. At one point the bible says death would never have become part of the human condition if god hadn’t carelessly left some fruit lying around. So the number god has slaughtered according to the bible would be every person who has ever died up to the present day. Still a worthwhile project counting up the ones that are actually listed in the book.

    • Bender

      What part is that? Because it contradicts the fruit chapter, where god
      threatens Adam with death if he eats it (2:17), and then expels him from
      the garden so he can’t eat from the “tree of life” and become immortal
      (3:22). So it would appear death was part of the human condition from the beginning.

      • James

        Whoa whoa whoa, are you saying there are contradictions here?

        • The Inconsistent Atheist

          Yes, there are contradictions all over this website.

          No doubt the irony is lost on atheists who have to assume God exists just so they can say how evil He is.

          • GCT

            What I find weird is someone claiming to be an atheist and using presuppositional arguments.

            • 3lemenope

              Nah, he doesn’t claim to be an atheist. He has argued ad nauseam that it is not possible to be an atheist and have a self-consistent world view at the same time, hence his nick. So, just a straight-up presuppositionalist with a snarky streak.

              • GCT

                Thanks for the heads up to you and Rich.

            • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

              He’s a hard-core troll who uses various similar names. Just don’t get too close when feeding.

          • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

            The other day someone here quoted Homer Simpson. I guess atheists also think Homer Simpson is real.

          • RobMcCune

            No doubt the irony is lost on atheists who have to assume God exists just so they can say how evil He is.

            No wonder you see contradictions all over this site, your reading comprehension is terrible.

          • Amor DeCosmos

            I know that Darth Vader is just an imaginary character invented by George Lucas, but I still think he’s an evil, genocidal maniac for blowing up Alderaan.

          • Michael W Busch

            I do not need to assume that Voldemort exists in order to say he is evil, or to count up how many victims he had in the Harry Potter books. Likewise for the character of God in the Bible.

            Your presuppositionalist nonsense is rather stale.

          • Matt D

            So many contradictions, you can’t even list one? Well played?

        • Paula M Smolik

          That wasn’t a contradiction. “At ONE POINT the bible says death would never have become part of the
          human condition if god hadn’t carelessly left some fruit lying around.” It doesn’t say it started when the statement was made. It’s talking about Adam and Eve. Count from then. That would be…..everybody.

          • James

            Delusion, delusion everywhere.

      • islandbrewer

        So …. if he ate the apple … he would become immortal and die.

      • Nox

        Romans 5.

        And yes it does contradict that verse in Genesis. So does the other verse in Genesis where Adam lives for nine hundred years after eating the fruit. The bible is a pretty confused book.

    • The Inconsistent Atheist

      Nice try, but incorrect. The Bible never says what you claim.

      God told Adam not to eat the fruit. I tell my children not to go on the street. That doesn’t doesn’t mean that I will never tell them it’s okay to go on the street.

      • GCT

        He says not to eat the fruit or they will die. What version of the Bible are you reading?

        • The Inconsistent Atheist

          I don’t dispute that. What I dispute is that “the bible says death would *never* have become part of the human condition if god hadn’t *carelessly* left some fruit lying around.” (emphasis added)

          The Bible doesn’t say they would *never* die if they hadn’t eaten the fruit, and it is also clear that God purposely put the fruit there.

          Think about the child in the street analogy I mentioned earlier. It will help you to understand.

          • GCT

            I’m not going to argue about the child in the street analogy, because it doesn’t work here. Nor will I argue about the morality of leaving things around that god knows will be misused (would you leave a gun around your children knowing that they might misuse it and injure themselves or someone else, and isn’t the fact of your uncertainty in the matter an argument that given more certainty that they would that you’d be less likely to leave that gun out?)

            I will say this. Eating the fruit meant death for humans. It’s not clear whether they would die or not without it, but that’s just one more inconsistency in your holy book. The Bible might not specify that god carelessly left it out, but it can be easily inferred from the fact that god did leave it out where it could be misused, and knew that it would be misused. Additionally, you can’t very well argue that god didn’t purposely put the fruit there unless you want to argue that god is not omni-max.

            • The Inconsistent Atheist

              Your comment is full of fallacies.

              “I’m not going to argue about the child in the street analogy, because it doesn’t work here.”

              The argument does work in the context in which I used it. If you don’t want to consider it, that’s your choice.

              “Nor will I argue about the morality of leaving things around that god knows will be misused.”

              Do you have children? It is wise parenting to expose your children to dangers in controlled environments.

              “It’s not clear whether they would die or not without it, but that’s just one more inconsistency in your holy book.”

              How is you making arguments from silence an inconsistency in the Bible?

              “The Bible might not specify that god carelessly left it out, but it can be easily inferred from the fact that god did leave it out where it could be misused, and knew that it would be misused. Additionally, you can’t very well argue that god didn’t purposely put the fruit there unless you want to argue that god is not omni-max.”

              You contradict yourself here in back-to-back sentences. First you claim that God left out the fruit carelessly, but then you claim that I can’t say He didn’t do it on purpose. You’re arguing with yourself!

              As I said before, God purposely put the fruit where Adam and Eve could easily access it. He knew they were going to eat it and die. There is no contradiction there, although there is obviously some misunderstanding on your part.

              • GCT

                Your comment is full of fallacies.

                I’m sure you’ll fail to point them out.

                The argument does work in the context in which I used it. If you don’t want to consider it, that’s your choice.

                It’s rather faulty.

                Do you have children? It is wise parenting to expose your children to dangers in controlled environments.

                What, like guns? I would not leave a gun lying around for my children to play with. That you are ignoring my example, which is much more analogous than yours is telling.

                How is you making arguments from silence an inconsistency in the Bible?

                Because god is contradictory. He says that they will die if they eat the fruit. But, why warn them that if they’ll die anyway? If death doesn’t enter through eating the fruit, then why specifically claim that it will?

                You contradict yourself here in back-to-back sentences. First you claim that God left out the fruit carelessly, but then you claim that I can’t say He didn’t do it on purpose. You’re arguing with yourself!

                Carelessly, in this sense, is making a point about how it was left out in an easy place for Adam and Eve.

                As I said before, God purposely put the fruit where Adam and Eve could easily access it. He knew they were going to eat it and die. There is no contradiction there, although there is obviously some misunderstanding on your part.

                Except that now you are claiming that an omni-max god intentionally put them in a position where he would then punish them and then send people to hell even though he claims that’s not what he wants. It’s contradictory still. It’s also not omni-benevolent. If I tell my dog not to sit on the couch, then lift the dog up and place it there only so that I can punish the dog and all of its descendants, then I’m not omni-benevolent. You can’t assert this story is true and that god is omni-max.

              • Paula M Smolik

                Let’s argue about FICTION.

            • Batman394

              God had to give Adam and Eve a choice. Think about it. If God didn’t put the tree there and just had them be forced to ONLY listen to him and not make choices, worshiping would essentially be useless. Adam and Eve would just be mindless, robotic worshipers. They had to have a choice, which is why the tree was there

          • Amor DeCosmos

            using your street analogy… that would be like you telling your kids not to play in the street, and then running them over when they did anyways.

            • The Inconsistent Atheist

              I wasn’t using the analogy in that sense. I was simply pointing out that parents (and God) may have a rule at one point in time, but may change that rule at a later time for a perfectly good and logical reason.

              By the reasoning of some here, either they would never tell their children to stay out of the street, or they would tell their children to stay out of the street for their entire lives. There is another perfectly logical option.

              Many so-called “contradictions” in the Bible simply illustrate this type of ignorance on the part of the person making the claim.

              • Amor DeCosmos

                yeah, but my parents only threatened me with a good spanking for disobeying them… not death and possible eternal damnation. Fortunately my parents weren’t very Christian and never threatened me with death and possible eternal torture for disobeying them like Christian parents do.

                Also, my parents were pretty consistent. Some rules changed, like my bed time got later, but they never said, “You know how we said you had to be circumcised for us to be happy? Yeah, well… sorry about that, we’ve changed our minds now…”

                • The Inconsistent Atheist

                  “Fortunately my parents weren’t very Christian and never threatened me with death and possible eternal torture for disobeying them like Christian parents do.”

                  I’m sure you don’t appreciate “Bridge Out Ahead” signs either.

                  “You know how we said you had to be circumcised for us to be happy? Yeah, well… sorry about that, we’ve changed our minds now…”

                  Misrepresenting the Bible simply shows how weak your argument is.

                • Amor DeCosmos

                  I don’t appreciate “Bridge Out Ahead” signs when there is no bridge. Now I get why everyone calls you a presuppositionalist.

                  Don’t tell me I’m misrepresenting the Bible.

                  Circumcision is important to God:
                  Genesis 17: 10-12
                  10 This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. 12 For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner—those who are not your offspring.

                  Circumcision is NOT important to God:
                  1 Corinthians 7:18-19 18 Was a man already circumcised when he was called? He should not become
                  uncircumcised. Was a man uncircumcised when he was called? He should not be circumcised. 19 Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God’s commands is what counts.

                  I am sure that since you’re a presuppositional apologist, you’ll say “It’s out of context” followed by “Jesus gave us a new covenant” – whatever, it’s pretty obvious God used to care a lot about circumcision and doesn’t any more…

                • The Inconsistent Atheist

                  Yes, the Bible says those things. And yes, context is important. You really don’t understand the “child in the street” analogy, do you?

                  God “cared” about circumcision in the same sense that I care about my children not going in the street when they are little. When they grow up, I’m not going to enforce “Don’t go in the street!” rules on them.

                  The Bible talks about this very concept in Galatians 3:23-25.

                • islandbrewer

                  Maybe, just maybe, if you claim that we don’t understand the bible or its context, and your analogy isn’t working (if an analogy fails to communicate its message to the intended audience, it’s not working), then maybe you could try actually explaining using, you know, argument and detail, rather than trying another ham-handed analogy that we don’t accept, or citing something else for us to go look up (which implies laziness or a lack of understanding on your part), or airily waving your hands about and saying “You atheists don’t understand the context! You’re being inconsistent!”

                  Because when you do that, you’re only demonstrating that you kind of fail at communicating. If you have a point to make, valid or invalid, you have yet to successfully make it, other than “we atheists don’t understand” (which is actually a failure on your part, unfortunately).

                • Paula M Smolik

                  Well, Jesus half the time contradicted the OT and half agreed with it. Circumcision was one of the things he said people didn’t have to do. That’s why the whole book is pointless. Mmmkay?

              • GCT

                I wouldn’t tell my children to stay out of the street for all eternity, but I would tell them never to eat cyanide.

              • Kodie

                Kind of weird how it took him over 4000 years (?) to concoct an idea how to save everyone instead of just saving them. Yeah, you save people by sending yourself to earth to preach at them, break some laws in Rome, get turned in by your friend, I mean, plan all that shit out. This will suddenly, after so many years of people failing to live up to god (the killer), save everyone who is made to believe they have a soul to save. He was an ordinary criminal with delusions of grandeur at best. At least when he did the flood thing, it made a whole lot more sense. It was sick, but hey. Things are a mess and you want to start over, just pitch the whole deal. What doesn’t make sense is keeping a few to repopulate the earth.

                He’s GOD. He doesn’t have to drown anyone. He doesn’t have to put animals on a boat. Just make them again. God deserves criticism more for how that turned out than for killing everyone, I think. Once you’re dead, you’re dead. I don’t feel bad for those people. I think it was way too optimistic. He knew the future. He knew it wasn’t going to turn everything back ok. He knew he was going to have to come up with something else eventually. What a half-assed thing to do, is kill almost everybody and still commit a big fail. People just didn’t turn out like you wanted them to the first time, and flooding them didn’t. I mean, if you could see the future, put the fruit too high. God just fails because he depended on his creation to heed him in the first place. I thought he knew the future. He has no fucking right to be disappointed.

                So basically, this world is still a piece of shit, and you Christians blame that on people, as you should, but you blame them for not interpreting the bible the singularly correct way. Jesus didn’t accomplish shit for god. He is going to have to come up with a new plan. Or, you think his plan was to let humans be rotten as we can be, sometimes, and then die. Promises of heaven are lies you can live your whole life waiting to see. It’s inconsistent with reality, and your god is a pathetic failure. He’s not just bad, he’s not just cruel, he’s not mean, or wrathful, or justifiably genocidal – he can’t find his ass with both hands. He comes up with some weird ideas to give everyone a break of some sort, but how is it supposed to work? It is just a story. It’s the kind of story you start telling from one end to the other, so you have some ideas that are already on paper and you try to make it work, but mostly, you just hope people don’t notice how on drugs god must be to think, hey, I’ll just raise a guy from the dead, tie it back into this part with the talking snake, make that guy myself and my son! Tie him to a stake and kill him so everyone is sad, but for some reason, they can drink my blood and turn into my motherfucking genocidal spirit while believing this makes them more wholesome than others and judge them and evangelize in their face all the time like a creep.

                Oh, that is good. I want my followers to be extra-creepy, and tally up all the souls they can bring me. On the surface of the earth, that shit is all about making pawns and making money, selling nothing. You die, you get nothing. You pay for thrones and mansions in heaven, and you get to decay like everything else. Isn’t that good?

                • Daphne

                  Did you know that this is the same kind of accusations Lucifer made. Basically calling God unfair long before this world was created. Human understanding is very limited That’s why you are fustrated.

          • Psychotic Atheist

            Romans 5:12

            Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned

            • Ygorbla

              But the most important point about the story is that Adam and Eve lacked knowledge of good and evil before they ate the fruit; so punishing them made no sense — it was an accident, as happens with children, with no moral implications at all, since the children involved didn’t yet have any capacity to understand moral implications.

              The fact that the god in the story doesn’t immediately use his power to remove whatever taint the fruit placed on them (as he could, as god) — or, if cares about free will, immediately ask them if they want him to remove whatever taint the fruit placed on them — is because it’s a very old story written by people who had very different values from us. To them morality was not connected to intent or understanding — eating the fruit was intrinsically evil whether you knew it or not, and you deserved to be punished for it whether you understood what that meant or not. Likewise, they believed that it was justifiable to punish a child for the things their parents did; few people today would agree with that.

          • Nox

            Yes, it does say what I claim it says.

            Romans 5:12-18 (emphasis added)
            12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
            13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
            14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
            15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
            16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.
            17 For if by one man’s offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
            18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

            Usually, it’s the old testament I have to explain to christians.

      • Bad_homonym

        Of course, since Adam and Eve had no knowledge of good and evil until they consumed the fruit, god must have had a good idea that one of them would go scrumping! There are church doctrines that teach death only came as a result of original sin. Yknow. The apples laying about that that they really knew no better than to eat!

        • The Inconsistent Atheist

          Of course God knew that they were going to eat the fruit. And He had a perfectly good reason for allowing them to do so. See my other comments below.

          • Bad_homonym

            Yeah. See that makes the god character all the more assholian. I prefer my protagonists to be less bipolar than god is. The good guy is basically always good and the bad guy gets it in the end. But hey some people go for the more unusual characters. Johnny Depp would probably play god well. He seems to excel in the more unusual roles!

      • Kodie

        So Adam and Eve were not perfect. They were curious and potentially destructive human beings like the rest of us. Most of us can resist doing something we’re warned not to do, most of the time. When we lapse, we’re human, we weigh risks and potential outcomes, and it seems to work – many advances we’ve made have been because someone who knew it could all turn out really really bad went for it. It has killed a lot of people that way as well. Adam and Eve were already sinners as soon as they wanted to eat it. Tell me again why this story resonates with Christians so well as these people are hardly paragons of humanity. They couldn’t have been – if they were, they would have just listened to god. They didn’t fall anywhere, they were already down. We’re animals living on a planet. The planet poses obstacles to our comfort and we, like every living thing, adapt or go extinct. God seems to expect us to suffer this as punishment for eating some food. Nothing happened. There was no garden, it was a story. “There was a place and we can get back there by wishing.” What really happened is life sucks a little for everyone and a lot more for some people, as it does for all the living things, and that’s a fairy tale, made by humans for humans. It goes like this:

        “life is hard, it’s not fair, and pretend you are special – special, but wicked – that means if you abide this invisible power that makes lightning, landslides, cave-ins, drowning, fire, attacking beasts, freezing cold, and infections, you can just die and go to that happy place we imagined. Someday.”

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3D6EG35WP0

        • Island girl

          I have asked these same questions and had this same anger at God. After 40 years of searching ( I hope to same you some time… ) I have analysed all the evidence and arrived at this…: God loves you despite your misunderstandings, and if you ask Him, He will answer all your questions. He has a beautiful eternal home prepared for you if you will only accept it. His ways are not our ways and His thoughts are not our thoughts, we can only hope to be enlightened by what He reveals. We are human, He is God.

          • Kodie

            You condescending piece of shit.

          • Matt D

            Yes, we know “his ways aren’t our ways” . Very few people find pleasure or purpose in murder, rape, torture, abuse, genocide, and trickery like “god” does.

    • Jenniey Briggs

      nox. i like your pic. i have that tattoo. i like your comment. i like this article.

      • Nox

        Thank you Jenniey.

  • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

    The worst part is that we’re going to get an apologist on here who Christiansplains to us why each and every one of those deaths deserved to die. Yes, even the babies and the animals. Because they were all wicked.

    • flyb

      Or votes you down.

    • http://www.last.fm/user/m6wg4bxw m6wg4bxw

      I felt compelled to down-vote you for your use of “Christiansplains.”

      • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

        Mind telling me why you object? I was rather proud of it myself :-)

        • http://www.last.fm/user/m6wg4bxw m6wg4bxw

          It reminds of me of “mansplain,” which I have come to despise because of the type of person to commonly make use of it, and how. It’s nothing personal.

          • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

            It was an intentional derivative. Having been on both ends of the “you just don’t understand it because nobody has ever explained it properly like I’m about to, aren’t you lucky I’m here”, it works for me.

            • Jeff See

              I upvoted your comment to compensate for the down vote on your originality.

          • Artor

            Somehow, I am completely unsurprised that you object to the term, “mansplaining.” I suspect it’s more personal than you let on.

            • http://www.last.fm/user/m6wg4bxw m6wg4bxw

              If you’re referring to my remark to @wk633:disqus, I was specifying that it wasn’t about him, personally.

          • Mike

            I’ve alway preferred ‘dicksplain’.

      • Vanadise

        I felt compelled to up-vote you just because you didn’t have any up-votes. Have a nice day!

    • Amor DeCosmos

      I felt compelled to up-vote you for your use of “Christiansplains”

    • Guest

      I think ‘Christplains’ is going to be easier to say that ‘Christianplains’ but apart from that, props.

    • Oppenheimer’s Ghost

      Ah, that’s nothin…Modern Science has provided us a basis to kill everyone and poison the planet for millennia to come.

      Where are the atheist protests of that?

      • Matt D

        You really need to look up what “Atheist” means.

    • tabitha

      absolutely true..this allegations are pro prostrious..

  • TheG

    I’m going to keep this in mind the next time a god-humper starts spouting off about how a fetus is a baby and we are committing genocide with abortion.

    What entity has murdered the most babies/children? Hint: It isn’t George Tiller.

    What entity has been more approving of the murder of babies/children? Hint: It isn’t Obama (although it might be Rick Perry…).

    • Sweetredtele

      None! It’s all fiction.

    • Hat Stealer

      That should have been Obama’s re-election sticker.

      “Obama 2012! Less babies killed than God!”

      • allein

        “fewer” (sorry, pet peeve)

  • Paul (not the apostle)

    I have a christian friend that recently watched the TV version of “The Bible” and then complained to me that it was too bloody. She was worried that her grand kids would get the wrong idea about god. Maybe they will get the correct idea in this case and not the sanitized version.

    • Gordon Duffy

      I was christian when I saw Prince of Egypt and I couldn’t believe how horrific a story I’d known my whole life was. I’d never thought of it as anything but a familiar story. Seeing the movie really highlighted how awful it was.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/ Kevin_Of_Bangor

      I thought it was epic when they showed babies being tossed into the river.

    • Jim Hudlow

      That TV version is so sanitized…and she thought it was ‘bloody’? Tell your xtian friend to actually READ the bible as this person obviously has not. What the heck, give her or him the Skeptics Annotated Bible for a present…maybe this person will become enlightened as to how bloody all this business really is!

  • flyb

    I’ve lost track of how many kittens God has killed on my behalf.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/ Kevin_Of_Bangor

      I know God has killed close to 10,000 just on my behalf.

  • daryl carpenter

    Well, obviously all these deaths have been taken completely out of context…

    • baal

      All these deaths are the context.

    • Nick Wride

      “Out of context”? Are you F’n shitting me? “Out of context”?

      • Psychotic Atheist

        Back then it was fine to kill millions…obviously.

      • daryl carpenter

        I knew I should have put a smiley face on that comment…

  • http://freethinkingjew.com/ Freethinking Jew

    I think it’s important for people to know what the Bible REALLY says. I just don’t know if anyone who cares what the Bible says would be willing to listen to such a hostile tone. (I thought you were the FRIENDLY atheist!)

    • Psychotic Atheist

      I’m sure you are concerned with the hostile tone friendly people have when discussing others who have killed millions of people, right?

      That’s fine, the rest of us treat mass murderers with hostility and believe it to be the right thing to do.

      • http://freethinkingjew.com/ Freethinking Jew

        The vast majority of those who hold the Bible dear haven’t killed anyone. So it may be more appropriate – and more effective – to show them the atrocities in the Bible in a manner in which they’re more likely to listen.

        • Amor DeCosmos

          I’ve tried that… Mostly they plug their ears and say “la la la, I can’t hear you, God is love, la la la…”

          • http://freethinkingjew.com/ Freethinking Jew

            See my last comment above at Bdole.

        • Jeff See

          As soon as you’re prepared to provide everyone with a way to make the level of murder expressed by this particular deity palatable, please let us know.

          • http://freethinkingjew.com/ Freethinking Jew

            Dude, if you really don’t the know difference between attacking ideas (e.g. the killings in the Bible) and attacking people (e.g. the way Wells does in the passage above), I don’t know how to communicate the difference to you.
            I’ve attacked the genocide in the Bible in my own blog posts, which you’re welcome to read. I just don’t attack and insult the very audience whose views I’m trying to change. That would seem pretty counterproductive.

            • http://freethinkingjew.com/ Freethinking Jew

              Most Bible believers simply don’t know what the Bible says. If we “friendly atheists” show it to them, instead of insulting them and guaranteeing they won’t listen to us, they (the open-minded ones) may actually listen.

              • Bdole

                I have mentioned the atrocities in the “Old Testament” to believers and I got NOTHING. Some acknowledged that god commanded the Israelites to destroy the heathens because they were “sinful” and he had been “patient” with them for so long. Other believers simply waived away the objection without answering.
                Even knowing, they’ll accept it and I think that’s pretty shitty.

                • http://freethinkingjew.com/ Freethinking Jew

                  Yes, it is. It’s frustrating indeed.
                  I guess all we can do is hope that over time, if we keep present them with facts, without adding our own personal insults, they’ll eventually be more honest with themselves.

                • Artor

                  They’ve had about 2000 years now and that hasn’t happened yet. Are you holding your breath? You might want to reconsider…

            • Artor

              I’m not seeing where Wells is attacking people. What passages, exactly, are you objecting to? All I can see is you tone-trolling.

              • http://freethinkingjew.com/ Freethinking Jew

                Artor, see the example I gave above. If you really put yourself in the mindset of a Bible believer and then read Wells’ words, right away you’d say, “This guy’s being an ass; forget it.”

                • Artor

                  Yeah, I read it, but it’s not particularly offensive. Babble-believing Xians who are hypersensitive will get upset over nearly anything. Tailoring your speech so as not to offend them is a fool’s task, as the only way to avoid that is not saying anything at all. And even that doesn’t help, as they are offended by the very existence of non-Xians, or even the wrong type of Xians. Seriously, fuck those guys.

        • http://www.holytape.etsy.com Holytape

          2 Kings 2:24
          And he turned back, and looked on them with a smile, and cursed with a happy voice them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two big fuzzy she bears out of the friendly woods, and hugged forty and two children with their big sharp claws.

          • http://freethinkingjew.com/ Freethinking Jew

            There you go. That’s what I’m talkin’ about, Holytape! Simply letting the Bible incriminate itself is all we need to do. No need to go adding our own personal insults.

            • http://www.holytape.etsy.com Holytape

              However, most Christians would find what I just wrote as insulting as what was written by Mr. Wells, if not more so, because I failed to show the scriptures respect. That is how the game works. First, they dismiss you if you don’t show them respect. Then, they dismiss you if you don’t show their scripture respect. Then, they dismiss you if you “take things out of context.” Then, they dismiss you for quoting the wrong part of the bible. Basically, unless you quote the the bible exactly as they would quote it, believers take it as an insult.

              It is impossible to show a believer the reality of the text. Books like Mr Well’s only works if the reader has doubts already. And at that point, the “insults” of Mr. Wells, are no longer aimed at them.

              • 3lemenope

                That’s why I use the LOLcat Bible Translation Project for all my scripture quoting needs.

                • islandbrewer

                  Dammit! I just spent the last 45 minutes reading that damn LOLcat Bible!

                  *shakes fist in outrage*

            • Matt D

              “Simply letting the Bible incriminate itself is all we need to do. ”
              If that were the case, then why hasn’t it happened yet? The Bible has been around for centuries, and has mnay followers, letting it “incriminate” itself doesn’t appear to work.

          • Fanraeth

            I count that story as one of the stepping stones that led me to agnosticism. What an absolutely horrific story and Christians try to pretend it was a totally okay reaction.

        • Obazervazi

          Unfortunately, I don’t think there’s a way to politely say “Your God is worse than Hitler.” Truth can be harsh that way.

        • Psychotic Atheist

          No, they just worship someone who has.

          Lead by example, point something out that was written in the incorrect manner, and show me the correct manner which will increase the probability that it would be listened to.

          • http://freethinkingjew.com/ Freethinking Jew

            PA, so the way I see it, it’s as if the believer lives inside this massive fortress that is the belief in the Bible as God’s word. It gives them shelter, comfort, peace of mind, strength, etc. If you come threatening to demolish their fortress, of course they’re not going to be be receptive. And if you come saying things like “The fortress is really made out of teflon (i.e. the Bible is just cutesy stories) or “You’re being dishonest when you say the fortress is solid (You’re dishonest when you say the Bible’s stories are good and moral), they CERTAINLY won’t listen.
            If, however, I tell them, “Hey, you know when I see this little area right here, I get a little concerned. Can I show you what I mean?” I might have a better shot. So I like to take ONE immoral passage in the Bible – in my blog I took Numbers 31 – the genocide of Midian. And I say, “You know this story has concerned me for years. I’ve had many people look at it, but I never heard an explanation that really seems to be true to the text. I just can’t see how a good, moral God could have written this. Here, don’t listen to me; take a few minutes to read it yourself, and tell me what you think. And I’ll tell you what concerns me about it.”
            Then, once you show them one small crack in the fortress, they’ll hopefully be slightly more open to the possibility that there other cracks, etc.
            Of course it depends on each believer, depending on how strong his/her emotional tie to the Bible is, how familiar the person is with the Bible’s stories, etc. But that’s the basic idea of one way to attack ideas and not people and to do so in a way that has the possibility of being heard. I’d love to hear your thoughts.
            Would this approach work with every believer – or even most of them? Perhaps not. But I think it’s far better than doing things to turn them off immediately, GUARANTEEING no success, AND making them think that atheists are out to get them.

            • Psychotic Atheist

              I disagree. Those that would turn off listening to this kind of message would do so no matter how it was presented. Just look at the theists response to Daniel Dennett who in Breaking the Spell bent over backwards to be non-confrontational.

              Also, your conversational tone might work in blogs, but it is grating to read a whole book like that.
              I see no merit in avoiding criticising Christians for worshipping this mass murderer and selling it to children by sugar coating and glossing over the horrors. That’s bad, and I think its right to say so.

              Sure some people will close down, but not everybody. At the end of the day, the point of the book is the numbers and unless they want to argue with mathematics, people can use these numbers to drive home how murderous Yahweh is.

              If you think your style is superior, write your own book. I’ve written two (but neither have been published), most people who write blogs have the time to write a book I think.

              • http://freethinkingjew.com/ Freethinking Jew

                :) I may just do that! I wouldn’t go through the whole sympathy speech throughout the whole book – just in the intro, probably.
                I hear what you’re saying, and it makes a lot of sense to me at this point in my life, now that I’ve overcome the indoctrination. But when I remind myself that I spent most of my life so far as one of those believers, I realize I shouldn’t be so self-righteous. And I remember that it took me over 10 years to really break of it mentally. So I have to be understanding. Those parents who are teaching their kids these immoral things were once indoctrinated themselves by someone else, and it’s extremely extremely difficult to break out of that.
                I would suggest again that there’s a difference between saying, “The Bible teaches a lot of things that are immoral by our standards today,” and saying “You Jews & Christians are dishonest and immoral.” I just don’t see the benefit saying in the 2nd way over the first.
                But as far as what approach is most effective overall, this really should be something that’s testable, I would think.

                • GCT

                  Point out one civil rights group that made strides by only being polite.

            • Kodie

              One thing that seems to be common about believers is their insecurity. They desire the firmness of invisible love from an invisible being so bad. Yes, this and their communities (mostly their communities) make them feel secure, but teasing, taunting, mocking and outright insulting does jerk some people into self-reflection. Sure, a lot of people double down, but also, a lot of people let that sink in. “My ideas aren’t popular and some of my friends think I’m ridiculous. They compare my beliefs to a child believing in Santa Claus!” They get that deep-down worry that everything they believe might not even be true, and they obsess about embarrassing themselves and trying to fit in. Almost all people are manipulatable if you hit their buttons and gently ridicule them.

              I do believe there are multiple successful approaches. I don’t like to think of them as approaches though. If people want to stay wrong, I don’t think I care. I might should, but I don’t. I really don’t have the patience or attitude to take on a tutoring project. Religious people can be more offensive than they think they are, so I don’t think there is anything wrong with a push back, either. Books like this reflect something of a diligent habit or even obsession of compiling things for the edification of others. It doesn’t exist from a Christian, those numerologist ones who pore over the bible to find codes and extremely vague “prophesies”. It exists because Christians not only exist as a majority, but have ever tried to pass themselves off as moral, hard-working, and even so far as inventing their own form of science – you see, they felt sensitive about not being taken seriously and go out of their realm to advance propaganda. And just about everything they think about atheists is not only wrong because they don’t bother to ask or don’t believe us when we tell them, but is generated out of blank fear that we make way too much sense.

              Opportunities arise – the author of this book took one. Nothing existed like this and it should. Christian belief is not benign, and should no further be treated as benign. I realize you’re saying we should tread very slowly, lightly, sensitively, for their ultimate benefit. I was raised with straight talk, no beating around the bush, buttering me up, walking on eggshells. I have actually learned to watch for that when someone is trying to bullshit me before telling me something is not right, and I can’t take a compliment properly unless I know myself that I deserve it. Neither do I compliment others unless I actually admire something they did or like their new haircut or whatever. I know how salesmen work when they want to persuade someone.

              You are saying what’s true – some people need that to change their mind. I am saying some people also change their mind because they have been made insecure and question themselves, and do some digging on their own. I don’t believe there is only one approach, but like I said, I don’t have the patience or attitude for one of them. I was in sales, I got skated (my customers were scooped up by another salesperson) and fired eventually for not covering my draw. I think we should all get along here and not fight about what is the “right” or “best” way. I am glad for the people who will dig in their heels at the first sign of ridicule that other people take that civil, patient approach with them.

      • baal

        I don’t think the Steve Wells has a hostile tone. I read it as literary neutral.

        • Psychotic Atheist

          quite right, I was trying to meet them where they were to show how it was still an absurd position.

    • Makoto

      These counts use the bible as the source. They are backed up with citations, which can be looked up in case you’re worried about them being taken out of context or anything. Are there some in particular that you think are wrong that you want to discuss? A generic “what the Bible REALLY says” doesn’t say anything at all.

      • http://freethinkingjew.com/ Freethinking Jew

        I think he/we should indeed present the stories exactly as they are, with all the gory details, and that’s what I meant by “what the Bible REALLY says.” It’s Wells’ tone, however, that guarantees that no Bible believer will read his book.
        I mean you tell me; if your whole world was built on the assumption that the Bible was the perfect guide to life, handed down by the all-good, all-powerful God, and you opened up Wells’ book and right away saw the sentence below, wouldn’t you shut the book immediately and move on?
        “Bible believers, on the other hand, are less proud of God’s killings.
        Oh, they like a few of them — Noah’s flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, Jericho —
        those that can be made (with considerable dishonesty) into cute
        children’s stories.”
        Even if the reader is a believer who’s very open-minded, who wants to read a book where the author is so condescending and insulting towards the reader, instead of just showing him/her the facts?

        • Artor

          How is that condescending and insulting to the reader? The only way I can think of is if the reader is one of those believers who are proud of their god’s bloodthirsty ways.

        • Kodie

          I think once they open it up, they probably won’t be able to put it down after they pick it up and put it down the first time, before they pick it up again. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qqaCby1lGw

        • Amor DeCosmos

          That’s not insulting the reader, that’s insulting the idea that some believers tolerate God’s well known supposed genocides and ignore the rest. …pretty much attacking the idea and not the person…

    • Artor

      Because being friendly means making nice about atrocities. Thanks for clearing that up.

    • GCT

      Example please. This sounds a lot like religious privilege. ‘How dare anyone claim that the Bible isn’t great! Now, STFU atheists, because by speaking out you’re being hostile!’

      • http://freethinkingjew.com/ Freethinking Jew

        If people keep ignoring and mangling what I write, I guess there’s no point in writing. So for the last time: Attack ideas, not people. You’ll have better success, and you’ll be a better person for it.
        As for the example you requested of Wells’ attacking people instead of ideas, I’ll copy and paste the same example I already gave:
        “Bible believers, on the other hand, are less proud of God’s killings. Oh, they like a few of them — Noah’s flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, Jericho — those that can be made (with considerable dishonesty) into cute children’s stories.”
        Best of luck!

        • GCT

          So for the last time: Attack ideas, not people. You’ll have better success, and you’ll be a better person for it.

          Yes, we get this from tone trolls a lot, and you know what? It doesn’t get more true the more the tone trolls say it. Pointing out that god is not great is not an attack on people. Pointing out that most Xians ignore these passages and are less informed about their own holy book than they should be (which has been documented) is not an attack on people. Pointing out that religious ideas are ridiculous is not an attack on people. The excerpts posted above are rather benign, and for you to come here and chastise us as if those passages are horrible offenses to religious people shows nothing more than your religious privilege.

          “Bible believers, on the other hand, are less proud of God’s killings. Oh, they like a few of them — Noah’s flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, Jericho — those that can be made (with considerable dishonesty) into cute children’s stories.”

          I fail to see how this is an attack. Are you claiming it would be less of an attack to say that they are proud of mass genocides? Are you saying that this is not factually true (and hence a whole subset of apologetics does not exist)? Are you claiming those things have not been made into cute children’s stories, thus whitewashing the very real effect of mass murder? No, you just invent offense on behalf of theists out of thin air. Again, this is your religious privilege shining through.

          • Artor

            Dammit, I can only upvote this once. You should have ALL the upvotes!

        • Kodie

          The bible is only a fairy tale. A criticism of this sort is only relevant because people think the book is inerrant truth about an actual god. This book is not a criticism of an actual god, but a criticism of believers who believe the bible is inerrant truth. You seem to demand the author just focus on what the bible says, just like believers insist atheists are “mad at god”. No! We’re not mad at god. In a fictional book, he can kill as many people as he likes. What a romp, right?

          People take it seriously. What several qualities can we assume about people who believe the god of the bible is real? They either have never read it, know about all the killings but don’t like to think about it, live their lives in complete fear of god’s harsh judgment, or admire and approve of even this violent god.

          The kindest thing we can say about them is they are ignorant of what the bible really says, either totally unaware or have vague notions while choosing (or being fed) the less embarrassing parts. We don’t talk to god – we talk to Christians. There is no god, only Christians. If they don’t know what it says in their book, or find it embarrassing, they should. More of what I’ve heard is that god means business, he’s not fucking around, he has his good reasons (he must have had!), that we’re reading it out of context, and that we can’t make god the way we think he should be, he is that he is.

          I don’t want to live among people like that. They should be criticized for bowing down to or defending a monster, or for being so immature or anti-intellectual that they can pretend he loves them. You know what? They “know” he can strike anyone anywhere, and they don’t get struck, it’s their evidence, called “god’s mercy”. He obviously hates humans and barely tolerates any of us, right? They know that stuff is in the bible. Religious people quote the bible as a source of its own truth to justify them and they are judgmental of people, not ideas. They have no humility, they leave nothing up to god’s judgment – they are judgmental and selfish. If you want to believe in god and you want to believe the bible is his message to earthlings, it’s important not to lose sight of what this means about you as a person.

          Sure they will deny it. Sure, it’s not nice to hear. Everyone wants to believe they are a good person. Being an atheist is, at least for me, because there are theists, not because of god, not because I have to decide one way or the other whether I think there is a god, but because of people who are just sick at heart, or at the very kindest, excuse-making cherry-pickers who can’t be honest with themselves.

    • The Inconsistent Atheist

      Sorry you’re disappointed. I haven’t found many friendly atheists here either.

      • GCT

        As if it’s friendly to show up and poke sticks in our eyes in an attempt to provoke and then cry when the inevitable happens?

        • The Inconsistent Atheist

          The comments (and articles) were unfriendly long before I got here.

          • GCT

            And the sticks have been poked in our eyes long before you got here as well. The fact remains the same. When people come here looking to pick a fight, they usually get it. That doesn’t make us unfriendly. It makes you the unfriendly one. If you come into my house and start smearing shit all over the walls, I’m going to be upset. In that instance, you are the one not acting in accordance with what it means to be friendly. I am under no obligation to sit there and take it.

            • The Inconsistent Atheist

              Sorry, I thought this was a public forum for intelligent and reasonable discussion. I didn’t know that it’s a private party for atheists to discuss their inconsistent worldview without having to face opposing viewpoints.

              • Amor DeCosmos

                …what are you on about? I have a very consistent worldview.

              • GCT

                Apparently, when others make analogies you are unable to grasp the concept? Are you that obtuse or are you simply feigning it?

                1) This has nothing to do with pointing out inconsistencies and more to do with bigoted and religiously privileged barbs that are thrown at us by people looking to elicit a response so that they can complain about us being unfriendly.

                2) You’ve yet to point out any inconsistencies. Your presuppositional stance is actually your logical failing, not ours.

          • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson
      • http://freethinkingjew.com/ Freethinking Jew

        It’s sad. You would think that people who realize they have one life to live wouldn’t want to waste it being mean, angry, and hateful. But hey, if that’s what turns them on….
        It’s also very discouraging to see how many atheists are as close-minded to others’ points of view and dogmatic about their beliefs as many theists are.
        I am pretty confident, though, that the commenters here do not represent atheists in general. These may be the loudest and most annoying, but it doesn’t mean they’re the majority, fortunately.

        • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

          It’s sad. You would think that people who realize they have one life to live wouldn’t want to waste it being mean, angry, and hateful.

          It’s sad when people make passive aggressive comments about how other people are mean angry and hateful and then cluck condescendingly at people who decline to be doormats.

        • GCT

          It’s sad when people criticize others for being mean, angry, and hateful while making bigoted comments.

        • The Inconsistent Atheist

          I think the commenters here are very representative of atheists. They continually contradict themselves and then get upset when anyone points out the fallacy of their view.

          • Amor DeCosmos

            What contradictions and what fallacies? Like most Christians, you make great claims without any sources. You would prefer to talk about what you believe than what is actually true.

            Also, you come in here with fighting words like that and don’t expect us to fight back?

            • The Inconsistent Atheist

              “What contradictions and what fallacies?”

              Claiming that morality exists apart from the existence of God.

              • Amor DeCosmos

                That’s not a contradiction nor a fallacy. God probably does not exist and I am a very moral person. I support my family, I am involved in my community, I give to charity, I help old ladies across the street…

                Morality exists because of human empathy, not because a supernatural being said so.

                I think if you want to claim “morality only exists because of God”, first of all you’re going to have to prove the existence of a god, then you have to prove that god is the Christian God, and then you have to explain how the societies that worship one of the thousands of other gods still manage morality… If you can do that, most of us Friendly Atheists will convert. We’ve been waiting for a man with your knowledge for a long time…

                • The Inconsistent Atheist

                  “Morality exists because of human empathy”

                  How do you know this? Where did empathy come from?

                  What about when human empathy clashes with survival?

                  Regarding your request for “proofs”, the Bible has the answers to all of those. If you’re interested, I can provide some references.

                • Amor DeCosmos

                  Ethology, evolutionary biology, and sociobiology (amongst other fields)
                  have addressed the origins of morality quite effectively from a purely
                  non-supernatural perspective. There is no reason to believe that
                  morality must be founded in supernatural views.

                  Oh I want proof, but your Bible doesn’t prove anything except that someone wrote something down once. I read Star Wars books. I can show you lots of quotes from the Star Wars books that show what Darth Vader thinks and feels. Doesn’t make me think Darth Vader is actually real.

                • The Inconsistent Atheist

                  By your logic, the evolutionary biology, sociobiology, etc. books don’t prove anything except that someone wrote something down once. All you’re really saying is that you believe their story (which claims to be the work of fallible men) instead of the Bible’s story (which claims to be the infallible Word of God). How do you know which one is true? How do you know anything?

                  Also, you didn’t answer my question about when empathy clashes with survival.

                • Amor DeCosmos

                  ummmm because ethology, evolutionary biology, and sociobiology are scientific fields that use scientific methods of study, that is, methods of inquiry based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.

                  The “truth” of the Bible is based on “faith” that is, belief without proof. You only believe the Bible because someone told you it was true. You have no possible way to check the truth of anything in the Bible and, in fact, if we use scientific methods, we quite conclusively show that the Bible is a mess of so many contradictions that it is hard to distinguish any “truth” from the Bible at all.

                • The Inconsistent Atheist

                  So scientists have reproduced the origin of morality in the lab? Please send me a link to this astounding feat! Or are you simply saying that they did some experiments and then made a bunch of speculations to come to the conclusion that morality evolved (ie. not science)?

                  “You have no possible way to check the truth of anything in the Bible”

                  You mean like you have no possible way to check the truth of the origin of morality?

                  “we quite conclusively show that the Bible is a mess of so many contradictions”

                  I’ve seen a lot of so-called “contradictions”, and none of them were actually contradictions. Please give an example.

                • Michael W Busch

                  So scientists have reproduced the origin of morality in the lab?

                  Yes, actually – albeit in grossly-simplified form. You can set up interacting agents within a simulated computer environment and start them with random strategies for interaction. Those that are altruistic, mutually-beneficial, and only attempt to harm others as a last-stage survival strategy persist and spread in many simulated environments. A simple example is the iterated prisoner’s dilemma: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iterated_prisoner%27s_dilemma#The_iterated_prisoners.27_dilemma . The conclusion: under certain sets of conditions, what we consider moral behavior is strongly selected for.

                  You mean like you have no possible way to check the truth of the origin of morality?

                  Wrong. Morality is a human construct, based in evolutionary biology and human history and modified by changing circumstances.

                  I’ve seen a lot of so-called “contradictions”, and none of them were actually contradictions. Please give an example.

                  The Bible gives two contradicting creation accounts, both of which are false. In one, humans are created after the other animals and men and women are created at the same time. In the other, a single man is created first, then the other animals, and then a woman is created last. http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/accounts.html .

                  It happens that both of these stories were lifted and modified from pre-existing Mespotamian creation myths – the Babylonian Enuma Elish and parts of the Akkadian Atra-Hasis tablets, with the compilers of what became the Genesis text not doing any thorough editing. This isn’t reasonably disputable – we have the original tablets of various versions of both of the Enuma Elish and the Atra-Hasis story, and they all pre-date the composition of what would become the Torah.

                • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

                  the Bible has the answers to all of those

                  How do you know this? Biblical references?

                  The fact that you want there to be an ultimate answer doesn’t mean there is one. It just means you have used faith to create one (adding onto one of many that others have created). A position is arrived at by faith when it has no rational basis. If it had a rational basis, you would not need faith.

                  Even if your cornerstone exists, you have no rational basis to show that it has any of the attributes you say it does. Even within your worldview, the bible could be a work of the Devil, and determining that is God’s test do determine who is worthy. No? Prove otherwise?

                • The Inconsistent Atheist

                  Are you saying that rationality is the ultimate standard? Or are you saying that there is no ultimate standard?

                  In my worldview, the Bible could not be a work of the Devil. If it were, it would contradict itself.

                • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

                  If you don’t exclude the possibility that you are a computer simulation and I am simply input from your programmer, then there is no ultimate standard that you can know, which is the same thing as there being no ultimate standard.

                  If it were, it would contradict itself.

                  I didn’t say the test was easy. If it was, there would be no point since everyone would pass. No, you have the free will to fail the test and think the bible is correct. The conflicting genealogies of Jesus and conflicting resurrection narratives are hints, but the bible can’t very well come out and say “this is a test to see if you can think rationally”. You have to figure that out for yourself. Good luck.

                • Kodie

                  Good news, it’s not the work of the devil since there is no such thing as him either. If I had to make an estimate, I would say the bible was written by people who were just pulling guesses and opinions out of their asses, and people who believe it is divine to have no idea how things work in the real world.

                • Michael W Busch

                  In my worldview, the Bible could not be a work of the Devil. If it were, it would contradict itself.

                  It does, as Wells’ annotations document so neatly. So have you have just asserted that the Bible was the work of the Devil?

                • Psychotic Atheist

                  “What about when human empathy clashes with survival?”

                  Empathy can clash with all sorts of things. It could clash with survival – which might involve us killing someone without feeling immediate empathy – but that’s called self-defence and most people think that’s fine.

                  It could clash with sexual desire – with often upsetting results.

                  It can clash with the desire for power or wealth…with all manner of negative consequences.

                  But we have all manner of laws and social consequences that can be met out (and we feel a strong desire to do so, born out of the fact that punishing cheaters is an evolutionary stable strategy).

                • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

                  And whether a moral absolute exists for a given situation doesn’t mean that any particular person or group has arrived at that realization.

                  Hence, thousands of years ago it wasn’t considered immoral to beat your slave so long as they didn’t die right away. It’s reasonable to assume that at some time prior to that it was not considered immoral to kill your slave.

                  As human morality has evolved, we have come closer to the understanding of the absolute immorality of slavery.

                  Perhaps in a few more millennia we’ll consider it immoral to keep animals in zoos.

              • RobMcCune

                The only fallacy there is you begging the question. I’d call it inconsistent, but committing logical fallacies is something you do fairly consistently.

              • Michael W Busch

                Claiming that morality exists apart from the existence of God.

                Morality exists. Humans created it. No gods required – and no evidence for them. No contradiction there.

              • glebealyth

                Thst is neither contradictory nor fallacious.

                YOU claim that morality ONLY exists because of god.

                That claim is groundless without having first proven the existence of god.

                You further claim that the existence of morality is evidence of the existence of god.

                Methinks that perhaps your should examine the plank in your own eye, etc., when labelling others as indulging in fallacy or contradiction.

        • Psychotic Atheist

          How are you categorizing these written responses as not just loud but possibly the loudest?

          What points of dogma do you think we hold? Closed minded? I have believed more impossible things than you, I assert with a high degree of confidence.

      • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

        That’s because NOBODY likes trolls…

        • The Inconsistent Atheist

          You mean like atheists don’t like anyone pointing out the contradictions in their worldview?

          • islandbrewer

            Oooh, that would be great! Could you point out a contradiction, please?

            And, please use actual words, not links (unless they’re cited as sources, but your arguments should be in your comment), and write clearly and unambiguously. Vague airy arguments will not be taken seriously, and you forfeit the right to merely say “You don’t understand!”

          • Kodie

            That isn’t what you’re doing. Is that what you think you’ve been doing?

    • Michael W Busch

      Wells has cataloged in quite exhaustive detail what the Bible says. There is not much variation in tone possible in terms of “God killed this long list of people, while Satan killed only 10″.

  • Savoy47

    When God created Adam and Eve he told them that they could have everything except the knowledge of good and evil. He didn’t want them to be able to recognize him for the evil monster he is. At Sodom and Gomorrah he didn’t want any witnesses so he killed Lot’s wife for taking a look.

    • The Other Weirdo

      Evil monster compared to what? There was nothing else to compare God against back then. There was nobody out there he could have practiced his evil monsterism on. Are you suggest God knew through his own omniscience that he was an evil monster ahead of time?

      • Shadist

        It was all the maniacal laughter and stroking of a long haired white cat.

        Also the “I’ll show them… once I make them” was a dead give away.

        • Artor

          Don’t forget the mountaintop lair and the army of psychopathic minions.

  • Bob Becker

    Hey H, you on retainer from Amazon? Getting a cut of the action? Drunk with Blood is not an exclusive Amazon title. It’s available from Barnes and Noble as well.

    • PoodleSheep

      Amazon is just better. You can get food at a gas station, but it’s better to advise people to shop at a quality grocer.

      • Bob Becker

        Both vendors offer the e- book for the identical price of $7.95. Informing us readers that books like this are available is absolutely something H ought to be doing, a real service. . Pretending it’s available only at his preferred vendor is not.

      • NG

        Not everyone thinks Amazon isn’t better. I hate them for e-books because they’re in Amazon’s proprietary format. I prefer PDF or EPUB, except from Apple.

        However, I’m sure he lists Amazon because they pay for links to their store so when people buy from these links, the blog is supported. Lots of blogs and podcasts do this.

      • Artor

        B&N and Amazon are equally evil. Buy your books from a locally- owned bookstore, if there are any left after the big boys have taken over the market.

    • Matt D

      Thank you, I have a Nook HD, and I wasn’t going to buy it if only Amazon had it! If B&N has it, that’s a different story. Thanks for the heads up!

  • Larry Kearney

    2.8 million killed. Wow, that’s almost as many as they killed in the 6 seasons of Lost!

  • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

    …and this is the god that’s supposed to be loving?

    • http://nomadwarriormonk.blogspot.com/ Cyrus Palmer

      He killed those people because he loves them, duh!

      • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

        Funny, that’s the same excuse my abuser used…

        • http://nomadwarriormonk.blogspot.com/ Cyrus Palmer

          Sounds like he had a lot in common with God then. I’m sorry that happened to you. I hope he got his.

  • Mauro

    “But what is even more damning is their unspeakable cruelty and obvious immorality. If the killings described in this book actually happened, then the God of the Bible is not the kind of god that believers pretend him to be.”

    I take issue with the idea that the God of the Bible is supposed to be moral. Granted, I’m not a believer, but in any case, the text is pretty clear that (a) there is such a thing as morality, independent of God’s commandments, and (b) God himself is above such trifles. God is merciful? Bullshit. That’s wishful thinking on the part of the people who want his mercy. Ask those who were besieged in Jerusalem, eating their own shit and their own babies, whether God was merciful to them. But when people petition God, they say, “Hey, God, I’m in trouble, and you’re supposed to be merciful, so show me some o’ dat mercy, will ya?” If you read the Bible and don’t see that morality doesn’t even remotely apply to God, you’re not paying attention. This is hardly a situation that accepts multiple readings.

    God is not nice. God is a *god*. He’s meant to be *feared* and worshipped. If you don’t do exactly what he tells you, he will destroy you like he destroyed Nadav and Avihu for trying to even offer him something the wrong way, and like he destroyed Y’richo and S’dom and Amorah and presumably everyone else in your book. If you think otherwise, you’re not reading the Bible!

    That said, the New Testament paints a completely different picture, as do the Psalms and other Writings. If you only read selectively, you can come away with some nice notions about this deity the books go on about. Possibly.

    • GCT

      The difference in the NT is that god tortures you for eternity after he kills you. IOW, he’s no longer content to torture you just during your lifetime.

  • Mario Strada

    “David buys his first wife with 200 Philistine foreskins (Killing 70)”
    Wait. How does that work? He kills 70 and gets 200 foreskins? The remaining 130 came from where? Did he cheat and chopped them in pieces?
    And was a wife worth only 200 foreskins? What can you buy today with a foreskin adjusted for inflation? A Snickers bar maybe? I need to know.
    Also, my wife is interested in learning more about how this foreskin currency works. She claims I did not buy her with nearly enough foreskins and she wants the difference. With compounded interest!

    I can just imagine how happy David’s wife parents were when they got their payment. It reminds me of when my cat leaves dead birds and lizards at the foot of my bed. He is so very proud.

    • Max Freeman

      David was a real go-getter actually. If memory serves, the price for his wife was actually 100 foreskins, but to prove his uber-love he showed up with 200. Nothing says “I love you” quite like wanton slaughter and genital mutilation in the name of god.

      • 3lemenope

        Going the extra cubit for a hookup.

    • Nikita

      I believe that means it was killing number 70 in the book.

    • Derrik Pates

      Yeah, that got me as well, until I saw another one like that, and realized it was a citation.

  • Robster

    Talk about guilding the Lily, dressing this highly undesirable god creature as a loving sort of father figure. Their god sounds more disfunctional that an any other fictional character and what of all the worship nonsense? Really, it’s a bit like spending your life crawling. Even sadder considering the disfuctional fictional character doesn;t exist.

  • Dave G.

    Whew. These comments are like reading a six day creationist commenting on physics or geology. You get the impression they’re only paying attention to what they want to pay attention to, and ignoring the parts they want to.

    • GCT

      So, you’re willing to ignore the slaughter of countless people in favor of cherry-picking that one passage that you can interpret to meet our more advanced modern morality and then pretend that it came from the Bible all along while simultaneously pretending that you have an absolute morality? Got it.

    • 3lemenope

      Well, what’s the great excuse you’d like to provide for why we shouldn’t treat genocide like genocide? Which missing part makes it all OK?

    • Spuddie

      It would be profound if it were true. But sadly the atheists are usually the ones more willing to look at it in context, to take into account language translation issues and to point out the text warts and all.

      Selective citation and attention is part and parcel with the regular practice of worship and belief for all Abrahamic religions.

      Taking passages out of context, distorting their meaning and failing to apply the most basic critical scrutiny to the text is pretty much the accepted form of study for the Bible for those who believe it.

    • Guest

      Isn’t that how everybody reads the bile? Fungelicals read it looking for verses to clobber gays and women over the head with, as well as anything that can be twisted to support capitalism and warmongering. Meanwhile the nice liberal Christians skim over the nasty bits or dress them up as ‘metaphor’ and stress the peace, love and foodstamps for the poor.

  • Nick Wride

    According to the fables, this evil BEAST of a GAWD murdered the entire population of the planet, right down to the last innocent man, woman and child, except for Noah and his family. And they worship and honor this MONSTER?????

  • Nick Wride

    I was reading “The God Delusion” on an airplane when a flight attendant came and asked me if I would kindly put the book away, as it was offensive to someone halfway up the plane from me. I smiled at her and told her to go back to that person and ask him to kindly KISS MY ASS. His very existence is offensive to me and would he mind opening a door and jumping out of the F’n plane. She cracked up. I didn’t put the book away, needless to say.

  • The Inconsistent Atheist

    The author of this book and all the atheist commenters here are too funny. If God doesn’t exist, then everybody who was ever killed (or died for whatever reason), is just something that happened. Not right or wrong. Not good or bad. No purpose one way or another.

    No doubt the irony is lost on atheists. It is only by assuming God’s existence that they can condemn Him.

    • GCT

      So, you’re telling me that we can’t take on the assumptions of someone else’s argument and see where the conclusions lead? Are you for real? For someone who seems so smug, you should have thought about that for at least half a second before saying something so wrong.

      • The Inconsistent Atheist

        No, actually I think that “taking on the assumptions of someone else’s argument and see where the conclusions lead” is a great methodology. However, in this case it backfires on atheists, because if God exists and the Bible is true, then by definition everything He did is good. So either they have to believe in God and conclude that the killings are good, or not believe in God and have no reason to condemn Him (or Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc.).

        • GCT

          No, actually I think that “taking on the assumptions of someone else’s argument and see where the conclusions lead” is a great methodology.

          Then, given that you can certainly see that your original argument is defeated.

          However, in this case it backfires on atheists, because if God exists and the Bible is true, then by definition everything He did is good.

          This is a non sequitur. Have you never heard of Euthyphro’s dilemma?

          So either they have to believe in God and conclude that the killings are good, or not believe in God and have no reason to condemn Him (or Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc.).

          This is a false dichotomy. There is a lot of middle ground between absolute morality/command morality, and no morality at all. Again, before being smug, you should actually spend some time looking up these arguments and/or thinking about them. I know you’re a sock puppet and trying to make atheists look bad, but you’re only succeeding in making yourself look bad.

          • The Inconsistent Atheist

            Euthyphro’s dilemma is a false dilemma.

            Yes, I understand that there are other possibilities for morality (ie. “might makes right”). The problem is that people aren’t willing to be consistent with any of them.

            • GCT

              If Euthyphro’s dilemma is false, you’ll have to point out why.

              Thank you for admitting you used a false dichotomy. Now, your further claim that people are not consistent with any of them is either false or else holds true to the 2 that you claimed were the only options.

              • The Inconsistent Atheist

                Euthyphro Dilemma
                “Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?”

                Neither. What is morally good is morally good because of God’s nature.

                About the false dichotomy, I wasn’t clear before. My point is that either (1) God exists and there is a consistent view of morality, or (2) God doesn’t exist and there is no consistent view of morality. If you disagree, please provide your view of morality and we can discuss further.

                • RobMcCune

                  Saying what is morally good is good because of God’s nature is just as circular as saying what is morally good is good because God commands it.

                • The Inconsistent Atheist

                  Apparently you don’t understand the concept of who God is. He is the ultimate authority. If good isn’t good because of Him, there is no such thing as good.

                  Or perhaps you think good is determined by your authority?

                • GCT

                  You’ve gored yourself on one hook of Euthyphro’s dilemma.

                • RobMcCune

                  So you’re now basing good on god’s authority? I thought it was based on his nature, please be a consistent christian.

                • Kodie

                  What is good is determined by my authority, but also by collective agreement. You seem to think this is impossible? What is good for people is often bad for other living things. What is good for my kitchen is bad for mold, mice, and flies. What is good for me is nuts and milk because I don’t have allergies to nuts or dairy. What is good for me is that I can go outside and probably not get hit by a car, because licensed drivers are supposed to watch out for pedestrians, and I watch out for cars, so it seems to work out ok. We’re all in this together and we follow customs. It is customary to wait in line, we decided amongst ourselves, so that people are taken in the order of their arrival. Even though it is inconvenient, it is the fair system. It is also somewhat common for some people to pretend they are ahead of someone else by not seeing them or jump the line. They get a nasty stare. Sometimes, they are beaten up, but usually just a nasty stare. Beating someone up because they cut in line is a prosecutable offense, and can also get you banned from the store, highly inconvenient to risk it.

                  So we decided to be nice, even when someone cheats, we feel pain, but not worthy of exemption from assault charges. And anyway, the cutter is a jerk, but few people are that big a jerk because they can see the line is long, full of frustrated people, and we feel. Mostly we are selfish, but we don’t ordinarily cut a long line just because we like to. We don’t like to be the cause of someone else’s pain and aggravation. Society decided that fair is fair, if the line is long, you wait at the end of it, for as long as it takes, or put your shit down at the counter and go home with nothing.

                  That’s how we worked it all out. Nobody likes to wait in line – lines are dull and time-consuming. I suppose smartphones make this a little more entertaining, since you have few choices. Your choices are wait, cut, beat someone up, make people hate you, or go home with nothing. This is not determined by my authority. I prefer a short line. But god might prefer I wait at the end of a long line? This is good for god, this is the outcome he prefers for me? I don’t think he gives a rat’s ass. This is petty bullshit. We work this out ourselves for the most efficient and beatings-free outcome. Waiting in an orderly line is preferable to most people than a chaotic free-for-all with probable beatings.

                  You seem to think if god kills millions of people (as reported by his number 1 best-selling book), that is good – because he’s god. You are the inconsistent fool defending this sack of shit.

                • GCT

                  Neither. What is morally good is morally good because of God’s nature.

                  That’s meaningless and circular.

                  My point is that either (1) God exists and there is a consistent view of morality, or (2) God doesn’t exist and there is no consistent view of morality.

                  This is a false dichotomy. The existence or non-existence of god does not impact whether one can make a consistent moral code or not. The existence of god is not a necessary element for morality to exist any more than we need a god to have any other human concept.

        • Michael W Busch

          if God exists and the Bible is true, then by definition everything He did is good. So either they have to believe in God and conclude that the killings are good

          No. It’s a reason to say that the character of God in the Bible is not good, and that it is a good thing that the Bible is not truthful and said god does not exist.

        • MarkTemporis

          I’ve judged Lex Luthor, Voldemort, and King Joffrey to all be moral monsters too, and I don’t believe in any of them.

    • Kodie

      No doubt you missed the entire point.

      • The Inconsistent Atheist

        What, that atheists are inconsistent? No, I got that quite clearly.

        • RobMcCune

          It’s not about god, it’s about christianity’s claim of being a source of morality. Of course since inconsistent is the only accurate part of you name, you’ll say anything to dodge the point.

        • Kodie

          You didn’t get that from the article. You refuse to be horrified by the god you sincerely believe in, that’s what’s inconsistent – you think he is good, and you think you’re a better person for worshiping him. What you are is a sick fuck.

    • Humfree1859@yahoo.com

      Once again, you’ve got it wrong. The object of condemnation is not an imaginary fairy, but the people who believe in same without any real evidence. Purpose is not an obvious characteristic of the universe. Nor does randomness appear consistent with rationality and naturalistic investigation. The universe would seem to function in accord with how it is constituted, which we don’t fully comprehend, as yet. Perhaps, some day we will know more, but, as of now, there’s no reason to think that some mountain top little fictional entity will ever become verifiable. Although this comment is written in response to yours, I don’t think you are worth spending the time on. Your arguments have little clarity and twist on doubtful logic. I’m hoping that others who aren’t closed to honest discussion may read this and continue the exploration of Christianity’s inanity.

    • Michael W Busch

      What part of “in the Bible” was unclear?

      It is entirely possible to consider a fictional character and decide that said character is a moral monster without assuming that the character actually exists. This is not particularly complicated.

  • Humfree1859@yahoo.com

    The estimated number killed of about 25 million is dwarfed by just the numbers killed in national conflicts during the last millenia. For example, WWII killed was about 40 million. The biblical figures only make a large impact when you realize that this is mostly just the Middle East, and that the populations during those ancient times would have been small compared to today. Additional interesting statistics would provide percentages killed of the total populations in the cited actions. Yes, this was a bloody time.

    • trj

      Well, if we’re talking ratios, God clearly wins. No other genocidal dictator has ever come close to God’s record of eradicating 99.9999% of the human race.

      • Humfree1859@yahoo.com

        trj, you’re certainly right about Noah and the flood. You have to wonder if the supernatural fairy deity had some rationale for the existence of the original pair, if what it was going to do was to kill off all progeny except Noah and family. If the fairy had some purpose for Noah, couldn’t it have created Noah and group with the desired DNA-RNA complexity? But, then again, the fairy sees purposes that don’t make sense to us animals. I don’t ascribe any purpose to the universe except to function as it is constituted. I don’t find any evidence to require purpose or objectives from any entity. The fairy tale of the bible describes a terrible ogre. As you declared, a supreme genocidal dictator. But, it couldn’t do anything else, since the universe’s path is determined.

      • Canine_Expert

        ah, I read this quite well. At the time when the Romans destroyed the temple, over 1 million Jews died in the hands of the zealots, not by the Romans. Romans were camped outside. At the time of the Flood, there was indeed Giants reaching as high as 443 feet tall. No body yet found but they have found 1 being 30 feet tall. Hence those huge stone blocks found all around Israel is a testament of their existence. We have found human footprints dating to the time of the Dinosaurs. Wut??? Yep its there. So regarding the Flood we really do not know at all how many were alive at that time because this flood covered the entire globe not just one specific area. Wondering about Mt. Everest which goes up 6 miles into the sky!!!!!
        So my guess is that the Earth did a flip 190 degree at an angle. Its well known to science that such can happen.
        As of Sodom and Gemorrah, the evidence is obvious regarding its destruction and its well proven and exists to this day. There is no where 97% pure sulphur on earth found except at those spots as identified. A test was done and it still lights up but the gases it gives out is so strong you cannot breath. Temps reaching over 7,000 degrees is possible because those cities were sitting on a coal oil bed. Put two together and what have you got??? Definite inferno. Everything there practically was fused together into a ash state. How many died is unknown, but lots wife still stands today. My guess maybe perhaps 2 to 4 million.
        So if atheists do not want to believe in God, its their choice but at the end they will not have a choice. Here is what the Ancient of Days admitted in the Book of Enoch>>>
        1. Afterwards the Ancient of days repented, and said, In vain have I destroyed all the inhabitants of the earth.
        2. And he sware by his great name, saying, Henceforwards I will not act thus towards all those who dwell upon earth.
        3. But I will place a sign in the heavens; and it shall be a faithful witness between me and them for ever, as long as the days of heaven and earth last upon the earth.
        4. Afterwards, according to this my decree, when I shall be disposed to seize them beforehand, by the instrumentality of angels, in the day of affliction and trouble, my wrath and my punishment shall remain upon them, my punishment and my wrath, saith God the Lord of spirits.

        This is a warning and a admission from the Ancient of Days, and such is still being carried out to this modern times and it will occur by means of FIRE. Not water.
        If you people don’t know what is going to happen to you, I suggest you read the Book of Enoch. Its not in the Bible but a book all by itself. None of us will have any options or choice but only one and if not done, its bye bye >> forever!!!!
        You mentioned Satan here. We do know who the watchers were and of what happened to them (200). But the name of Satan himself was not identified but in the Book of Enoch the clues are there of his real name. This angelic being is the only one still allowed to roam freely upon the Earth until the appointed time, gets locked up for 1,000 years and again is released for the last time. Then is captured and put away forever.
        Keep in mind you cannot kill angelic beings as they are immortal.
        Even the Ancient of Days knows this. BUT the Ancient of Days has a remedy awaiting for them to solve the problem. If one can create something, that same creation can also have the antidote to stop something. Example. There is Radar that the police use and we have Radar detectors to warn us as we approach within its range. Same scenario regarding the Ancient of Days towards these immortal spirit beings..

  • kaydenpat

    Okay. God killed a lot of people in the Bible. Since atheists don’t believe in God, so what? Wouldn’t it be more productive to discuss how many people have been killed by racism, capitalism, communism, colonialism, the Holocaust, misogyny, etc.? Seems like a useless exercise. I’m sure you understand that Christians look at God as loving and aren’t shocked by these kinds of books.

    • Kodie

      They should be as shocked as they are that a gunman went into a school and killed 20 1st-graders. 20? That’s not so much.

      If they sincerely believe their god is good (and real), then why wouldn’t they be shocked? They must be sick in the head if they think he’s good. If I said I worshiped someone who killed way more children than that guy in Newtown, they would not hesitate to call me a sick fuck.

    • GCT

      God killed a lot of people in the Bible. Since atheists don’t believe in God, so what?

      When Xians stop pushing their beliefs on all others and stop trying to legislate their morality on all of us, then it won’t be a big deal.

      Wouldn’t it be more productive to discuss how many people have been killed by racism, capitalism, communism, colonialism, the Holocaust, misogyny, etc.?

      Ah, the old ‘there are other bad things out there too, so why focus on religion?’ It’s a terrible defense, because you’re flatly admitting that religion is bad and has a high death toll. You’ve jettisoned the idea that religion is good/worthwhile/moral and proved our point for us.

      I’m sure you understand that Christians look at God as loving and aren’t shocked by these kinds of books.

      Part of the problem is that many Xians don’t know about this stuff. They might be shocked if they knew about it. If they do know about it and aren’t shocked, then that’s a bigger issue.

      • Albert

        You said, “When Xians stop pushing their beliefs on all others and stop trying to
        legislate their morality on all of us, then it won’t be a big deal.”

        Are you willing to stop legislating for your morality as well?

        You said, “It’s a terrible defense, because you’re flatly admitting that religion is bad and has a high death toll.”

        Well, I guess that would depend on what you are looking at.

        To say you are doing something in the name of a religion(or in the name of anything really), you are basically saying you are acting in accordance with what that ‘thing’ is preaching. No different than the President sending an ambassador to another country to speak on his behalf, right?

        If that person that goes to another country says that his President said so and so, but that wasn’t what the President told him to tell them, then, though it might be saying, “I’m doing this in the name of President so and so!” He really isn’t acting in accordance with what the President would want, right?

        In other words he is acting on his own accord but giving credence to the President as authority or justification for those words or actions.

        Religion is no different. If someone goes out and kills people, but their religion doesn’t say for them to do that, then though they are saying they are doing it in the name of that religion, it’s not the religion that can be blamed but that individual or group of people on their own.

        Would you agree?

        You said, “Part of the problem is that many Xians don’t know about this stuff. They might be shocked if they knew about it. If they do know about it and aren’t shocked, then that’s a bigger issue.”

        What ‘stuff’ are you meaning specifically?

        • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

          I for one am fine with people advocating for their morality. I just want them to give a rational basis.

          “I think gay sex is icky so gay people should not be allowed to get married” is fine. I don’t agree, but it’s an argument I’ll consider. There are a lot of things we prohibit people from doing simply because most of us think they’re icky.

          “My God says gay people should not be allowed to get married” isn’t a meaningful argument since I’m fairly sure your God is a figment of your imagination. You shouldn’t be required to consider my arguments from imagination either.

          • Albert

            If someone said, “Gay people should not be allowed to marry because it is encouraging sexual relations between two people in a way their bodies were never intended to be used. It’s unnatural.”
            Though you might disagree with this argument, would this be an argument you might consider?

            • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

              Maybe ‘consider’ isn’t quite the right word. I feel like I’ve already considered it. I can’t say the argument doesn’t belong at the table.

              What I think is that arguments that are only “My God says” have no place at the table. If a position happens to coincide with “My God says” then fine. The real problem with it is that it can’t be debated. If someone else’s god says something else, where are we? We’re no longer arguing the merits of the original thing, but which god is real, or more right.

              If a rule is good for society, then surely one should be able to argue for it beyond “My God”.

              • Albert

                You said, “The real problem with it is that it can’t be debated. If someone
                else’s god says something else, where are we? We’re no longer arguing
                the merits of the original thing, but which god is real, or more right.”

                But don’t we do that with any argument? If the basis for their argument is invalid, regardless if it is a god or a scientific theory, if it holds no water, then it’s dismissed, right?

                The key though is to first make sure that all arguments on the table should be there. Then, we take those arguments, regardless of where they are and then make a choice based on those. Does it take longer? Sometimes, but that is the point of debating points. To come to what is true above all, right?

                You said, “If a rule is good for society, then surely one should be able to argue for it beyond “My God”.”

                I would tend to agree. There is no reason we can’t find reasons outside of “My God said…” for our arguments. Though I believe in Jesus as God and what he claimed, I don’t use the bible in my arguments for the most part because of the exact reason you are stating. I like to try and keep the issue the issue. The funny thing is, when I leave it out, most people can sense I’m talking from that world view and they bring it in to the conversation, not to debate it but to dismiss my view.

                • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

                  when I leave it out, most people can sense I’m talking from that world view and they bring it in to the conversation, not to debate it but to dismiss my view

                  Then make an argument they can’t dismiss. I think if it’s a good one, they can’t.

                • Albert

                  I do my best to do that every time. The fact that the origin might come from a Christian worldview does not automatically negate it as invalid.

                  But I do agree that I can stay more on subject if I leave the bible out of it. Not that it doesn’t have a good basis for the arguments presented, but because it alleviates the tangents. For a while at least.

                • Anna

                  But if you can’t make an argument that doesn’t ultimately refer back to the supernatural, then I would argue that is an invalid argument.

            • Anna

              “Intended?” Intended by whom? That sounds like a thinly-veiled religious argument to me.

              Besides, there is nothing gay couples do in bed that straight couples don’t also do, so it’s a nonstarter. Straight couples aren’t interrogated about their sexual practices before they’re allowed to marry, either.

              • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

                I agree on “intended”- but you know I’m not arguing about sex or marriage. It’s a stand-in for “things for which religious arguments are made”.

                Maybe I should have used “buy alcohol on Sunday”

                • Albert

                  Anna proved my point exactly.

                  And the points on certain parts being “intended” can be argued. But that is for a different discussion, not the one we are having.

              • Albert

                You said, “That sounds like a thinly-veiled religious argument to me.”

                That was the whole point of the statement. Not using the word ‘God’ doesn’t mean you are not basing your views on them. But to mention ‘God’ doesn’t negate an argument any more than any other argument. They have to have merit regardless of where they come from.

                You said, “Besides, there is nothing gay couples do in bed that straight couples don’t also do, so it’s a nonstarter.”

                That may very well be. but the point wasn’t to debate what people do, but rather why should gays not be allowed to marry. what is done in the bedroom is not an argument for or against same-sex marriage.

                • Anna

                  How can you use the words “intended” or “God” in an argument without it being a religious argument? If it’s not a religious argument, then it’s necessary to leave out the supernatural element.

                • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

                  The problem word there was “intended” which I think implies an intender. The problem is, that kind of verbiage is used all the times in non-God situations. e.g. an audio description of a Hornbill at the zoo told me what the big bump on the beak “was for”. Well, it’s not really “for” anything- the bird uses it for things.

                  So I kind of internally re-worded it as:

                  “Gay people should not be allowed to marry because it is encouraging sexual relations between two people in a way that bothers me. It’s unnatural.”

                  Probably my mistake in doing that much re-thinking rather than jumping on “intended”.

                • Albert

                  You said, “The problem word there was “intended” which I think implies an intender.”

                  Why is that a problem?

                  Would you say that eyes have an intended purpose?

                  What about pollen, does that have an intended purpose?

                  What about ears or plants? How about water or wind?

                  I could be wrong in my reading of what you wrote, but are you suggesting that anything that has an “intended” purpose has an intender?

                  If so, I would think this really supports a intelligent designer worldview more than anything, don’t you?

                  Your Hornbill example…. What is the difference between the bump being used for something rather than the bird just uses it for things? I’m not seeing the difference there.

                  Are our eyes used for something rather than we just use our eyes for things? To me, I see it as the same thing. Perhaps, I not understanding your point.

                • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

                  No, eyes don’t have an ‘intended’ purpose. We use them for seeing, but I don’t think that anyone or thing decided that we would have an organ capable of sensing a specific range of wavelengths.

                  I could be wrong in my reading of what you wrote, but are you suggesting that anything that has an “intended” purpose has an intender?

                  If it has an ‘intended’ purpose, then the intent must come from somewhere. As Dawkins frequently says, nature has the great illusion of design. Natural selection makes it look like our current evolved eye was intended to detect light. But evolutionary evidence (largely eyes in other stages of evolution from other organisms) shows us that eyes have evolved with the usefulness of detecting light.

                  The evidence is that there is no intent. Just natural selection of traits that make it more likely that an organism will pass on those traits, perhaps with slight modification.

                  I don’t deny the possibility of intent. But of all the myriad complex systems in biology, most of them have evolutionary explanations. Not all, but I prefer to not make assumptions that if we don’t know the answer now, it must be intent. If an intent is ever found, great. But it shouldn’t be “well, we don’t know, so it must be intent”.

                  And after my rambling:

                  What is the difference between the bump being used for something rather than the bird just uses it for things?

                  Maybe I messed up my example. “The bump is for” and “The bump is used for” are two different things. What the bird does with the bump is what we know. That someone or something made the decision that the bump would exist for a purpose is what we don’t know.

                • Albert

                  Thanks for the clarification. I now have a better understanding of what you were meaning.

                  The question I have though is you said, “No, eyes don’t have an ‘intended’ purpose.”, how do you know that?

                • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

                  Because by observing eyes in other stages of evolution, we can come up with a very strong explanation for how eyes evolved that doesn’t include an intent.

                  And in fact if you add intent, it seems like you have to then use intent to explain a lot of other things. Are wings ‘intended’ for flying? But an Ostrich uses its wings to shade its young. And what is the intent of genes (that we all have, albeit usually inactive) that cause some rare humans to be born with tails?

                  But in that I can’t prove there is no intent I don’t actually know. To be more accurate, I say it with a high degree of certainty.

                • C.L. Honeycutt

                  Your Hornbill example…. What is the difference between the bump
                  being used for something rather than the bird just uses it for things?
                  I’m not seeing the difference there.

                  Are our eyes used for something rather than we just use our eyes for
                  things? To me, I see it as the same thing. Perhaps, I not understanding
                  your point.

                  Our language heavily revolves around metaphors based on anthropomorphization. This is natural, since we instinctively look for social cues from other people, and even, quite often, imagine other people from whom to gather social cues.

                  So when we say, “the beak is designed to crack snail shells”, we don’t literally mean that someone designed it to do that, despite the implications of the word. That’s just anthropomorphization. It’s a necessary shorthand to convey the idea of the beak arising naturally through a process both simple and complex, a give-and-take with the species’ environment over a long period of time.

                  In the same manner, the hornbill’s bump is not “for” anything in a literal sense. Again, it’s a shorthand way of describing the gradual arising of useful features. We just lack the linguistical tools to convey these ideas quickly without resorting to metaphor.

                  Now switch “intended” for “designed” and you’ll see the similarity. It’s just that, really, we don’t have all that many common words to work with, so they have to pull double duty with metaphorical and idiomatic meanings. When the French refer to L’esprit de L’escalier, the “Spirit of the Staircase”, they don’t literally mean that there’s a spirit, or even stairs (and in fact it translates better idiomatically as “staircase wit”.) It’s just a quick and pretty way of saying that people often think of the perfect rejoinder after an argument is already over and they’ve left the vicinity.

                  Now, the reason this is important is that many if not all of we atheists here have been treated to the argument that goes something like, “If you say a biological feature was ‘designed’, you’re admitting that there’s a designer.” This is just sloppy thinking and a lack of understanding of communication on the part of the person making the argument. Sadly, it happens enough that it needs to be nipped in the bud early.

                • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

                  I’m not understanding your point. We use eyes for sight because they’re the organ that developed in order to take in sensory input in the visual spectrum. We also use them to flirt, to convey emotions ranging from disgust to ecstasy, to express our artistry by decorating them through contact lenses and/or makeup, to point people towards points of interest by shifting our gaze, to express our higher or lower social ranking, and many other socially mediated forms of communication. What are eyes’ intended purpose to you? Is it seeing things, or communicating things, or being decorated?

                  Same with all of the above. Things exist, but they aren’t intended to do anything. Our sexual organs aren’t intended for anything- we can use them for pleasure, we can use them for procreation, we can use them for both. We can do anal and oral and digital and PIV and a great many other variations on sex, none of which has anything at all to do with the societal contract known as marriage. I would listen to an argument that said marriage was for “intended sex”, but I wouldn’t know what that meant, and I’d probably dismiss it shortly thereafter as ignorant and absurd.

                • Albert

                  The word intended is not synonymous with religion.

                  If you are arguing against the way a spoon is being used, you might say that using it as a hammer is not using it as it was intended. There is no religion involved in that type of argument.

                  You said, ” If it’s not a religious argument, then it’s necessary to leave out the supernatural element.”

                  Why? Can’t you have a debate about things outside of religion, such as fairies or unicorns? Those things would be considered supernatural in a sense and they don’t have to be tied to religion, do they?

                • Anna

                  Then please explain. Intended by whom? If you are claiming that someone intends for the human body to be used a certain way, who is that person? If this is a non-supernatural argument, then please provide a non-supernatural answer to that question. Hammers and spoons were created by human beings. Who were people created by?

                  I’m confused by the rest of your comment. You claim it’s not a supernatural argument, so why are you mentioning supernatural things? I’m not sure where fairies or unicorns figure into it, but they’re not relevant to the discussion either. If you tried to argue against gay marriage using fairies or unicorns, that would be just as supernatural as using deities.

          • Anna

            I’m not really sure that follows. Why is “icky” an argument people should consider? We don’t normally ban practices based purely on “ick” factor. There tends to be a harmful component to them, or at least a case that can be made for one.

            Besides, the “icky” argument would be a reason to ban gay sex, not gay marriage. Gay people will have sex regardless. Plus, it seems awfully tangential. Gay or straight, no one else has to see or hear about a married couple’s sex life. Public sex is already illegal.

            • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

              “We don’t normally ban practices based purely on “ick” factor.”

              Public nudity.
              Certain words over the air.

              (I’m sure I could come up with more)

              “Besides, the “icky” argument would be a reason to ban gay sex, not gay marriage.”

              Sure, but I’m trying to focus on the difference between faith based arguments and personal feeling arguments. I think personal feeling is a valid argument, just not necessarily a persuasive argument. I think faith isn’t a valid argument (and is usually a substitute for personal feeling anyway).

              I don’t care what someone’s god feels, but I do care what other people feel, even though I’m unlikely to think other peoples’ behavior should be controlled by it.

              • Anna

                Isn’t public nudity more related to hygiene? You have a point about profanity, although as far as I know that’s a matter of broadcast standards rather than law. It’s perfectly legal to use any words you want on HBO.

                I’m not really sure about the “personal feeling” argument. I don’t think it’s sufficient to make something illegal, no matter how strongly the person feels about it. I detest onions, but I think it would be hard to argue that onions should be banned simply because I have a strong personal feeling. Onions aren’t actually harming me in any way.

                • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

                  No, I don’t think nudity has anything to do with hygiene. If it did the rules would be gender neutral. And profanity is medium based. It’s permitted in many places, and not in a few (including online and often in public places with ‘reckless disregard for children’).

                  Another example I’ve used on here before is necrophilia where the deceased gave permission while alive. No victims, but I’m betting most of us would be freaked out enough by the idea to want it to be illegal.

                  I think there’s a nuance that I’m not expressing well. (which maybe means I’m wrong) I actually don’t think nudity or profanity should be illegal. The “personal feeling” argument isn’t persuasive to me either at least in those cases. I just think it’s a valid argument.

                  Oh maybe this: If you say you don’t like onions, maybe I can’t prove it, but it’s reasonable for me to take your word for it. If you say God doesn’t like onions, nobody can prove it. You’d be saying you know something that you can’t really know.

                • Anna

                  Well, there is “no shirt, no shoes, no service.” Of course there’s a double standard because Americans are freaked out by breasts, but nudity below the waist is certainly a matter of hygiene. I’m unaware of many actual laws about profanity, but maybe there are some that I haven’t heard about. You’re right about necrophilia, and I suppose you could add consensual cannibalism to that list, too.

                  I think I get where you’re going, but I’m just not sure I agree with the “valid argument” part. I might understand if certain people see gay marriage as icky, but to me that’s not a valid argument against it. It’s valid to them, maybe, like detesting onions is valid to me, but it’s not an argument that is valid in the sense that anyone else in society is required to take it seriously. Strong personal feelings against onions or gay sex should have no bearing on public policy.

                • Albert

                  So strong personal feelings against harming another human beings should also have no bearing on public policy, right?

                  Just because you don’t like harming other people doesn’t mean others should not be allowed to do so, right?

                • Anna

                  What on earth are you talking about? We define what’s legal or illegal based on harm. That’s the standard. Personal dislike isn’t the standard; harm is.

              • Albert

                I agree with the top portion of your comment.

                Below is in regards to your religion/god comment:
                This is totally a genetic fallacy though. You would be dismissing an argument based on it’s origin and not based on the argument itself.

                Perhaps instead of using intended, I could use the word function instead.
                In other words, “Gay people should not be allowed to marry because it encourages the use of the sexual organs outside their natural function.”

                • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

                  ou would be dismissing an argument based on it’s origin and not based on the argument itself.

                  I can’t tell which of my replies you’re replying to. But my position is that “God says so” isn’t actually an argument. “I don’t like it” is IMO a very weak argument, but an argument.

                  In this particular example, I think “natural function” is perhaps an argument (I’m honestly a bit undecided but time is limited), but a weak one since it’s assuming that reproduction is the only “natural function” of sex organs. Since we use them for other things (e.g. masturbating) they have other “natural functions” besides procreation. To assume procreation gets us back to the intent idea.

                  Edit: Oh, from the email notice I can see which one you’re referring to. I hope my statement that I don’t think God derived arguments are actually arguments makes my point. Not that you need to agree of course, but my position. And I don’t think I’m dismissing anyone, I’m more than happy to entertain an argument that coincides with something you think God says.

                • Albert

                  Sorry, I noticed that too after I posted it. I edited the comment after the fact.

                  Why is “God says so” not an actual argument? Isn’t this a presumption on your part?

                  I say that because if God is real, then the arguments could very well be valid and those arguments could actually be stronger than other arguments if God does exist. But you don’t know he exists, rather you presume he doesn’t.

                  You said, “…but a weak one since it’s assuming that reproduction is the only “natural function” of sex organs.”

                  And then you said, “Since we use them for other things (e.g. masturbating) they have other “natural functions” besides procreation. To assume procreation gets us back to the intent idea.”

                  I could say the same thing about masturbating, that you are assuming that’s a natural function.

                  I will tell you why I believe masturbation is an assumed natural function.

                  Sex is pleasurable. The pleasure gained from sex brings couples together. it’s part of the reason men pursue a partner. Marriage is basically a sexual contract between a man and a woman. That is at it’s basic form. The attractions felt by both parties can produce long lasting unions which in turn can produce offspring to increase the community. The family unit is created which builds society. This is why the government acknowledges them.

                  If masturbation is a ‘natural function’, as you presume, then it expels sperm which its only function is to fertilize a woman’s eggs. This causes sperm to not preform it’s natural function. You have created a broken system.

                  During masturbation, the male feels the same feelings as if he was engaging in sexual intercourse with a woman. The male ejaculates just as he would if he was engaging in sexual intercourse with a woman. His body responds in the same manor as if he was engaging in sexual intercourse with a woman. But masturbation is only imitating the actual natural function of sexual intercourse. Maybe men will feel empty and depressed after masturbation. The connection they were after is not there.
                  For a woman, when she orgasms, her body releases a chemical called Oxytocin “bonding hormone”, that produces a stronger connection to the person she is mating with. If there is no mate, the connection is not made and she gets a false sense of connection.

                  This disconnect in both people actually damages relationships and pushes people away from each other. There have also been studies that have shown physical and psychological problems from masturbation. Though I don’t know how conclusive the evidence is, so I only mention it in passing. Don’t take is as hard evidence.

                  Can you preform other functions with your sexual organs? Sure, but that doesn’t make them natural.

                  In other words, just because many people masturbate doesn’t make it a natural function.

                  I think I have shown that the function I’m describing as procreation reveals itself even in other functions that are preformed, i.e. masturbation ad it imitates procreation.

                • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

                  I’ll grant that reproduction is an essential use of sex organs. But if that’s an argument against marriage equality, then it’s also an argument against any kind of sex that doesn’t procreate- even sex by infertile people. But I think it’s all detracting from “what is (valid) argument”.

                  Let’s try this: I want to argue for the banning of onions.

                  I could say “My friend Anna says nobody should eat onions”

                  You’d probably say, “ok, why does Anna say that”?

                  “IDK, she just said it was an abomination and don’t do it”

                  I’m hoping you’d say “Well, if Anna wants to give a reason, then great, I’ll consider it”.

                  Or I could say: “the idea that someone is eating onions causes me great personal discomfort”

                  And I hope you’d say “Well, I’m sorry to hear that, but we have to measure your discomfort against the joy that people get from eating onions. Is your discomfort (and those who agree with you) so great that it outweighs the rights of others to eat onions?”

                  And I hope you’d agree that it would take a great deal of discomfort by a great many of people to take away the rights of the onion eaters. Like the level of discomfort associated with voluntary cannibalism.

                  Or I could say: “Eating onions is harmful to your health”
                  To which I’m hoping you’d ask for evidence.

                  “It bothers me” is an argument I’ll consider. You telling me it bother Anna, when I have serious doubts that Anna exists isn’t an argument I’ll consider. Especially when it’s very possible that someone else will come along and say “Hank says everyone should eat an onion a day!”

                • Albert

                  You said, “But I think it’s all detracting from “what is (valid) argument”.”

                  My understanding is for it to be a valid argument, the conclusion has to follow from the premises. You can’t have anything in the conclusion that isn’t already set up in the premises.

                  Would you agree?

                  You said, “But if that’s an argument against marriage equality, then it’s also an argument against any kind of sex that doesn’t procreate- even sex by infertile people.”

                  My argument is not against marriage equality, as I believe we already have that, but against same-sex marriage. I made that distinction because I believe it is important.

                  Some points to understand:
                  1) Marriage is already equal (your marriage equality above) for all citizens. We all have the same rights and restrictions in regards to marriage. Just as a homosexual male is allowed to marry a woman, I too, being male, can marry a woman. Just as a homosexual male is not allowed to marry another male, I too, am not allowed to marry another male. The allowances and the restrictions are equally applied to every citizen. The fact that they are unfavorable to homosexuals does not make then unequal rights.
                  2) Homosexuals can already walk down an aisle in front of friends and family and proclaim their undying love for each other and commit to stay with the other person for the rest of their lives. They don’t need any government intervention for this to already happen. And there are many companies that cater to these types of ceremonies. All the while without government approval or acknowledgement. So homosexuals can already get married.
                  3) Not everyone can marry the person the love. If I love my neighbors wife, I can’t marry her as she is already married. Plus love is not required for someone to get a marriage license in any State in the Union.

                  I state those because they are all invalid arguments for same-sex marriage.

                  The argument I do put forth is that marriage is something specific. And that the reasons it is specific do not fit a same-sex union, therefore marriage should not be redefined to include same-sex unions.

                  The intended purpose for marriage is to create the building blocks of society, our next generation; in other words, kids. Government recognized that opposite sex coupling CAN produce the next generation because of the natural teleology of the sexual organs functionality when brought together. Government does not pry to see if the couple can have or want to have children. They are not concerned with whether the couple does produce children, but that they could, based on their natural function. Because of procreation they chose to encourage them by providing benefits that they don’t any other type of union. The intent with regards to the government is to encourage procreation in these family units in order to strengthen society and produce the next generation.

                  Same-sex couplings do not fit the intended teleology of marriage, therefore it is wrong to allow them to get married under the law.

                  I say wrong, not in the moral sense but wrong in intent. I’ll explain:
                  If I intend to go from Albuquerque to Denver, which is to the North of Albuquerque, but I get in my car and start heading south towards the Mexican border you can see that I’m going in the wrong direction. But, of course, the word “wrong” here means that I am not moving towards my goal. I am not accomplishing the goal that I intended to accomplish. I am actually moving in a way that’s inconsistent with my goal, and therefore we can call it the wrong direction. This isn’t a moral “wrong” in this illustration, but notice how you can understand right or wrong in terms of teleology, depending on what the goal is.

                  Males were not intended to have sex with other males, and we can tell that by the way sexual organs appear to be intended to function. Even in your mentioning masturbation, as I pointed out in my previous post, that it is imitating the natural function of sexual intercourse. By this example, we show that men were not intended to have sex with other males, and when they do, they are violating their natural teleology, their natural function.

                  Same-sex unions are wrong in regards to the teleology of marriage. Since it doesn’t fit, government has no reason to acknowledge or encourage those types of unions.

                  In regards to your onion argument, You said, “You telling me it bother Anna, when I have serious doubts that Anna exists isn’t an argument I’ll consider.”

                  You were doing real good up until you said that. Then you went from logic, reasoning and evidence to a genetic fallacy.

                  You are dismissing the argument based on it’s origin, not on the argument itself.

                  You went on to say, “Especially when it’s very possible that someone else will come along and say “Hank says everyone should eat an onion a day!” ”

                  And Hanks argument, whether he exists or not would also have to be considered based on the argument itself, not the origin of that argument.

                  Anna (let’s say she doesn’t exist) could have very good logical reasons for not eating onions that make this a sound judgement to enforce not eating onions. But Hank(who we know exists) could be completely biased and doesn’t care about anyone else but his own desire to continue to eat opinions, gives nothing by emotion appeals as his reason to allow eating of onions.

                  To say, “Because I don’t know Anna exists I am going with what Hank wants.” Is not being intellectually honest to the evidence presented. In fact, it’s being willfully dismissive of the evidence because of your own personal presumptions.

                • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

                  My understanding is for it to be a valid argument, the conclusion has to follow from the premises. You can’t have anything in the conclusion that isn’t already set up in the premises.

                  Would you agree?

                  I’m tired, but that sounds ok. You not liking something is a premise we can agree on. God not liking something is a premise we can’t agree on. At least not until God tells me the same thing.

                  Beyond that, I’ve had the marriage equality debate too many times over the last five years and more. There’s nothing new in what you’re saying, and I’m sure you can predict my replies. Normally I do it because I think it’s important to show support for things I believe in. But on this particular forum, on a thread this old, it would be a monumental waste of our time.

                • Kodie

                  1) Marriage is already equal (your marriage equality above) for all
                  citizens. We all have the same rights and restrictions in regards to
                  marriage. Just as a homosexual male is allowed to marry a woman, I too,
                  being male, can marry a woman. Just as a homosexual male is not allowed
                  to marry another male, I too, am not allowed to marry another male. The
                  allowances and the restrictions are equally applied to every citizen.
                  The fact that they are unfavorable to homosexuals does not make then
                  unequal rights.

                  That’s not marriage equality. Why is a man allowed to marry a woman, but a woman can’t?

                • Albert

                  Equality in rights means they are applied to everyone the same. That being said, so are all the restrictions applied equally.

                  Handicapped laws are all equally applied to every citizen. You can enjoy those privileges, such as handicapped parking spots as long as you meet the requirements of that right. If you don’t, then you can enjoy them. The right itself, is equally applied across the board.

                  I find it unfavorable that I can’t park in those spaces when I can’t find one close to the entrance. Makes no difference, the right is applied equally to everyone.

                  Every citizen is allowed to get issued a driver’s license ones they meet the criteria for those laws. My son finds it unfavorable that he can’t get one for another year, even though he is a good driver. Makes no difference, the right is applied equally to everyone.

                  Marriage is no different. If you meet the criteria, you can enjoy those privileges. If not, then you can’t. Two 12 years old kids, though they might want to get married, can’t. But the law is applied to them just as equally as it is to me at 47.
                  There is nothing stopping a lesbian woman from marrying. She just has to follow the same criteria that everyone else does. The fact that this is unfavorable makes no difference, the right is applied equally to everyone.

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                  The ADA was designed to allow disabled people the same access to public accommodations as able-bodied people have. It’s not “special treatment” to reasonably accommodate our needs.

                • jejune

                  How come I am not surprised that he also holds bigoted, hateful views towards those who do not engage in procreative sex and traditional marriage?

                • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

                  Actually reasonable accommodation. As Penn and Teller ironically pointed out in their Libertarian dreamland version of how horrid the ADA is, you can’t require a restaurant to accommodate your iron lung.

                  Oh, you said ‘reasonably’. My reading skill fail. I’l leave this anyway because I’ve been waiting too long to ref that P&T episode.

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                  Yeah… I’m not sure how one would accommodate an iron lung, reasonably or otherwise. Take-out, maybe?

                  All I want is enough room to enter/exit the vehicle, ramps and lifts where needed, and everything else to simply be within reach from a wheelchair. Is that really asking for too much?

                • Kodie

                  You can’t really follow the bouncing ball, can you? There is no reason why gay people are restricted from marrying homosexually. Ask yourself why you are against it, because it’s the law? Why can a man marry a woman but a woman can’t? That makes it unequal and we live in a democracy, so inequalities can be addressed. I mean, you’re 47 years old, this should be easy to figure out.

                  How come if I want to marry someone I love, it has to be a man? I clearly do not have the same rights men have.

                • Kodie

                  I think you are making an argument for “separate but equal”. Welcome to 1954.

                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Board_of_Education

    • tatoo

      Yes, let’s discuss how many christians killed, or how many people died because of religious intolerance. But, if god did it also, then it must be all right.

  • http://www.timmcneely.com/ Timothy J. McNeely

    Since God is sovereign over Satan ever those 60 death belong to God. My advice is fear God!

  • Mae Mills

    The fact being that men wrote the scriptures, they no doubt kept a score card on deaths, too.
    They may have also exaggerated on size after circumcision.
    I am a 60year old, Atheist on my fifth day since dropping the God character because of killing babies. I have two deceased baby boys. The writers have some mental issues. God is only a character in those pages.

    • Albert

      Firstly, let me tell you I am so sorry for the loss of your two deceased baby boys. I have three kids of my own and I can’t imagine how hard that must be for you and your family.

      What do you mean because of killing babies?
      How does that make God only a character in those writings?

  • He_IS_Risen

    I’ll give you a number. 53 million abortions since 1973. That’s 53 million murders in America alone.

    • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

      Incorrect. That’s 53 million times a woman has freed herself, safely, from an unwanted pregnancy. That’s 53 million times a woman has not been enslaved to the fetus within her. At current maternal mortality rates (which have actually dropped significantly since then, so this is a HUGE underestimate), that’s 10,600 women who haven’t died, tens of thousands more who avoided almost dying, and millions who avoided complications leading to permanent health issues.

      • Albert

        If I drove a car KNOWING that the brakes might give out, I am responsible for the consequences if they fail while I am driving the car.

        If I take all of the precautions to stay on less crowded streets and not go too fast, then my chances of crashing into someone have been reduced. But the fact remains that if my brakes are bad and give out there is a possibility of me ending up in an accident.

        I am accepting the consequences if I choose to drive the car.

        If I do end up driving into a parking lot and hitting another car, I can’t simply say, “I never intended to hit your car, therefore I am not responsible for paying for any damage to you or your car.” Sorry, it doesn’t work that way.

        It’s the same thing with sexual intercourse.

        If a woman and a man choose to engage in sexual intercourse they are accepting all the consequences that come along with that action. The fact that they don’t want to get pregnant is besides the point.

        If they take all the precautions they can, including getting a vasectomy and the woman getting her tubes tied, and still get pregnant, they are still responsible of any consequences of their action to engage in sexual intercourse.

        They can’t simply say, “I never intended to get pregnant therefore I don’t have to have to deal with the consequences.”

        We are not allowed to absolve ourselves of our own responsibilities, whether it be in a car or from consensual sex.

        Science states that a unique individual human being is created at conception. – “Human development begins at fertilization when a sperm fuses with an oocyte to form a single cell, a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.[Chapter 2 p.14 – First Week of Human Development - The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology : Authors - Keith Lean Moore, Trivedi V. N. Persaud, Mark G. Torchia : Edition 9, illustrated, reprint : Publisher Elsevier/Saunders, 2013 ISBN 1437720021, 9781437720020]”

        If we are to have true equal rights for all human beings then we must include all human beings, not just those we deem as equally valuable.

        If the unborn is not a human person, no justification for abortion is necessary. However, if the unborn is a human person, no justification for abortion is adequate.

        • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

          You are incorrect. Pregnancy is not a punishment for sex. To look at an embryo or fetus as a pregnancy not only reduces the woman the object of walking incubator, it reduces that fetus to the object of punishment for sexual intercourse. You’re dehumanizing everyone involved. Don’t do that.

          Consent to sex is also not consent to pregnancy. A better analogy would be skiing. Skiing is an activity with known risks, but that doesn’t mean people who consent to ski also consent to break their legs while doing so. You would say that because someone skied, they should just deal with the broken leg- no treatment, no splinting, just agonizing pain as they hop down the slope, followed by permanent limp and pain from an unset bone. After all, they “consented” to the risk of a broken leg, right? Of course, that’s absurd. We treat broken legs, no matter how stupidly someone was acting while skiing (going too fast down a triple black? You’re an idiot, but we’ll still fix it). Well, the treatment for unwanted pregnancy is abortion. It doesn’t matter if someone was stupid (no contraception, etc), we will still treat it. Having an abortion is taking responsibility for one’s actions by not bringing an unwanted child into the world.

          And no, science doesn’t say a unique individual human being is created at conception. It says that the zygote is human, which is known. The concept of personhood is not one determined by science- what science does tell us is that a fetus isn’t developed enough to even feel pain until 22-24 weeks and that an embryo and a fetus behave exactly like certain inimical parasites with all the implications that has for a woman’s wellbeing (ie, very bad for her health). I say let a woman decide for herself if she wants to host a parasite that will probably turn into a person. Coercing her is taking her body from her for the benefit of another- we call that slavery, usually.

          What rights theory tells us is no person is more special than any other person- no one has the right to use your organs against your will. No one can take a kidney or a liver lobe or bone marrow from you against your will. They can’t take even any blood. Hell, we even don’t take organs from corpses, preferring to respect their bodily autonomy from when they were alive over saving the lives of actually alive people. Why should a fetus, which you claim is a person like any other, get to steal a woman’s blood, organs, and nutrients against her will, when no person can do as much, even if they’ll die without a new liver or kidney or bone marrow transplant or blood transfusion? You are literally giving a dead woman more rights to her body than a living one. Think about that for a second.

          • Albert

            You said, “Pregnancy is not a punishment for sex.”

            Good, we agree. It’s a consequence of sex.

            You said ,”To look at an embryo or fetus as a pregnancy not only reduces the woman the object of walking incubator, it reduces that fetus to the object of punishment for sexual intercourse.”

            I wasn’t looking at a embryo or fetus as a pregnancy. I was looking at it as a unique individual human being. And I never said it was a punishment, I said it was a consequence of sexual intercourse.

            Webster’s dictionary defines consequence as: “something that happens as a result of a particular action or set of conditions”

            You said, “Consent to sex is also not consent to pregnancy.”

            You consent to the possibility of pregnancy once you engage in sexual intercourse. It’s part of the risk factor of that action.

            You said, “A better analogy would be skiing.”

            You are missing what I’m saying with my analogy.

            Once you know that a risk of skiing is the possibility of braking a leg and you choose to do that action, then you are accepting those consequences if they happen. You can’t go out there and ski and know that you will not break your leg. If it does happen, you can’t say, “No, I don’t accept that consequence!” and your leg automatically heal. It doesn’t work that way.

            And the same for pregnancy. You might not want to get pregnant, but it is a possible consequence from engaging in sexual intercourse.

            You said, “We treat broken legs, no matter how stupidly someone was acting while skiing (going too fast down a triple black? You’re an idiot, but we’ll still fix it).”

            Yes, we do treat broken legs. But they don’t just disappear. They have to take time to heal. You are not absolving yourself from having a broken leg. You still have to give it time to heal and will have to deal with crutches and the like.

            That is NOT the same thing that you do when you have an abortion.

            With an abortion, you are absolving yourself of that consequence. This would be as if the broken leg was taken away as if it never happened. The next day you are out there playing basketball.

            You are also terminating the life of another human being in the process. A human being who could possibly even be a newly created woman who’s rights to say what happens to her body is being taken away by you. This is not equal rights. This is putting the rights of one person over another.

            You said, “And no, science doesn’t say a unique individual human being is created at conception.”

            I just showed you a quote from professionals in the field of Embryology.

            Did you read this part, “This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.”What part of “the beginning of each of us as a unique individual” are you misunderstanding?

            You said, “The concept of personhood is not one determined by science”
            What do you mean by personhood?

            You said, “what science does tell us is that a fetus isn’t developed enough to even
            feel pain until 22-24 weeks…”

            What does pain have to do with anything? Does that mean if I drug someone where they are comatose, I can kill them as long as they don’t feel the pain?

            You continued, “..and that an embryo and a fetus behave
            exactly like certain inimical parasites with all the implications that
            has for a woman’s wellbeing (ie, very bad for her health).”

            A parasite, yes, but in it’s natural environment. It’s not trespassing as you presume. Someone is trespassing when he’s not in his rightful place, but a baby developing in the womb belongs there.

            Inimical by definition means “likely to cause damage or have a bad effect” What damage or bad effect are you suggesting this embryo is causing?

            You said, “I say let a woman decide for herself if she wants to host a parasite
            that will probably turn into a person.”

            Probably turn into a person? What else could it possibly turn into, if not a person? If it is a unique human being from conception it’s pretty much guaranteed to be a human being at birth, don’t you think?

            You said, ” Coercing her is taking her body
            from her for the benefit of another- we call that slavery, usually.”

            Coerce, according to Webster’s means: “to make (someone) do something by using force or threats”

            What force or threats were made to make the woman have consensual sexual intercourse?

            You are calling this something that it is not. Consensual sex is not the same as rape. Therefore, the woman did nothing against her will. She choose to have sex, therefore she is responsible for the consequences, just like her male counter part is also responsible.

            You said, “What rights theory tells us is no person is more special than any other
            person- no one has the right to use your organs against your will. ”

            That is right. And as soon as the woman decides to consent to sexual intercourse she is accepting all and every result from that action; including pregnancy. Her will to allow this to happen started with her consenting to sex. The action with the know risk of possible pregnancy. No one is using her organs against her will. She chose to allow this possible outcome.
            And what about the human being inside that is growing? If rights theory tells us that no person has the right to use your organs against your will, then how can we allow another person to tear that innocent unborn human being into pieces against their will?
            No, if we are to agree that no person is more special than any other person, we must do all we can to help and encourage each person, regardless of size, environment, location or level of development to grow as they need to.
            Terminating one person for the sake of another is not equal rights.

            You said, ” Why should a fetus, which you claim is a person like any other, get to
            steal a woman’s blood, organs, and nutrients against her will,”

            I didn’t claim it’s a person. I said science shows that it is a unique individual from the point of conception. I showed you a quote. I’m open to hearing any scientific evidence that shows that as incorrect, but so far you have not shown me that.
            And a fetus is not “stealing” a woman’s blood, organs, and nutrients against her will. She accepted every and all consequences from engaging in consensual sex. She knew the risks. She knows there is not a 100% option to not get pregnant except to abstain from consensual sex. If she chooses to engage in that act, then she is accepting the responsibility that comes along with it; no different than knowing you could possibly break your leg skiing.

            You said, “You are literally giving a dead woman more rights to her body than a living one.”

            Actually, I’m not taking any rights away from anyone. I’m actually applying them equally to each and every person regardless of size, location, environment or level of development.
            They all have the same rights. So does the newly unborn woman growing in the woman’s womb, created because of that woman’s choice to have consensual sex.
            It’s by that woman’s choice that the newly existing woman even exists in her womb. That and her partners choice to join in, of course.

            What you want to do is say that only SOME women are worthy of making the choice of what is done to their own body.
            Once you terminate a newly created unborn woman, you have taken away her choice of what happens to her own body.
            You are the one that is literally giving more rights to one human being over another human beings rights. This is not equal rights in the least.

            • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

              Oh dear, this is going to be long. /sigh

              What is a pregnancy but the incubation of an embryo/fetus (from now on referred to as e/f)? You’re treating that as a punishment for having sex- lose your job, lose your house, current children starve, have to drop out of school? Oh wells, she had sex, so you want to force a woman or a girl to remain pregnant no matter the circumstances or how much it will fuck up her life. Yeah, that’s dehumanizing. You’re reducing women to walking incubators of e/fs, not people with their own hopes, dreams, and lives.

              Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. It’s just not. In the same way consent to oral sex is not consent to anal or PIV sex, consent to PIV sex is not consent to pregnancy. In fact, the use of any form of contraception at all makes it perfectly clear that pregnancy is specifically not consented to. If a man ignores the limits and does what the woman doesn’t want, that’s rape. If a blastocyst forms and implants itself against a woman’s will, what should we call that? It’s a violation of body equivalent to rape or worse. Abortion is a way to end that violation, but it isn’t exactly pleasant. The consequence of getting pregnant unwillingly is having to get an abortion- that is a monetary and bodily cost, and can (but does not always) come with emotional cost. To force a woman to carry an e/f against her will is saying the e/f can use her body against her will and without her consent for nine months, continuously.

              Additionally, remember that consent can be revoked at any time. Even if sex was consent to pregnancy (it’s not), it’s not true consent if it can’t be revoked. Again, if a man is having sex with a woman and she tells him to stop, if he doesn’t stop that is rape. Well, a woman can tell an e/f to stop invading her body at any time. Pregnancy is a situation of enthusiastic consent- the woman must consistently accede to the pregnancy. If she, at any time, changes her mind, she has the right to expel the invader of her body.

              What the quote says is that a blastocyst has unique human DNA. This is true. You know what else has unique human DNA? A hydatidiform mole. A tumor cell. An ovarian teratoma. You know what doesn’t have unique human DNA? Identical twins. A single person who is a chimaera. Clearly, the marker of what is a person is not unique human DNA, so what don’t you understand about that?

              As for personhood, that is complicated. You have to be an independent entity (that is, not dependent on the body of another for the basic bodily functions of intaking nutrition and expelling wastes) and you have to have the capacity for sentience. The capacity for sentience is really quite key. The reason the fetus not being able to feel pain until 22-24 weeks is important is that pain is an extremely basic sensation, and if the brain isn’t developed enough to process pain, it certainly isn’t sentient. In other words, an e/f is clearly not a person at the time the vast majority of abortions take place and cannot be given the moral weight of a person. The woman is definitely a person, so she does get that moral weight.

              Who cares if the parasite is in its natural environment? E. coli is natural too. So are cyanide and strychnine. So’s dying of sepsis after childbirth, or dying of obstructed labor, or dying of a stroke due to eclampsia, or dying of gestational diabetes, or dying of hemorrhage, or dying of infection during pregnancy because of suppressed immune system, or … you get the point. Natural doesn’t mean healthy or good. Humans are the natural host for the guinea worm, too, but that doesn’t mean we can’t decide not to host them. And no, the e/f parasite will not automatically turn into a person. It could turn into a hydatidiform mole. It could die and be expelled, either as a “late period” or a known miscarriage or even a stillbirth. It could be aborted on purpose. All of these things mean the e/f didn’t turn into a person. If a woman doesn’t want to host a parasite in her body, she doesn’t have to.

              If you make abortion illegal, that’s coercion with the force of law. Unless it’s a toothless law, in which case, what’s the point? Coercion can also take the form of social coercion, such as slut-shaming, people screaming at her and calling her a murderer, etc. When you deny people access to safe abortions, you are forcing them (by force and threats) to carry a pregnancy to term that they don’t want to. You are forcing them to lose control of their body, to give the product and labor of that body to someone else. That’s slavery. Slavery is bad.

              You fundamentally misunderstand consent. First, consent is only to the action(s) consented to; skiing, but not a broken leg. Sex, but not pregnancy. Driving a car, but not crashing. Walking down a dark alley, but not being robbed. Second, consent can always be revoked. At the time consent is revoked, the now-offending party must stop what they are doing. In the case of an e/f, that means being inside the body of another person, pumping her full of inimical hormones and stealing her nutrients by drilling into a major artery.

              Do you agree that no one may take your organs without your consent? That your body belongs to you and no other, and you choose who gets to use it, how, and when? Excellent. Those rights to bodily autonomy are rights every person has. Even if another person will die without access to your body, you still get to control your body, and that person who will die without your body still may not take your blood, organs, or other bodily fluids without your consent. Well, guess what? Women get those rights too. If they don’t want another entity (whether person or not) to take their blood, oxygen, and nutrients, they, too, get to say no. Even if that other entity dies. That is equal rights- equal rights to our own bodies and choosing who gets to use them, and how, and when. We all have the right to die if no one chooses to save us, too, and that’s the way it must be to avoid slavery for all. I advocate slavery for none- you advocate slavery for fertile women but not any slavery you, personally, might have to face. You can see why I find this a (not so) minor problem.

              And no, you are in fact giving an e/f more rights than any person has. They exist within a person- when you say location doesn’t matter, you’re literally saying the woman the e/f is inside doesn’t matter. She’s just a vessel, a walking life support system, not a person. That’s wrong, sick, cruel and all sorts of inhumane, vicious, and twisted. Any rights you give an e/f must necessarily detract from the rights of the woman the e/f lives inside. I say no person has the right to steal another’s organs; you say an e/f does have that right, but no one else does. You are giving the e/f more rights than any person has, and in so doing rendering women into non-persons with no rights. Stop that.

              Also, I do not appreciate you trying to turn this back on me by referencing female fetuses, because male and female fetuses are equally important (granted, not very) and the actual, sentient, breathing women they reside within are completely erased when you do this. A potential woman can not and does not trump the rights of an already-existent woman, and your sick attempt to turn this back on me is just sad and pathetic. It proves you don’t get it. When abortion occurs, it’s the exact same thing as refusing to donate a liver lobe to someone- they may not take it without your permission, and you are allowed to watch them die from lack of your body.

              • Albert

                You said, “You’re treating that as a punishment for having sex”

                I did not. I said pregnancy is a consequence of having consensual sex. I never said it was a punishment. This is what you are calling it.

                A punishment, as Webster defines it is ” the act of punishing someone or a way of punishing someone: the state of being punished: rough physical treatment”

                A consequence is “something that happens as a result of a particular action or set of conditions: importance or value”

                You said, “Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. It’s just not. In the same way consent to oral sex is not consent to anal or PIV sex, consent to PIV sex is not consent to pregnancy”

                Anal sex is NOT a consequence of oral sex. Pregnancy IS a consequence of sexual intercourse.

                Your logic does not follow your premise. the only way pregnancy is not consented to is if you are 100% sure you will not get pregnant. If not, then is is a known consequence. therefore, if you engage in sexual intercourse you are accepting the possibility that you could get pregnant. Even if your partner has a vasectomy and you have your tubes tied, this is not 100% full proof, so once you engage in sexual intercourse you have consented to every and all consequence from that action.

                You said, “If a man ignores the limits and does what the woman doesn’t want, that’s rape.”

                I agree. And in this case, I give the concession to the women to have an abortion. Not because one life is less valuable than the other, as I don’t believe a child should ever be punished for the crimes of the father, but because the sex was not consensual.

                You said, ” If a blastocyst forms and implants itself against a woman’s will, what should we call that? It’s a violation of body equivalent to rape or worse.”

                Though a blastocyst is a parasite, it is not there illegally. This is it’s natural environment. This is where it is supposed to be. There was no violation in this situation.

                And again, if this was consensual sex, it was not against the woman’s will. This was a known consequence and she accepted that when she engaged in sexual intercourse.

                And it is definitely not rape. I’m surprised that you would even equate it as such. I’m sure there are many pregnant women out there that would be outraged at you implying that.

                You said, “You know what else has unique human DNA? A hydatidiform mole. A tumor cell. …”and continued with, “…Clearly, the marker of what is a person is not unique human DNA, so what don’t you understand about that?”

                What is your definition of a person?How is that different than your definition of a human being?

                And if all a fetus is, is a clump of cells, doesn’t that just make a two year old a larger clump of cells?

                You said, “Humans are the natural host for the guinea worm, too, but that doesn’t mean we can’t decide not to host them.”

                When was the last recorded date when a guinea worm turned into a human being?

                The point is that it is a human being, separate, unique and individual from the mother. this is no different than you or me. The only differences is that human being is smaller in size that you and me, and it requires a different environment to continue to live.

                You said, “It could turn into a hydatidiform mole.”
                You’re right. This mole that does not carrying any chromosomes or genetic material, right? Which would not make it a human being from conception. Which is a different thing than one that does have the genetic material. Those are fine if you want to have them removed. No problem there.

                You said, “It could die and be expelled,
                either as a “late period” or a known miscarriage or even a stillbirth.”

                You are right. And if so, this is a natural progression for that human being. That means they are treated like all other humans, with the right to die natural without another human beings interference.

                You said, “It could be aborted on purpose.”
                This is exactly what we are fighting against. Just like I would fight for you to have a choice about what happens to your own body, I’m fighting for this human beings choice to make those decisions on their own as well.

                you said, “All of these things mean the e/f
                didn’t turn into a person.”
                You need to define to me that a person is please and how it is different from a human being.

                You said, “If you make abortion illegal, that’s coercion with the force of law.”

                Webster’s defines coerce as “to make (someone) do something by using force or threats”

                If you engage in consensual sex, there was no coercion, you were a willing party to every and all consequences from that action.

                You said, “Coercion
                can also take the form of social coercion, such as slut-shaming, people
                screaming at her and calling her a murderer, etc.”

                Again, if she doesn’t willing engage in consensual sex, there can be no coercion here, right?

                You said, “When you deny people
                access to safe abortions, you are forcing them (by force and
                threats) to carry a pregnancy to term that they don’t want to.”

                Again, if she willing have sex then she is accepting every and all consequences from her actions. This is not forcing her to do something she didn’t weigh the cost.

                You said, “You are
                forcing them to lose control of their body, to give the product and
                labor of that body to someone else.”

                They gave their body to someone else already when they chose themselves to be a willing part to consensual sex.

                You said, “You fundamentally misunderstand consent. First, consent is only to the
                action(s) consented to; skiing, but not a broken leg. Sex, but not
                pregnancy. Driving a car, but not crashing…”

                So then if I understand you, if I go skiing, and I break my leg, I can opt out of that and not have a broken leg; it just goes away, right? If I’m driving my car and I hit another person, I don’t have to take any responsibility for hitting them because I never intended to hit them, right?
                Heck, if that’s the case, I’m taking up rock climbing because I now never have to worry about falling. Shoot, why use any protection ever for anything I do? I just have to say, “I didn’t intend to lose my grip so I am not falling hundreds of feet to my death.” This is great!

                No, you forget the definition of consequence is “something that happens as a result of a particular action or set of conditions”

                When you consent to do that particular action, you have accepted every and all consequences that come with that action. They are not separate.

                You said, “Second, consent can always be revoked. At the
                time consent is revoked, the now-offending party must stop what they are
                doing.”

                So if the offending party is a lawyer taking me to court from hitting another person with my car, they have to cease and desist because I am no longer giving myself consent to drive?

                You said, “In the case of an e/f, that means being inside the body of
                another person, pumping her full of inimical hormones and stealing her
                nutrients by drilling into a major artery.”

                With this statement you have just removed all equal rights for human beings. This is called discrimination. You have placed the importance of one human being over the importance of another human being. This is class warfare and it’s best example.
                And by the way, if this is the natural environment that the this human was created in when she had consensual sex. It is not trespassing because she was willing to accept every and all consequences from her actions.

                You said, “Do you agree that no one may take your organs without your consent?”

                I agree! And the newly created human being also should not have their organs taken by anyone against their consent.

                You said, “That your body belongs to you and no other, and you choose who gets to
                use it, how, and when?”

                I agree! And the newly created human being also should have a say as to who gets to use it, how and when.

                Those two questions sum up equal rights for all human beings regardless of size, location, environment or level of development.

                You said, ” Women get those rights too. If they don’t want another entity
                (whether person or not) to take their blood, oxygen, and nutrients,
                they, too, get to say no.”

                I agree 100%. And when they decided to have consensual sex they gave the go ahead to all a possible pregnancy to happen. This was their choice, no one else made this choice for them.

                You said, “You can see why I find this a (not so) minor problem.”

                I’m not seeing this as a hard problem. We don’t kill innocent human beings against their will. Sounds pretty plain and simple to me.

                You said, “And no, you are in fact giving an e/f more rights than any person has.”

                No, I’m saying equal rights. I’m saying that the woman who chose to have consensual sex accepted pregnancy, and everything that comes with it, as a possible outcome regardless of how much precautions she used. This means this was not against her will. No different that if she got behind the wheel of her car. She chose to accept an accident, and everything that comes with it, as a possible outcome regardless of how much precautions she used.

                You said, “They exist within a person- when you say location doesn’t matter,
                you’re literally saying the woman the e/f is inside doesn’t matter.”

                So lets look at this situation. There is a pregnant woman driving down to road. All of a sudden she ends up getting hit by another car. The innocent human being she was carrying in her womb ends up dying from complications from the accident.

                In a different case, Scott Peterson was charged with two murders when he killed his wife and their unborn child.

                Should this person that hit her be charged with infanticide, or in an other word, murder?

                What if this woman was headed on her way to a clinic to get an abortion? Does that change the charges for this accident?

                What if the person driving the other car happened to be the doctor that was going to preform the abortion? Should he be convicted of murder because he used the wrong tool?

                You see, the human being in that woman’s womb has value. Because of that we have laws that protect them from other people that harm them. Even in the location that they are, the woman’s womb.

                So why is it different because that innocent human being’s life is taken from them by a doctor in a clinic with a tool made to dismember that other human’s body?

                You said, “A potential woman can not and does not trump the rights of an
                already-existent woman, and your sick attempt to turn this back on me is
                just sad and pathetic.”

                Exisent according to Webster’s means, “having existence : present or real : existing now”
                That would fit a zygote, embryo and or fetus. Along with infant, toddler, teenager, and adult.

                When you remove the rights of someone that is smaller in size or less developed you are discriminating. I’m sure handicapped people would be next on your list to remove since their quality of life is not what you believe it should be, right?

                If the unborn is not a human person, no justification for abortion is necessary. However, if the unborn is a human person, no justification for abortion is adequate.

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                  …says the man who will never have to experience his body being hijacked and his rights ripped away in the name of “life”.

                • jejune

                  Albert sure writes a lot, doesn’t he?

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                  Yep. But he never really conveys any actual information. It’s just blah blah blah BABBIES! CONSEQUENCES! RESPONSIBILITY!

                  …they really do all read the same playbook, don’t they?

                • jejune

                  Yep, they sure do.

                  He’s even giving me the ‘unique individual’ bs

                  Along with the ‘uterus is the natural environment for the fetus’

                  And the best…’science has proven that zygotes are unique human beings’

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                  OMFG, this guy is unbelievable.

                  You said, “The SCOTUS affirmed the right of women to control their bodies.”

                  I firmly stand behind that affirmation.
                  In fact, I hold to for all women, and men too. Even to those men and women that are of the unborn.

                • jejune

                  Wow.

                  yeah, see, because forced gestation isn’t slavery

                  b/c gestation is WHAT WOMEN WERE BUILT FOR

                  but, only if they consented to sex

                  when you consent to sex you consent to slavery, see

                • Kodie

                  Let’s see where this goes. So if women consent to sex, they consent to pregnancy, so if they don’t agree to be pregnant, they can never have sex. Wait, why can’t they have sex homosexually? Then they can avoid pregnancy. This, however, is a side issue – I know it is a loophole that will not impress Albert.

                  But what if women all decided at one time to never consent to sex. We all heard you loud and clear, Albert, being pregnant is not something anyone wants to be, and without any way out of it, we all decided that sex isn’t worth it. Then what? Make us?

                • jejune

                  I miss myintx already.

                  At least she doesn’t suffer from verbal diarrhea and the delusion that she is a master of logic.

                  And I love how he keeps referencing the dictionary to tell us we are wrong.

                • Albert

                  If you think sex is relevant to the validity of someone’s view regarding abortion, then what about the nine men on the Supreme Court who made it legal?
                  Perhaps then you would be find if we rescind their ruling, right?

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                  The SCOTUS affirmed the right of women to control their bodies.

                  You are arguing in favor of enslaving women and stripping away our rights.

                • Albert

                  You said, “You are arguing in favor of enslaving women and stripping away our rights.”

                  What rights am I taking away?

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                  Bodily autonomy, self-determination, you know, really basic human rights.

                • Albert

                  You said, “The SCOTUS affirmed the right of women to control their bodies.”

                  I firmly stand behind that affirmation.
                  In fact, I hold to for all women, and men too. Even to those men and women that are of the unborn.

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                  And you do so at the expense of a woman’s inherent right to self-determination and bodily autonomy. You are reducing women to gestational slaves.

                  We do not allow one person to use another person’s body without explicit, ongoing, informed consent. Ever. Even if that denial results in death. You cannot be forced to donate your kidney, liver lobe, lung, blood or even your time to help others, and I suspect that, if someone tried to force you to donate those things, you would be screaming about your right to bodily autonomy.

                  But you want to force women to undergo pregnancy and childbirth, whether they want to or not. You want to reduce us to walking incubators, without the right to say what goes on in our own bodies. That is forced labor. That is slavery. That is, in fact, stripping women of our rights.

                • jejune

                  Only if they CHOSE to have sex.

                  Because, in Albert’s mind, that is a crime.

                • jejune

                  Privacy and the right not to be enslaved in the service of another is why the court decided in favour of RvW

                  And btw, the uterus is also the ‘natural environment’ of a rape ZEF. So, why do you think it is acceptable to kill unborn rape babies again?

                  And why on earth are you giving special consideration to victims of rape? Why should they be allowed to murder their children? What makes them special…not consenting to sex..hmm

                  Why is the fact that a woman consented to sex so important to you? Why must the woman be forced to undergo a process that could kill and maim her.

                  Why do you have sympathy for the rape victim, and not the woman who chose to have sex?

                • jejune

                  Pregnancy IS a consequence of sexual intercourse.

                  Pregnancy is also a consequence of rape…

                  However.

                  And in this case, I give the concession to the women to have an abortion. Not because one life is less valuable than the other, as I don’t believe a child should ever be punished for the crimes of the father, but because the sex was not consensual.

                  Yes. Exactly. You keep stating that a microscopic embryo should have the same moral value as a newborn…yet, it is given less moral consideration than an embryo that is created through consensual sex.

                  You don’t really believe that embryos have any sort of intrinsic value.

                  If you did, you would oppose abortion in all circumstances.

                  Yet you oppose abortion ONLY if the woman chose to ‘spread her legs’ as your type is fond of saying.

                  That is the primary reason that you oppose abortion. It’s all about punishing women for daring to have the same sexual freedom as men.

                • Albert

                  You said, “You don’t really believe that embryos have any sort of intrinsic value.”

                  I’m guessing you are saying this because of my concession in regards to rape, right? If so, it’s a matter of saving as many lives as possible. If you read my concession, you will see that I specified this is not because one life is more valuable than another. They are just as equally intrinsic in value.

                  But the goal is to save lives. 1% lost to abortions in the case of rape is a concession if we can save 99% of those that would have been aborted. It’s definitely not my first choice, but I also understand the gravity of the situation caused by rape.

                  You said, “If you did, you would oppose abortion in all circumstances.”

                  I normally would. But I have to give a little to get a little. This is not an easy concession, believe me.

                  You said, “Yet you oppose abortion ONLY if the woman chose to ‘spread her legs’ as your type is fond of saying.”

                  That isn’t my saying.

                  you said, “That is the primary reason that you oppose abortion. It’s all about punishing women for daring to have the same sexual freedom as men.”

                  I am in no way limiting a woman’s right to be sexual free. She is more than welcome to have all the sex she wants. But mind you, I don’t hold women who get pregnant as the only ones responsible for them getting pregnant.
                  For the record, I hold the man just as equally responsible. I would also change laws to make sure they are there to support and care for the woman as she goes through her pregnancy as well as for those children they have a part in making. No, they can’t just walk away from it, as far as I’m concerned.

                  A big part of this fight is for a woman to have a right to say what happens to her body. And I fully support that right. I support the right that every human, regardless of sex, have the right to say what happens to their own body.

                  If a woman doesn’t want to have children, then I would encourage her to do everything she can do with or to her own body, so that she doesn’t put herself in that situation.

                  If that means getting her tubes tied, the she should be allowed to do that. This is a reversible process as well as a vasectomy for a man.
                  This is what taking control of your body means. Being proactive, allows a man or a woman to engage in consensual sex with more confidence that they will not get pregnant. And if they use protection along with those procedures, they even the better. This will lesson their changes, though not completely remove the, of getting pregnant.

                  That being said, I’m not suggesting that this be forced on men or women. It is THERE CHOICE. But it is actually, next to abstinence, their closest option to a 100% chance of not getting pregnant.

                  If we are to have complete say on what happens to our own bodies, then we first have to give that same control to every human being across the board.

                • jejune

                  I’m guessing you are saying this because of my concession in regards to rape, right? If so, it’s a matter of saving as many lives as possible. If you read my concession, you will see that I specified this is not
                  because one life is more valuable than another. They are just as equally intrinsic in value.

                  Right. So it’s acceptable to murder your children some of the time…so you can save others.

                  lulz

                  I am in no way limiting a woman’s right to be sexual free. She is more than welcome to have all the sex she wants

                  There is no freedom with the threat of forced pregnancy hanging over someone’s head. There is no freedom with the threat of permanent disability and death hanging over your head.

                  For what? HAVING SEX? Really?

                  No man has ever died as a result of sex. You expect women to ‘suck it up’ and risk death and disability for an act that you say you have no problem with?

                  RIGHT. And I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.

                • jejune

                  This is called discrimination. You have placed the importance of one
                  human being over the importance of another human being. This is class
                  warfare and it’s best example.

                  Which is what you are doing to women. Placing the life of the ZEF above a woman’s right to her own body.

                  Funny how you won’t extend that right to born children.

                  You discriminate based on location.

                  Funnier still, how you will let rape victims viciously MURDER their unborn ‘babies’. Again, you discriminate based on method of conception.

                  Hilarious, really, how your entire opposition to abortion is based on punishing women for having sex.

                  Why do you hate and fear female sexuality so much?

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                  Think about it. Within our bodies, we hold the ultimate power of giving life. I can see where, to a certain type of male, the very idea of women controlling that power is a bit… frightening.

                  (Not to go all gender-essentialist or erase those who are outside the binary “norm”, but the uterus? It’s a pretty damn amazing organ, considering what it does.)

                • Kodie

                  We’re just people, we can keep your seeds from planting!

                • jejune

                  It’s obvious why no one else is engaging him.

                  He is spouting off a bunch of illogical bullshit to cover the fact that all he really cares about is slut-shaming.

                • jejune

                  t’s a pretty damn amazing organ, considering what it does.

                  You know what else is an amazing organ? The anti-choice brain.

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                  *snorfle*

            • Kodie

              Once you know that a risk of skiing is the possibility of braking a leg
              and you choose to do that action, then you are accepting those
              consequences if they happen. You can’t go out there and ski and know
              that you will not break your leg. If it does happen, you can’t say, “No,
              I don’t accept that consequence!” and your leg automatically heal. It
              doesn’t work that way.

              Since you don’t have to keep your leg broken, it’s hardly the equivalent situation. I didn’t read the rest of your post; I’m sure it has equally poor analogies therein, taken from the carousel of illogical pro-forced-birth arguments. Good for you, using them all at once.

              • Albert

                A broken leg was not my analogy, that was someone else’s.
                I would agree with you that you don’t have to keep your leg broken. But you do have to let it take the time to heal. And then you will be rid of it.
                Pregnancy can afford the same option. You get pregnant, you carry the newly created human being to term, and then give it up for adoption.

                You said, “…illogical pro-forced-birth arguments.”

                Who is forcing men or women to have consensual sex?

                I’m simply stating that if you engage in sexual intercourse that you understand there are consequences that are beyond your control. Because of that, when you engage in those sort of actions, you are accepting every and all consequences from that action. You can’t absolve yourself from your responsibilities simply because you don’t like the outcome. And there in is the reason we are using a broken leg as one possible analogy. If you accept the risk of skiing, you are completely aware that a broken leg could happen if not careful. In fact a broken leg could happen even if you are careful. If you break your leg, there is no getting away from that fact. You can’t just wish it away, stand up and continue skiing. Nope, sorry, it doesn’t work that way.

                Force-birth would presume you were also forced to have sex. But if the sex was consensual, then it is not forced on you, but something you signed up for.
                That means when you engaged in it, you know that getting pregnant is a possible outcome of that action.

                I’m saying because science has shown that a new human being states life at conception, if we are to have equal rights for all human beings, then you, being in charge of your own body, are not allowed to say what happens to another human beings body. Therefore, you can not end another human beings life, only your own.

                When you engage in consensual sex, you have given the permission for your body to act in it’s natural way; even to create an new human being if it so happens.

                Not intending to get pregnant doesn’t absolve you of getting pregnant and caring for that newly created human being.

              • jejune

                Albert is such a slut-shamer.

            • jejune

              And the same for pregnancy. You might not want to get pregnant, but it
              is a possible consequence from engaging in sexual intercourse.

              So is choking a possible consequence from eating. However, we don’t deny people the Heimlich Manoeuvre because they took a risk and it went wrong.

              • Albert

                You said, “So is choking a possible consequence from eating. However, we don’t deny people the Heimlich Manoeuvre because they took a risk and it went wrong.”

                Again, you are right.

                There would be no reason to deny someone the proper care to restore their breathing; to keep them from dying.

                Death could very well be a next step of the choking is not stopped. But death is not normally the next step in pregnancy. It’s actually rather rare.

                In fact, “Researchers at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that between 1998 and 2005, the rate of pregnancy-related deaths was 14.5 per 100,000 live births. And while that rate is low, it is higher than what has been seen in the past few decades.”
                [http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/12/02/us-pregnancy-deaths-idUSTRE6B15P220101202]

                Most pregnancies, if left alone to progress will reach it’s natural conclusion, a born human being.

                A broken leg from skiing should be set so that it can heal right. A person choking from something lodged in their throat should be cared for. These are situations where something that is not natural has happened. But a pregnancy is natural. It is a consequence, for sure, but it is not a unnatural, like a broken leg. A broken leg left unattended will not heal properly. A pregnancy left unattended will progress to it’s natural conclusion. These are two different scenarios. You are presuming that a pregnancy is a malfunction of some sort. But it isn’t.

                It’s when we intervene into a pregnancy that we take the body from it’s natural state to one that is not natural. This would better fit a broken leg or a choking person.

                The only problem is, you aren’t saving a life when you perform an abortion, you are actually taking one. This would be like you are intentionally breaking the leg or choking the person. Not the other way around.

                • jejune

                  Pregnancy is not a state of wellness.

                  Most pregnancies, if left alone to progress will reach it’s natural conclusion, a born human being.

                  The zef doesn’t simply grow on it’s own. It actively suppresses the woman’s immune system, and literally steals as many nutrients from her body as it can in order to construct itself.

                  It’s when we intervene into a pregnancy that we take the body from it’s natural state to one that is not natural.

                  Death is natural, as is cancer. Cancer IS a natural state. Choking is natural too – in fact, that’s how we evolved. We evolved with an imperfect breathing/eating system that makes us vulnerable to choking. Completely NATURAL.

                  The only problem is, you aren’t saving a life when you perform an abortion, you are actually taking one

                  Abortion is preventative health care. You wouldn’t force someone to risk blindness death and permanent disability in order to save a life, would you?

                  Normal, frequent
                  or expectable temporary side effects of pregnancy:

                  exhaustion (weariness
                  common from first weeks)

                  altered appetite
                  and senses of taste and smell

                  nausea and vomiting
                  (50% of women, first trimester)

                  heartburn and indigestion

                  constipation

                  weight gain

                  dizziness and light-headedness

                  bloating, swelling,
                  fluid retention

                  hemmorhoids

                  abdominal cramps

                  yeast infections

                  congested, bloody
                  nose

                  acne and mild skin
                  disorders

                  skin discoloration
                  (chloasma, face and abdomen)

                  mild to severe backache
                  and strain

                  increased headaches

                  difficulty sleeping,
                  and discomfort while sleeping

                  increased urination
                  and incontinence

                  bleeding gums

                  pica

                  breast pain and
                  discharge

                  swelling of joints,
                  leg cramps, joint pain

                  difficulty sitting,
                  standing in later pregnancy

                  inability to take
                  regular medications

                  shortness of breath

                  higher blood pressure

                  hair loss

                  tendency to anemia

                  curtailment of ability
                  to participate in some sports and activities

                  infection
                  including from serious and potentially fatal disease

                  (pregnant women are immune suppressed compared with
                  non-pregnant women, and
                  are more susceptible to fungal and certain other diseases)

                  extreme pain on
                  delivery

                  hormonal mood changes,
                  including normal post-partum depression

                  continued post-partum
                  exhaustion and recovery period (exacerbated if a c-section
                  – major surgery — is required, sometimes taking up to a full year to
                  fully recover)

                  Normal, expectable,
                  or frequent PERMANENT side effects of pregnancy:

                  stretch marks (worse
                  in younger women)

                  loose skin

                  permanent weight
                  gain or redistribution

                  abdominal and vaginal
                  muscle weakness

                  pelvic floor disorder
                  (occurring in as many as 35% of middle-aged former child-bearers
                  and 50% of elderly former child-bearers, associated with urinary and rectal
                  incontinence, discomfort and reduced quality of life — aka prolapsed utuerus,
                  the malady sometimes badly fixed by the transvaginal mesh)

                  changes to breasts

                  varicose veins

                  scarring from episiotomy
                  or c-section

                  other permanent
                  aesthetic changes to the body (all of these are downplayed
                  by women, because the culture values youth and beauty)

                  increased proclivity
                  for hemmorhoids

                  loss of dental and
                  bone calcium (cavities and osteoporosis)

                  higher lifetime risk of developing Altzheimer’s

                  newer research indicates
                  microchimeric cells, other bi-directional exchanges of DNA, chromosomes, and other bodily material between fetus and
                  mother (including with “unrelated” gestational surrogates)

                  Occasional complications
                  and side effects:

                  complications of episiotomy

                  spousal/partner
                  abuse

                  hyperemesis gravidarum

                  temporary and permanent
                  injury to back

                  severe
                  scarring
                  requiring later surgery
                  (especially after additional pregnancies)

                  dropped (prolapsed)
                  uterus (especially after additional pregnancies, and other
                  pelvic floor weaknesses — 11% of women, including cystocele, rectocele,
                  and enterocele)

                  pre-eclampsia
                  (edema and hypertension, the most common complication of pregnancy, associated
                  with eclampsia, and affecting 7 – 10% of pregnancies)

                  eclampsia (convulsions,
                  coma during pregnancy or labor, high risk of death)

                  gestational diabetes

                  placenta previa

                  anemia (which
                  can be life-threatening)

                  thrombocytopenic
                  purpura

                  severe cramping

                  embolism
                  (blood clots)

                  medical disability
                  requiring full bed rest (frequently ordered during part of
                  many pregnancies varying from days to months for health of either mother
                  or baby)

                  diastasis recti,
                  also torn abdominal muscles

                  mitral valve stenosis
                  (most common cardiac complication)

                  serious infection
                  and disease (e.g. increased risk of tuberculosis)

                  hormonal imbalance

                  ectopic pregnancy
                  (risk of death)

                  broken bones (ribcage,
                  “tail bone”)

                  hemorrhage
                  and

                  numerous other complications
                  of delivery

                  refractory gastroesophageal
                  reflux disease

                  aggravation of pre-pregnancy
                  diseases and conditions (e.g. epilepsy is present in .5%
                  of pregnant women, and the pregnancy alters drug metabolism and treatment
                  prospects all the while it increases the number and frequency of seizures)

                  severe post-partum
                  depression and psychosis

                  research now indicates
                  a possible link between ovarian cancer and female fertility treatments,
                  including “egg harvesting” from infertile women and donors

                  research also now
                  indicates correlations between lower breast cancer survival rates and proximity
                  in time to onset of cancer of last pregnancy

                  research also indicates
                  a correlation between having six or more pregnancies and a risk of coronary
                  and cardiovascular disease

                  Less common (but
                  serious) complications:

                  peripartum cardiomyopathy

                  cardiopulmonary
                  arrest

                  magnesium toxicity

                  severe hypoxemia/acidosis

                  massive embolism

                  increased intracranial
                  pressure, brainstem infarction

                  molar pregnancy,
                  gestational trophoblastic disease
                  (like a pregnancy-induced
                  cancer)

                  malignant arrhythmia

                  circulatory collapse

                  placental abruption

                  obstetric fistula

                  More
                  permanent side effects:

                  future infertility

                  permanent disability

                  death.

                • Albert

                  You said, “and literally steals as many nutrients from her body as it can in order to construct itself.”

                  steals? How do you come to that conclusion? The woman’s body is made to perform this function.

                  The fetus helps the mother in a number of ways. For example, one class of autoimmune disorders usually improve in pregnancy such as Rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis and autoimmune thyroid disease (Graves disease and Hashimoto’s thyroiditis).

                  You said, “Death is natural, as is cancer. Cancer IS a natural state. Choking is natural too – in fact, that’s how we evolved. We evolved with an imperfect breathing/eating system that makes us vulnerable to choking. Completely NATURAL.”

                  I agree. And we all will die at some point. What’s your point?
                  As far as the evolved portion of that argument, do you have any resources to show that adaptive evolution where everyone was just choking and then all of a sudden it stopped?

                  You said, “Abortion is preventative health care. You wouldn’t force someone to risk blindness death and permanent disability in order to save a life, would you?”

                  Did you just read what you wrote?Preventative health care for who, the one who’s life is taken from them?
                  Are you meaning to tell me that your own pleasure and comfort are worth more than a human beings life?

                  You listed “Normal, frequent or expectable temporary side effects of pregnancy:”
                  That’s a long list for sure. You would think this would be a great deterrent to sexual intercourse, right?

                  These along with pregnancy are KNOWN consequences from consensual sex. If you don’t want to have any of these happen, then don’t engage in consensual sex, right? How much more simpler is that? But mind you, none if this is forced on the woman if she is choosing to have consensual sex, these are accepted by her as possible risks from her actions.

                • jejune

                  steals? How do you come to that conclusion? The woman’s body is made to perform this function.

                  Doesn’t mean it’s healthy for her.

                  The fetus helps the mother in a number of ways. For example, one class of autoimmune disorders usually improve in pregnancy such as Rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis and autoimmune thyroid disease (Graves disease and Hashimoto’s thyroiditis).

                  Those have been disproven. In fact, during the pregnancy, because the woman’s immune system is supressed, certain autoimmune diseases will go into remission. Once the pregnancy is over, however, they will flare back up again. And, certain women who were previously healthy can develop an auto-immune disease as a result of pregnancy.

                  I agree. And we all will die at some point. What’s your point?

                  What if every human on this earth lived forever and no one ever died?

                  Did you just read what you wrote?Preventative health care for who, the one who’s life is taken from them?

                  For the woman, who is the only being that matters in this case. Pregnancy is not a state of wellness, as you have been shown.

                  Are you meaning to tell me that your own pleasure and comfort are worth more than a human beings life?

                  Women don’t have abortions so that they can party hard, slut-shamer. Women have abortions for serious reasons, one of which is the right not to be MAIMED AND KILLED from the pregnancy.

                  That’s a long list for sure. You would think this would be a great deterrent to sexual intercourse, right?

                  Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy.

                  These along with pregnancy are KNOWN consequences from consensual sex.

                  So you believe in punishing women, and only women, for the crime of having consensual sex? No man has ever died of an ectopic pregnancy.

                  But mind you, none if this is forced on the woman if she is choosing to have consensual sex, these are accepted by her as possible risks from her actions.

                  Consent must be ongoing for it to count. You want to force a woman to remain pregnant against her will. Because she chose to have sex. By your logic, marital rape is justified because the woman ‘consented’ to sex i the past.

                  Consent can be withdrawn at any time, and a fetus, a fetus which can kill and maim it’s host, has no right to use a woman’s body against her will.

                  If you believe that the right to life trumps the right to bodily autonomy/health/disability then I sure as hell hope you support mandatory organ donation.

                • Albert

                  You said, “Doesn’t mean it’s healthy for her.”

                  You’re right! Another reason she might want to consider not having sex unless she is willing to go through this, right?

                  Sounds to me like this is her being responsible and taking action in saying what does or does not happen to her body, right?

                  You said, “What if every human on this earth lived forever and no one ever died?”

                  Okay. What if? Wouldn’t that mean that there would be no abortions either if EVERY human being lived forever?

                  You said, “For the woman, who is the only being that matters in this case. Pregnancy is not a state of wellness, as you have been shown.”

                  Why is the woman the only being that matters in this case? You have now removed this notion of equal rights for all human beings and made it selective. No more equal rights. So how can women fight for equal rights if they are not willing to make them equal across the board?

                  Sounds a bit like discrimination to me.

                  You said, “Women don’t have abortions so that they can party hard, slut-shamer. Women have abortions for serious reasons, one of which is the right not to be MAIMED AND KILLED from the pregnancy.”

                  They would never have to worry about being maimed or killed, as you presume is what happens, if they abstained from sex, right?
                  And why is it serious that the woman not be killed or maimed, but it’s not so serious when that is exactly what happens to the newly created human being when their life is taken from them? Their bodies are literally torn limb from limb, maimed if you will, until they are killed.
                  Again, this is not equal rights for all human beings, which is discrimination. You are treating one class of humans different than another class.

                  You said, “Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy.”

                  It is. Because if you know there is not a 100% change of not getting pregnant then like it or not, you are consenting to having any consequences from that action. No different than driving a car. If you drive a car, you are accepting the idea that you could get into an accident. there is no 100% full proof way to prevent getting into an accident.

                  You said, “So you believe in punishing women, and only women, for the crime of having consensual sex? No man has ever died of an ectopic pregnancy.”

                  First of all, it’s not a crime to have consensual sex. that is a misuse of the word crime. Webster defines crime as: “an illegal act for which someone can be punished by the government: activity that is against the law : illegal acts in general: an act that is foolish or wrong”

                  The conviction that I hold to is that ALL human beings are valuable and should be protected from death as best as we can do.

                  In the case of an ectopic pregnancy, it is known that both the mother and the child will die if something is not done. So in that case, we do abort the child, not because they are of less value, but because the goal is to save as many lives as possible. and because we know the mother has a better chance of survival in that situation, we take the child’s life to save the mother’s life. It is better to lose one life than to lose both in a case like that.

                  You said, “Consent must be ongoing for it to count. You want to force a woman to remain pregnant against her will. Because she chose to have sex. By your logic, marital rape is justified because the woman ‘consented’ to sex [in] the past.”

                  No, any sex, even in marriage, that the woman is not wanting to do is then defined as forced sex. That means that she is being raped.

                  In the case of rape, I give the concession to the woman to abort if she is wanting to do so.

                  I do this, not because I agree this should happen, as I don’t believe the child should ever be punished for the crimes of the father, but I give this concession because this was not consensual sex.

                  So yes, in the case of rape and ectopic pregnancies, I would allow abortions. Statistically, the number of cases where rape or an ectopic pregnancy is the reason for an abortion is minimal and is probably around 1% (if that) of all abortions preformed yearly.

                  You said, “Consent can be withdrawn at any time, and a fetus, a fetus which can kill and maim it’s host, has no right to use a woman’s body against her will.”

                  Then you are fine with a mother killing her 3 year old child? If consent can be withdrawn at any time, this would mean that it’s free killing season on all children by their mothers regardless of their age, right? Doesn’t that sound rather absurd to you?

                  If the woman had consensual sex, then she is not pregnant against her will. This is a known consequence. A fetus does not maim or kill it’s host without the host choose for it to be there. And the host did that when she first had sex.

                  You said, “If you believe that the right to life trumps the right to bodily autonomy/health/disability then I sure as hell hope you support mandatory organ donation.”

                  Bodily autonomy? What about the bodily autonomy of the newly created human being? Where is that human beings autonomy?

                  Your presumption presumes the woman had not say in getting pregnant. She did have a say in it when she chose to engage in consensual sex.

                  The fact is, in a civilized society there is no freedom to do whatever you want with your own body. At any given moment, each of us are constrained by hundreds of laws reflecting our moral responsibilities to our community. The most primal of those rules is the obligation of a mother to her helpless child.

                  Do you remember Susan Smith? She was convicted on July 22, 1995 for murdering her two sons, 3-year-old Michael Daniel Smith, born October 10, 1991, and 14-month-old Alexander Tyler Smith, born August 5, 1993. She later claimed that she suffered from mental health issues that impaired her judgment. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Smith]

                  By your reasoning, these children were kidnappers and interlopers, trespassing on Smith’s life, depriving her of liberty. Why not kill them? Those boys were attacking her. It was self-defense, right?

                  No, there is no reason bodily autonomy can justify termination of another human beings life. Especially when that person’s choice to engage in consensual sex produced that other human being.

                • jejune

                  You’re right! Another reason she might want to consider not having sex unless she is willing to go through this, right?

                  As has been repeatedly explained to you, consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy.

                  Okay. What if? Wouldn’t that mean that there would be no abortions either if EVERY human being lived forever?

                  Answer the question. What if there was no death? Of anything?

                  Why is the woman the only being that matters in this case?

                  It’s her rights that are being infringed upon, and her health that is at stake. She is a person, the ZEF is not.

                  Their bodies are literally torn limb from limb, maimed if you will, until they are killed.

                  This is what a typical abortion looks like:

                  http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ls6w7phG8f1qi68z9.jpg

                  And if you are opposing abortion on the ‘ick’ factor, then you should oppose all abortions, even to save the life of the mother, because in those cases, it is usually late term, and it does in fact involve ripping. Or would you prefer the woman died during the birthing process?

                  In fact, you should oppose all surgery, because surgery = gross.

                  First of all, it’s not a crime to have consensual sex.

                  Then why do you think women should be punished with a forced pregnancy if they engage in consensual sex? Why do you think a woman should put her life and health at risk just because she CHOSE to have sex.

                  In the case of rape, I give the concession to the woman to abort if she is wanting to do so.

                  Should victims of rape be allowed to kill their newborn, if it was created through rape? After all, she didn’t CHOOSE to create it, therefore, she can kill it, right?

                  Then you are fine with a mother killing her 3 year old child?

                  A newborn can be given to other caregivers if the woman is unable to care for it. An embyro cannot simply be transferred. Or would you find it acceptable for a woman to have the embryo removed intact, and frozen, but kept alive, IVF style?

                  If the woman had consensual sex, then she is not pregnant against her will. This is a known consequence.

                  If you drink the the water in a third world country, and you get an intestinal parasite as a result, then you are not infected against your will. This is a known consequence of drinking contaminated water.

                  A fetus does not maim or kill it’s host without the host choose for it to be there. And the host did that when she first had sex.

                  Interesting. So you are saying that a woman cannot die or become disabled as a result of pregnancy if she CHOSE to have sex? I guess that tapeworm can’t harm you either, if you CHOSE to drink bad water. And I guess, by that logic, ectopic pregnancies can’t kill, because the woman CHOSE to have sex, and that sex naturally lead to the ectopic pregnancy. Ectopic pregnancy is a CONSEQUENCE of sex.

                  Bodily autonomy? What about the bodily autonomy of the newly created human being? Where is that human beings autonomy?

                  You assume that an undifferentiated mass of tissue is a ‘human being’. You are begging the question. A zygote, for starters, is nothing more than a single celled organism. An embryo is often nothing more than a clump of undifferentiated tissue. A zef is not an independent organism, and until it is, it has no bodily autonomy. An it certainly does not have the right to essentially OWN a woman’s body.

                  The fact is, in a civilized society there is no freedom to do whatever you want with your own body.

                  Yes, Which is why we don’t FORCE people into slavery. This is why organ donation is not mandatory. And a pregnancy is nothing more than an organ donation in service of the ZEF. And the ZEF should not be granted rights that no born human has.

                  Tell me, should parents be legally obligated to provide blood/bone marrow/ organ donations to their children AFTER they are born? Remember, in a civilized society, according to you, the right to live trumps the right to bodily autonomy.

                  By your reasoning, these children were kidnappers and interlopers, trespassing on Smith’s life, depriving her of liberty

                  Now you’re just acting stupid. The boys were *independent* *viable* *individuals*. She could have given them up for adoption if she no longer wanted to be a mother. In a pregnancy, the zef cannot simply be given up for adoption if the woman no longer wants to vomit every morning, or go blind, or have her insides ripped apart.

                  No, there is no reason bodily autonomy can justify termination of another human beings life

                  So if someone is raping you, you don’t have the right to kill them in self-defense, because their right to live outweighs your right to your body. BTW, rape is often less invasive than pregnancy.

                  Especially when that person’s choice to engage in consensual sex produced that other human being.

                  Oh right, more slut-shaming. You don’t truly believe that a ZEF is a human being. If you did, you wouldn’t say that some ‘murder’ is acceptable, and some isn’t. You are essentially saying that MURDER is ok if the child was conceived through non-consensual sex, but not ok if the woman chose to have sex.

                  Tell me, what is the difference between a newborn created through rape, and one created through consensual sex?

                • Albert

                  You said, “As has been repeatedly explained to you, consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy.”

                  And repeating it doesn’t make it true. It’s bad logic.

                  And using that same reasoning, if I go rock climbing and lose my grip, I don’t have to worry about falling because I just have to say, “I didn’t consent to falling.”, and I will just float in midair, right?

                  How about instead of saying consent I use the word accept? Would that make a difference?

                  You don’t consent to consequences you accept them when you proceed to do the action.

                  You said, “Answer the question. What if there was no death? Of anything?”

                  I did. I’m not sure what you are wanting. Do you want to tell me what the say?

                  If there was no deaths, there would be no deaths. Including abortions, because those are taking the live of an unborn human.

                  You said, “It’s her rights that are being infringed upon, and her health that is at stake.”

                  IT WAS HER CHOICE TO ENGAGE IN CONSENSUAL SEX.

                  Sorry, I don’t want to put it in all caps, but I think you are not understanding that this is her choice. I thought if I put it in caps you will see it because I’m starting to think you are not reading that part.

                  Webster’s defines infringe as “to do something that does not obey or follow (a rule, law, etc.) : to wrongly limit or restrict (something, such as another person’s rights)”

                  Pregnancy follows consensual sex. It’s true that her health could be at stake, but that was her choice.

                  You said, ” She is a person, the ZEF is not.”

                  Can you define person for me?

                  And how is it different from a human being?

                  You said, “And if you are opposing abortion on the ‘ick’ factor, then you should oppose all abortions, even to save the life of the mother, because in those cases, it is usually late term, and it does in fact involve ripping. Or would you prefer the woman died during the birthing process?”

                  I never said it was because of the “ick” factor. I said it is because science has shown that a newly created human being start life at conception. That means they have value, equal to every other human being. That is true equal rights. That is why I oppose abortions.

                  And as I have stated in the case of losing both woman and child, we have to save as many human beings as we can. If the woman will survive, then that is who we save; even at the cost of losing the other human being. It’s not the best scenario, but it is better to save one than to lose two.

                  You said, “Then why do you think women should be punished with a forced pregnancy if they engage in consensual sex?”

                  She isn’t punished, this was by her choice. Punishment would be if she was forced to have sex. That is rape. And I made the concession in that situation to allow her to abort even if I disagree with it.

                  You said, ” Why do you think a woman should put her life and health at risk just because she CHOSE to have sex.””

                  If her life is at risk, such as an ectopic pregnancy, I said we do what we can to save as many lives as possible. If in this situation the woman’s life could end, then it’s obvious that the child will die as well. So if we can only save one of them, that is what we do. This does not negate her responsibilities.

                  You said, “Should victims of rape be allowed to kill their newborn, if it was created through rape? After all, she didn’t CHOOSE to create it, therefore, she can kill it, right?”

                  Sure why not? How is this any different that aborting it before it’s born?

                  I’m kidding. I do not hold that view. But I also didn’t make my concession to allow aborting, in the case of rape, because I believe it’s the right thing to do. It’s a very hard concession to make, believe me.

                  But I do it to save the 98+% that are not conceived from rape. The goal is to save as many lives as possible. My actual position is that there is not reason to justify an abortion other than an ectopic pregnancy. And that is because in that situation you lose two lives, not one. But if we could stop the 98+% of abortions, the rape abortions would be a heart felt difficult concession.

                  You said, “If you drink the the water in a third world country, and you get an intestinal parasite as a result, then you are not infected against your will. This is a known consequence of drinking contaminated water.”

                  That isn’t against your will. you chose drank the water. the known consequence is now yours to bear.

                  Do you remember the last time an intestinal parasite became a human being?

                  You said, “Interesting. So you are saying that a woman cannot die or become disabled as a result of pregnancy if she CHOSE to have sex?”

                  No, when did I say that? Your quoted text of mine doesn’t say that either. It says that the fetus is there because of the woman’s choice. With complications there is a possibility of her becoming disabled or dying. But again, it was her choice right?

                  You said, “I guess that tapeworm can’t harm you either, if you CHOSE to drink bad water. And I guess, by that logic, ectopic pregnancies can’t kill, because the woman CHOSE to have sex, and that sex naturally lead to the ectopic pregnancy. Ectopic pregnancy is a CONSEQUENCE of sex.”

                  If that was my logic then yes.

                  But that isn’t my logic. You are inferring things I never said.

                  I never once indicated that women can’t have complications from getting pregnant. What I have said is that those are part of the consequences of her choice to have consensual sex. So therefore, she has accepted those risks.

                  You said, “You assume that an undifferentiated mass of tissue is a ‘human being’.”

                  No, actually I”m not assuming anything. I’m saying that science shows that at conception a new unique individual human being start it’s life. There is no assumption there. And this isn’t my claim, but one of those professionals in the field of embryology. If you believe different, I’m open to you showing how they are wrong.

                  You said, “You are begging the question. A zygote, for starters, is nothing more than a single celled organism.”

                  And according to professional Embryologists, that single celled organism is an individual human being. Therefore to have equal rights for all human beings, we need to include them. Anything else would be discrimination.

                  You said, “An embryo is often nothing more than a
                  clump of undifferentiated tissue.”

                  The Farlax free dictionary defines undifferentiated as “not having any distinguishing features”

                  So how is it different from a zygote?

                  You said, “A zef is not an independent organism,…”

                  Do you have any scientific evidence to back up your claim? Because the professional Embryologists say differently. Here’s a quote from one of the textbooks they teach new Embryologists with: “Human development begins at fertilization when a sperm fuses with an oocyte to form a single cell, a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.[Chapter 2 p.14 – First Week of Human Development - The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology : Authors - Keith Lean Moore, Trivedi V. N. Persaud, Mark G. Torchia : Edition 9, illustrated, reprint : Publisher Elsevier/Saunders, 2013 ISBN 1437720021, 9781437720020]”

                  You continued with “… and until it is, it has no bodily autonomy.”

                  Again, you need to show evidence for your claim. Thanks.

                  You said, “An it certainly does not have the right to essentially OWN a woman’s body.”

                  When does it own a woman’s body? The woman gave this new human being permission to be there when she had consensual sex. The consequence of her actions was that she could possibly get pregnant. This is her choice to share her body with this other human being until such a time that the other human could survive on their own.

                  You said, “Yes, Which is why we don’t FORCE people into slavery.”

                  It’s not slavery if she consented to the sex. I’m not sure how much clearer I can make that. She was not forced to get pregnant, this was of her own volition.

                  You said, “This is why organ donation is not mandatory.”

                  I agree. And once she accepted to engage in consensual sex, she accepted every and all consequences from that action.

                  You said, “And a pregnancy is nothing more than an organ donation in service of the ZEF. And the ZEF should not be granted rights that no born human has.”

                  If you consider organ donation something that you give in order to help a person then I would agree.

                  But this donation was not from an unwilling party. The woman’s womb was not stolen, but rather donated to the service of the ZEF when she consented to the consensual sex.

                  And you are correct, a ZEF should not be granted rights that no born human being has. But they should at least have equal rights.

                  You said, “Tell me, should parents be legally obligated to provide blood/bone marrow/ organ donations to their children AFTER they are born? Remember, in a civilized society, according to you, the right to live trumps the right to bodily autonomy.”

                  No, I wouldn’t say they are legally obligated to provide those things. My hope is that as the parents that they would do anything and everything the could for that child since it is their own offspring.

                  Now they might not be legally obligated to provide organs, but they are legally bound to provide care for them, that includes taking them to the doctor and making sure that are well cared for.

                  There is this thing called a de facto guardian, have you heard of it? It is used to define a care giver when one is no available. In fact, if you were locked in a room with a baby and all the provisions to care for it for a month, when they unlock the door, if that child was dead, they could charge you with neglect and possible murder. So even in the case of it not being your own child, there are responsibilities that are inherent to location or proximity. So though the parents aren’t legally bound to provide the organs, it is their duty to do all they can to help that child in the best way they can.

                  You said, “The boys were *independent* *viable* *individuals*. She could have given them up for adoption if she no longer wanted to be a mother.”

                  You are exactly right. But she didn’t. She took another human beings life against their will. That is called murder.

                  you said, “In a pregnancy, the zef cannot simply be given up for adoption if the woman no longer wants to vomit every morning, or go blind, or have her insides ripped apart.”

                  Again you are right. And until it can be, it is her responsibility to care for that child in the best way possible.

                  The fact that is doesn’t want to vomit, go blind or whatever else should have been things she should have decided before having consensual sex. Again, you can’t absolve yourself of your responsibilities just because your liberties are limited for a season. Don’t want the innocent human being after the birth, then do an adoption. But just as a you have to deal with the time that a broken leg has to heal, you have to allow this human being to grow until it is birthed. That is part of the consequences you chose from having consensual sex.

                  You said, “So if someone is raping you, you don’t have the right to kill them in self-defense, because their right to live outweighs your right to your body. BTW, rape is often less invasive than pregnancy.”

                  Nope. I didn’t say that. You are not being attacked by a z/e/f. That innocent human being is in their natural environment. This is where they are meant to be.

                  A rapist is doing something against the will of the woman. Your life is being threatened, you must act if possible.

                  The z/e/f, however, is there because of the woman’s willingness to engage in consensual sex. It is not an attacker. The z/e/f is innocent; they did nothing to put themselves in that situation. The woman on the other hand, did do something.

                  You said, “Oh right, more slut-shaming.”

                  Perhaps that statement wasn’t worded the best, I would agree. It was uncalled for. Please accept my apologies.

                  you said, “You don’t truly believe that a ZEF is a human being.”

                  How do you come to that conclusion?

                  I do believe it is a human being. Science tells us so.

                  You said, “If you did, you wouldn’t say that some ‘murder’ is acceptable, and some isn’t. You are essentially saying that MURDER is ok if the child was conceived through non-consensual sex, but not ok if the woman chose to have sex.”

                  You’re right in that I gave a concession for rape. It’s not a particularly easy concession to give to tell you the truth.

                  But the goal of stopping abortions is to save lives. Less than 1% of all abortions take place because of rape.

                  So if that concession would sway the tide to make abortion illegal in the case of consensual sex and only allow it for ectopic pregnancies or rape, then it’s a 99% increase of lives saved.

                  You said, “Tell me, what is the difference between a newborn created through rape, and one created through consensual sex?”

                  There is no difference. They are both just as valuable and when even one life is lost it is a loss.

                • jejune

                  You don’t consent to consequences you accept them when you proceed to do the action.

                  Yes. Which is why, when you break your leg, you don’t receive medical attention for the break. You just *accept* that you broke it, and try to get on with your life.

                  Your logic is ‘fail’ as has been repeatedly shown by me, Kodie, and feminerd.

                  I did. I’m not sure what you are wanting. Do you want to tell me what the say?

                  So if no animal or human on earth ever died, yet we kept reproducing, and those children didn’t die, and they had children, and they didn’t die…and this went on for thousands of years pray tell, how would that work out?

                  Pregnancy follows consensual sex. It’s true that her health could be at stake, but that was her choice.

                  Not always. In fact, if sex purely evolved for reproduction, human females would go into heat just like animals, and try to have sex with every guy on the block during that cycle. But they don’t. Because sex has an important social bonding element.

                  So you would put a woman’s health at risk – death/blindness/diabetes/cancer – all because you think a zygote is worth more than her? Because you think forced pregnancy should be punishment for the fact that she dared to have the same sexual freedom as man? You must really hate female sexuality.

                  Can you define person for me?

                  And how is it different from a human being?

                  People are sentient and have brains. Fetii do not.

                  And I made the concession in that situation to allow her to abort even if I disagree with it.

                  Yes, because you only consider abortion to be MURDER if the slut willlingly spread her legs, right?

                  It says that the fetus is there because of the woman’s choice. With complications there is a possibility of her becoming disabled or dying. But again, it was her choice right?

                  Yes, and you believe that she should not get treatment for any disabilities resulting from pregnancy because she CHOSE to have sex, right? Cold, how very very cold. Why do you hate women so much?

                  I’m saying that science shows that at conception a new unique individual human being start it’s life.</i<

                  Actually, science doesn't say that. At conception, the zygote can split into twins…then recombine…then split again…then recombine. Those twins would be clones – they would not be unique. I guess, by your definition, they are not people, because their genes are not 'unique'.

                  And according to professional Embryologists, that single celled organism is an individual human being

                  Wrong again. There is absolutely no agreement on this. What science has shown is that a human organism has been created, nothing more. And as a matter of fact, a zygote is a genetic blueprint. It contains INSTRUCTIONS for the creation of the embryo, the fetus, the placenta, and the umbilicus. Are you part placenta? No, thought not.

                  That isn’t against your will. you chose drank the water. the known consequence is now yours to bear.?

                  Yes, which is why, when someone has an intestinal parasite, we deny them treatment, because it was their choice, right?

                  Do you remember the last time an intestinal parasite became a human being

                  I thought the zygote already WAS a human being? Make up your mind. Oh, and the parasite EVOLVED to live in our guts. Just like STDS evolved to get passed along with sex. BTW, if you ever get an STD from sex, don’t get treatment, accept your condition.

                  It’s not slavery if she consented to the sex. I’m not sure how much clearer I can make that. She was not forced to get pregnant, this was of her own volition.

                  And what if you injure someone in a car crash. When you got in the car, you accepted the fact that you might get into an accident and injure someone. Should you be forced to donate blood/organs/bone marrow to save their lives?

                  And you are correct, a ZEF should not be granted rights that no born human being has.

                  You are giving rights to the ZEF that no born human has by FORCING a woman to remain pregnant against her will.

                  Now they might not be legally obligated to provide organs, but they are legally bound to provide care for them, that includes taking them to the doctor and making sure that are well cared for.

                  Why not? The CREATED the kid. You know, through consensual sex. If the kid is sick, both parents should be legally obligated to provide biological support to save the child’s life. Why do you think a FETUS should have the right to use a woman’s body and organs to sustain it’s life, but a born child should not? Why are you discriminating based on location??

                  Again you are right. And until it can be, it is her responsibility to care for that child in the best way possible.

                  Unless it was conceived in rape, in which case, she can just ‘kill the kid’ right?

                  The fact that is doesn’t want to vomit, go blind or whatever else should have been things she should have decided before having consensual sex

                  Or develop diabetes. Or cancer. Or sepsis. Or any of the 50 things I listed to you.

                  It is not YOUR job to make private medical decisions for people just because you think women should be punished for having sex. You cannot assess the risk, only the pregnant woman can. Oh, and birth, birth can always kill, you know. Post Partum Hemmorrhage is #1 killer of pregnant women. And a c-section isn’t necessarily a viable alternative – it is major surgery, and the woman can be bedridden for months, unable to work, etc.

                  You are not being attacked by a z/e/f. That innocent human being is in their natural environment. This is where they are meant to be.

                  The woman is actualy being attacked by it. This is why pregnancy has so many unhealthy side effects.

                  And btw, your crotch is the natural environment for STDS. Your intestine is the natural environment for parasites. Your body is the natural environment for cancer. So, no, ‘biology is destiny’ is not a very compelling argument.

                  A rapist is doing something against the will of the woman. Your life is being threatened, you must act if possible.

                  How about that. A fetus is doing something against the will of the woman AND threatening her life and health. In fact, pregnancy, in many cases, can be more dangerous than rape. Try 72 hours of labour, with your vagina being ripped in half, and developing an obstetric fistula which causes urine and feces to run uncontrollably down your leg. That is another FUN side effect of pregnancy. And 3% of women are affected by it. Many have to wear colostomy bags for life. But hey, the slut chose to have sex right? So, her punishment = an unwanted baby, and a permanent disability.

                  Again, I ask, why do you fear and hate female sexuality soo so much?

                  t is not an attacker. The z/e/f is innocent; they did nothing to put themselves in that situation

                  What if you leave your window unlocked at night and a mentally disabled person breaks into your room and starts to rape you. They are mentally disabled and thus INNOCENT. And you left yourself open to that risk by leaving your window unlocked. It’s all your fault, so you better suck it up and let the patient rape you for as long as he/she wants.

                  As long as the fetus is infringing on the woman’s bodily autonomy, she is within her right to remove it. Intent is immaterial in this situation.

                  How do you come to that conclusion?

                  I do believe it is a human being. Science tells us so.

                  Science says that the ZEF is a potential human being, and more precisely that it is a human organism.

                  And yes, I come to that conclusion because if you really truly believed that a ZEF had the same moral value as a newborn, you wouldn’t give rape victims permisison to MURDER THE BABY.

                  It’s not a particularly easy concession to give to tell you the truth.

                  Yeah? Rape victims in the congo are stuck with thousands of unwanted children. Many of these women resent their children. Should they have the right to kill the kid? After all…if it is, as you say the EXACT SAME PERSON inside the woman as outside, then it doesn’t matter WHEN she kills it.

                  There is no difference. They are both just as valuable and when even one life is lost it is a loss.

                  Which is why you would permit ‘unborn rape babies’ to be viciously torn apart in the womb…got it.

                  Makes perfect sense.

                • Albert

                  You said, “Yes. Which is why, when you break your leg, you don’t receive medical attention for the break. You just *accept* that you broke it, and try to get on with your life.”

                  It seems we have a disconnect about the word consequences. Or is this a sequence problem?

                  The definition that I understand is that consequences means, “something that happens as a result of a particular action or set of conditions”

                  Does consequence mean something different to you?

                  You said, “So if no animal or human on earth ever died, yet we kept reproducing, and those children didn’t die, and they had children, and they didn’t die…and this went on for thousands of years pray tell, how would that work out?”

                  Oh, so this is a population issue, right? Well, if no one died, that could be a bad thing. But how does this relate to abortion? Are you saying that abortion is your way of population control? Euthanasia perhaps?

                  I said, “Pregnancy follows consensual sex. It’s true that her health could be at stake, but that was her choice.” and you responded with, “Not always. In fact, if sex purely evolved for reproduction, human females would go into heat just like animals, and try to have sex with every guy on the block during that cycle.”

                  I don’t follow your comment in regards to my comment. Can you help me understand how if it was consensual sex it is not always her choice? Wouldn’t that mean the sex was forced on her?

                  You said, “So you would put a woman’s health at risk –
                  death/blindness/diabetes/cancer – all because you think a zygote is worth more than her? Because you think forced pregnancy should be punishment for the fact that she dared to have the same sexual freedom as man? You must really hate female sexuality.”

                  I’m not putting any women’s health at risk, it’s her choice, remember? You keep dismissing that fact. She puts herself at risk of all of those things once she engages in consensual sex.

                  The only person I put at risk is myself. Even with my wife, if she doesn’t want to have sex, we don’t. I don’t force her to.

                  You mistake sexual freedom as a ticket to remove responsibilities. I don’t remove men from their responsibilities either.

                  You said, “People are sentient and have brains. Fetii do not.”

                  Do you have science evidence to back up your claim?

                  Do you have any scientific evidence that shows they can’t able to feel, see, hear, smell, or taste? It is my understanding that at 5 weeks the brain has already started developing. Are those without a fully developed brain not people either? Because it technically doesn’t finish until your mid twenties.

                  That was your definition for person, right? So how is it different from a human being?

                  You said, “Yes, because you only consider abortion to be MURDER if the slut willlingly spread her legs, right?”

                  No. You’re not reading my comments. I consider it murder in both situations. But if we can save 99% of those being aborted by this concession, even though it is a hard one to make, it saves many more lives than are currently lost.

                  You said, “Yes, and you believe that she should not get treatment for any disabilities resulting from pregnancy because she CHOSE to have sex, right? Cold, how very very cold. Why do you hate women so much?”

                  Where did I say that? I’m thinking you are avoiding the subject at hand and trying to find tangents.
                  The issue at hand is that the unborn is a human being and if we are to have equal rights for all human beings, that includes the unborn. If you don’t believe that, then you are not for equal rights for all human beings.
                  I have show you a quote from the scientific experts on what is a human being and when it’s life starts. You have yet to show me any proof that this is incorrect. All you have done is tell me there is not conclusive. If that is true, then I’m open to the proof you have to show it is not.

                  I’m having to leave so I will not continue answering the rest of your questions at this time. But I can hopefully continue later on tonight.

                  I wanted to tell you that I appreciate your taking the time to discuss this. I believe it is an important subject.

                • Kodie

                  I’m not putting any women’s health at risk, it’s her choice, remember?
                  You keep dismissing that fact. She puts herself at risk of all of those
                  things once she engages in consensual sex.

                  No, she does not! It seems you are too stupid to understand humans. We interfere in consequences. If a person breaks their leg skiing, we fix it. The natural ultimate consequence of skiing and falling and breaking your leg is totally interfered with. It is medically attended and the situation reversed. Just because it takes 6 weeks to heal doesn’t make it a commitment. Pregnancies can be reversed too. Just like a broken leg, the longer you take to get it fixed, the more difficult it is going to be to fix. I don’t know why you think having a cast on your leg for 2 months constitutes the analogy to bearing a child and paying its expense for the next 20 years.

                • Miss_Beara

                  Do you know people cannot use organs of a corpse if they did not give consent prior to death? So even if the organs will save 20 men, women and children, if the person did not give prior consent, the organs cannot be given.

                  You are essentially saying that a corpse has a right to bodily autonomy, but a woman does not.

                  Sex does not equal consent. If I get pregnant, i will abort. I have a mental illness that will make it impossible for me to be pregnant for 9 months and then post partum. I will most likely kill myself or have lasting psychological damage. I am not going to abstain just because the anti woman sex police tells me to.

                • jejune

                  The definition that I understand is that consequences means, “something
                  that happens as a result of a particular action or set of conditions”

                  Pregnancy can be a *result* of sex.
                  When people use the term ‘consequences’ it is usually in this fashion: “you must accept the consequences of your actions” – the implication being that the person did something wrong.

                  Pregnancy is also a ‘consequence’ of rape. Yet I don’t hear you saying that rape victims should accept the ‘consequence’ of being raped. Consequence implies FAULT. In other words, you view pregnancy as punishment for female sexuality.

                  Why is that?

                • Obazervazi

                  You seem to have come to the conclusion that abortion is black magic. Newsflash for you: If someone is having sex and says “I don’t consent to getting pregnant”, she can still get pregnant, no magic consequence absolution there. There is, however, a certain medical procedure that can bring things back to normal. It’s EXACTLY like getting surgery for a leg broken during a dangerous consensual activity, barring the fact that the treatment is less arduous. THAT’S IT!

                • jejune

                  He is also neglecting the fact that a pregnancy becomes more dangerous as it progresses. And that birth is dangerous and painful.

                  A broken leg, if set to heal, should *get better*, and not fucking kill you as it is ‘healing’.

                • Albert

                  You said, ” If someone is having sex and says “I don’t consent to getting pregnant”, she can still get pregnant, no magic consequence absolution there. There is, however, a certain medical procedure that can bring things back to normal.”

                  What do you mean by normal?

                  Because Webster’s defines normal as, “according with, constituting, or not deviating from a norm, rule, or principle”

                  Seems to me, that if you have sexual intercourse and get pregnant, that is a normal progression.

                  Even you confirm that in your sentence before that where you say that “she can still get pregnant”. Which to means this is a normal consequence from that action.

                  Getting pregnant from having sexual intercourse is the normal progression; there isn’t anything abnormal in that.

                  What is abnormal is interrupting the natural progression of this process just because a man and a woman want to absolve themselves of their responsibilities.

                  You said, “It’s EXACTLY like getting surgery for a leg broken during a dangerous consensual activity, barring the fact that the treatment is less arduous. THAT’S IT!”

                  So you consider breaking a leg to be normal? What activity are you suggesting is being done that this is the norm?

                  And breaking a leg does not kill another human being in the process of setting and putting a cast on the leg. This is the case when an abortion is preformed. Not all parties involved come out alive.

                • jejune

                  What is abnormal is interrupting the natural progression of this process
                  just because a man and a woman want to absolve themselves of their
                  responsibilities.

                  There ya go, slut shaming again.

                  You sure don’t want people to have guilt free sex do you?

                • Albert

                  You said, “There ya go, slut shaming again.”

                  There was nothing in what I said there that indicated I was calling a women that gets pregnant a slut.

                  You are inferring things I did not say.

                  If what is created at conception is a unique human being then there is no justification good enough to to justify terminating a human beings life. If it’s not a unique human being then there is no justification needed.

                  I believe I have shown that it is a unique human being at conception. You have yet to show any evidence that refutes the evidence I have provided.

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                  The fact that it is using my body without my consent is more than enough reason to terminate it.

                • Albert

                  You said, “The fact that it is using my body without my consent is more than enough reason to terminate it.”

                  When one of the possible outcomes from having consensual sex is pregnancy, then you are accepting that as a possible outcome once you engage in that action.

                  Pregnancy is a natural progression from that action. Therefore, any acceptance is based on your willingness to have sex.
                  I don’t know how clear that can be said. You, when you have had consensual sex, is part of the reason that human being is where it currently is. Your partner in the sexual intercourse is the other reason.
                  If you engage in the sexual intercourse, then this is accepting pregnancy as a possible outcome, therefore the human being is not there against your will, but because of it.

                  Simply put, you do the sex, you are welcoming this human being into your body. Therefore this is the closest you can get to consent as is possible when dealing with a natural biological process.

                • Kodie

                  When one of the possible outcomes from having consensual sex is
                  pregnancy, then you are accepting that as a possible outcome once you
                  engage in that action.

                  Nope! That’s called an “accident”.

                • Albert

                  You said, “Nope! That’s called an “accident”.”

                  Webster’s defines accident as , “a sudden event (such as a crash) that is not planned or intended and that causes damage or injury”

                  So yes, you are correct. But the fact that it is not a planned pregnancy or that you didn’t intend to get pregnant does not in anyway negate that it is a consequence of your actions. Actions, I might add, that you are in control of when the sex is consensual.

                  You can’t dismiss your responsibility in being an active party in creating this new human being. The fact that it was an accident, just like my initial car accident analogy, does not in anyway remove your responsibility for causing the outcome.

                  Just like when you drive a car, the intention is not to get into an accident. But if you hit another car, you are held responsible for the damage and care that is required to make everything right. Pregnancy is no different.

                  You can not simply say, “I never intended to hit you with my car, therefore I am not responsible for the damages.”

                  As I have been stating, pregnancy is a possible consequence from sexual intercourse. Once you willfully engage in consensual sex, you have accepted all and every outcome that happens from that action; and that includes pregnancy, accident or not.

                • Kodie

                  You can’t dismiss your responsibility in being an active party in creating this new human being.

                  Yes I can. It’s called ‘get an abortion’.

                  You can not simply say, “I never intended to hit you with my car, therefore I am not responsible for the damages.”

                  Well, you pay for insurance, and the insurance pays them to fix it back the way it was before. It doesn’t make them drive around in a smashed up car. It was partially their fault for driving around the same time and place I was.
                  We generally try to put things back the way they were before the best we can in an accident. We don’t try to live forever with a new, unwieldy situation. The process is to reverse damage, not create a nuisance in your life. Nobody wants a nuisance, they want things to go back the way they were before, and that’s what we try to do. Sometimes, we can’t, but we try, we aim to get that as much and as often as we can.

                  Do you fucking understand “accidents” yet? You don’t seem to.

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                  More slut-shaming and bad analogies.

                  Don’t you have anything original to say?

                  And for the eleventy-billionth time, CONSENT TO SEX IS NOT, IN ANY WAY, CONSENT TO PREGNANCY.

                • jejune

                  He repeats the same shit every time only with more words and then hauls out the dictionary and the one single quote from a pro-life embyrologist made 20+ years ago and he thinks it makes him look smrt.

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                  *snorf*

                • jejune

                  That cat is smarter than Albert.

                • Albert

                  You said, “More slut-shaming and bad analogies.” and “Don’t you have anything original to say?”

                  Neither of those statements helps your argument in any way. In fact, all they show is that instead of you being able to defend your view, you have to attack me. Is this perhaps because your whole view is not based on facts but on opinion?

                  You said, “And for the eleventy-billionth time…”

                  Okay, I will agree with you. Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy.

                  Let us look at this from a different angle.

                  Consent requires that you give permission to another person to perform an act.

                  If this was put formally it would be as follows:

                  Person A consenting to some act X, performed by another person B, entails giving person B permission to perform X. Since X is an act that, for B to me justified in performing, requires the permission of A.

                  You can see how this applies to the act of sexual intercourse, right?
                  And in the case where person A did not give person B permission to perform X, then in the case of sexual intercourse, person B would have raped person A because permission was not given.
                  And even in the case of something like In Vitro Fertilization, person A still needs to give permission to the doctor to perform the procedure.

                  Do you follow?

                  But none of that will guarantee that a woman, person A, will get pregnant. For that to happen, it requires biology.

                  The woman’s body must accept a fertilized egg in order for a pregnancy to occur. This is all done through a involuntary biological process.

                  The woman can not tell her body that she does not give it permission to not get pregnant. This is a biological process and you don’t give or take away permission from biological processes.

                  I will admit that there is technology out there that can prevent biological processes to stop for a while, but in the case of pregnancy, there is no 100% full proof way to do that.

                  Therefore, when you engage in consensual sex you are accepting any outcome from your action.

                  Whether you agree that you are consenting to pregnancy or not, because it is a biological process that you can only somewhat prevent, when you consent to sexual intercourse you are accepting every and any outcome.

                  You can not want to get pregnant. You can not want to have children. You can not want a lot of things to happen and can even take every precaution known to humans. But the reality is, if you knowingly and willfully engage in sexual intercourse you are accepting that there is always the possibility that you could get pregnant.

                  Thus you are accepting those consequences for that action. You not consenting it does not change the fact that you are still responsible for the consequences of your own actions.

                  This is no different than my car analogy from when this first started. If you never intend to get in an accident that is irrelevant once you are in one. The consequences now have to be dealt with.

                  And because the outcome of getting pregnant is the creation of a human being then to terminate that life is murder.

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                  1. No, I’m saying that because you have been repeating the same anti-woman bullshit in every post. None of it is original, none of it is new, it’s the same old worn-out LIES I’ve been hearing for the past. six. weeks. Not necessarily from you, but from others, and it’s almost word-for-word the same damn thing.

                  2. Pregnancy requires ongoing consent. That is, it is not a one-time set-in-stone decision, and if one finds that it is not for them, for whatever reason, one can, in fact, one has the right, to withdraw consent to pregnancy.

                  Forcing a woman to remain pregnant against her will is a violation of her body, on par with rape.

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                  I call it “time for a trip to the pennyroyal patch”.

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                  Nope. Consent is an ongoing process, and can be withdrawn at any point for any reason.

                  Your position is inherently immoral and unethical because it reduces women to slaves, and requires use of their organs whether they consent or not.

                  You are a forced-birther.

                  “Simply put, you do the sex, you are welcoming this human being into your body.”

                  And that? Right there? That is slut-shaming.

                • jejune

                  There was nothing in what I said there that indicated I was calling a women that gets pregnant a slut.

                  Everything you have stated thusfar proves that you think that women who choose to have non-procreative sex ARE sluts because you said, in regards to the rape victim, that she didn’t CHOOSE to spread her legs.

            • jejune

              Yes, we do treat broken legs. But they don’t just disappear. They have to take time to heal. You are not absolving yourself from having a broken leg. You still have to give it time to heal and will have to deal with crutches and the like.

              That is NOT the same thing that you do when you have an abortion.With an abortion, you are absolving yourself of that consequence. This would be as if the broken leg was taken away as if it never happened. The next day you are out there playing basketball.

              So if a new Star Trek style treatment was invented that would immediately fix a broken leg, you would say NO, THAT SHOULD BE ILLEGAL, you chose to take the risk to break your leg, and therefore you cannot ABSOLVE yourself of the consequences of your actions.

              I guess the person who chooses to drink contaminated water should also be forced to live with the parasite, because a simple pill that kills the parasite will ABSOLVE them of responsibility, and that would be wrong…they need to LIVE WITH THE CONSEQUENCES, the same as a woman who chose to have sex.

              • Albert

                Wow….

                Come up with any tangent to avoid discussing the issue. Nice.

                You said, “I guess the person who chooses to drink contaminated water should also be forced to live with the parasite, because a simple pill that kills the parasite will ABSOLVE them of responsibility, and that would be wrong…they need to LIVE WITH THE CONSEQUENCES, the same as a woman who chose to have sex.”

                You are taking my comments out of context. If the parasite that was obtained by drinking the water was a human being, then yes, I would say they would have to live with it. But it’s not a human being.

                The whole point is that what is growing in the woman is a human being, same as her. Your whole parasite in water thing doesn’t fit the same issue.

                My argument is that all human beings are equally value. If we argue for equal rights, which is an argument from your side of the fence, then that means that every human being gets those same rights. You don’t discriminate in any manor or that is not equal.

                Since what is created at conception is a newly individual human being, they need to be protected until they themselves can make choices for themselves. If a woman wants to be in control of her own body, then she needs to agree that every other human being gets the same control over their own body. Once you allow one human being control over another human beings body, you are taking away the rights you are saying should be equally applied to every human being. This is not equal.

                The consequence of pregnancy is not something you can give consent to, it is a natural biological process that happens when certain conditions are set in place that produce a new human being. This is not abnormal, as some presume, but a natural progression from the actions one does.

                If you don’t want to be pregnant, you have one option. Don’t have sexual intercourse. Every other option is not 100% full proof, therefore pregnancy is a possible consequence from that action.

                It doesn’t matter how many arguments to throw at me, it doesn’t change these facts. If you don’t agree with them, then argue against pregnancy and not other left field arguments about water parasites.

                The fact is, science, according to Embryologists have stated that an unique individual human being is created at conception.

                This quote demonstrates that view that Embryologists hold: “Human development begins at fertilization when a sperm fuses with an oocyte to form a single cell, a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.[Chapter 2 p.14 – First Week of Human Development - The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology : Authors - Keith Lean Moore, Trivedi V. N. Persaud, Mark G. Torchia : Edition 9, illustrated, reprint : Publisher Elsevier/Saunders, 2013 ISBN 1437720021,
                9781437720020]”

                You might disagree with this all you want. But unless you can show this to be wrong, then you don’t have a good argument; it is simply your opinion.

                If you claim it is a human being but it is not a person, then you have to show how a person is scientifically different than a human being. So far, I haven’t gotten anything other than a person is ‘sentient and has a brain’. But this was never explained as to how it is different than a human being.

                What is interesting is that murder, as defined by Webster’s is, “the crime of deliberately killing a person” And then a person, as defined by Webster’s is, “a human being”

                If a person is a human being, then taking the life of a human being is taking the life of a person. Therefore abortion is murder.

                The whole idea of bodily autonomy doesn’t work in your favor either as you are dismissing the bodily autonomy of the human being that was created at conception. Once you do that, they you are contradicting yourself and saying there is no such thing as bodily autonomy, therefore rendering your “right” to murder the new human being.

                Let’s face it. You just want to be able to kill anyone that doesn’t fit your life and how you want to live it. It doesn’t matter if you were the reason they exited in the first place.

                Abortion is wrong. Abortion is murder. Abortion takes the life of an innocent unborn human person.

                • jejune

                  Wow, you sure come up with a lot of bullshit.

                  No, dumbass, pregnancy is not equivalent to a broken leg healing. Because as the leg heals, it gets better see? Your mobility etc. improves.

                  Pregnancy, as it progresses, becomes more and more dangerous. As the broken leg heals, your mobility improves.

                  Getting the cast off your leg is not the equivalent of BIRTH. Does it take up to 72 hours of labour to remove the cast? Does the cast removal involve intense debilitating muscle spasms? Does the cast removal involve ripping your insides apart and potentially killing you? Does it involve post cast depression and psychosis?

                  Your attempt to dismiss this analogy was a complete and utter failure.

                  The fact is, science, according to Embryologists have stated that an unique individual human being is created at conception.

                  Actually, embryologists are divided on this issue. There is no consensus. However, what science DOES tell us is that a blastocyst is nothing more than a genetic blueprint. And that an early stage embyro is nothing more than undifferentiated tissue.

                  And I would love for you to explain monozygotic twins and chimaeric individuals. They don’t fall under your ‘unique individual’ label.

                  You are woefully ignorant, and it shows.

                  You might disagree with this all you want. But unless you can show this to be wrong, then you don’t have a good argument; it is simply your opinion.

                  You think you’ve got a slam-dunk based on one 20 year old quote lololol. Pathetic.

                  Btw, human beings are *sentient* *sapient* creatures. They are not genetic blueprints.

                  My argument is that all human beings are equally value

                  Unless the human being is created through rape right?

                  The consequence of pregnancy is not something you can give consent to, it is a natural biological process that happens when certain conditions are set in place that produce a new human being

                  Cancer is natural too. You will have to do better.

                  Once you allow one human being control over another human beings body, you are taking away the rights you are saying should be equally applied to every human being. This is not equal.

                  Which is what you are doing to the woman when you put the rights of microscopic zygote above her. You think that a woman loses ownership of her body the moment she consents to sex which brings us to…

                  If you don’t want to be pregnant, you have one option. Don’t have sexual intercourse.

                  Slut shamer.

                  The whole idea of bodily autonomy doesn’t work in your favor either as you are dismissing the bodily autonomy of the human being that was created at conception.

                  You are dismissing the bodily autonomy of the woman in favour of something that doesn’t even have a body and might not even develop far enough TO have that body.

                  You just want to be able to kill anyone that doesn’t fit your life and how you want to live it. It doesn’t matter if you were the reason they exited in the first place.

                  You’re a fucking moron, you know that?

                  If you claim it is a human being but it is not a person, then you have to show how a person is scientifically different than a human being.

                  About a trillion cells different. Sentience..sapience…not being a microscopic genetic blueprint..existing independently…being fully formed and complete…not being composed of stem cells.

                  Yeah, I think that a ZEF doesn’t qualify as a ‘person’.

                • Albert

                  You said, “…pregnancy is not equivalent to a broken leg healing. Because as the leg heals, it gets better see? Your mobility etc. improves.”

                  Not sure what you are reading, but there was nothing in my comment referring to a broken leg. Perhaps you mean to make this comment to a different comment.

                  The only equivalency I am saying a pregnancy is to a broken leg is how they relate to the actions that can produce them.

                  They are both consequences, that is the only way they are related. You want to argue more than that, then you are beating a dead horse. The analogy stands.

                  You said, “Actually, embryologists are divided on this issue. There is no consensus. ”

                  Evidence please. Right now this is nothing more than your opinion, unless you can show me evidence.

                  You said, “And that an early stage embyro is nothing more than undifferentiated tissue.”

                  Evidence please. Right now this is nothing more than your opinion, unless you can show me evidence.

                  You said, “And I would love for you to explain monozygotic twins and chimaeric individuals. They don’t fall under your ‘unique individual’ label.”

                  I’m not sure how to explain this. I wouldn’t even try as I’m no expert. But the claim is not mine, The claim is from those professionals in the field; Embryologists are the ones saying that they are a unique human being from conception. The textbook where I got the quote from is one that I don’t have full access to, unfortunately. But I will see if I can find out if they answer this question of yours. Perhaps we can both learn something new.

                  You said, “You think you’ve got a slam-dunk based on one 20 year old quote lololol. Pathetic.”

                  I would encourage you to actually read what I have posted instead of assuming. This quote is not 20 years old, but actually from the latest edition of this text book. Here is the publishing information:

                  Edition 9, illustrated, reprint : Publisher Elsevier/Saunders, 2013 ISBN 1437720021,
                  9781437720020

                  See that 2013, in there? That is the date this textbook was published. I welcome you to look at the ISBN number and do a search on it. This is the latest information that has been published on the subject, not 20 years as you would like to believe.

                  So the request stands. You might disagree with this all you want. But unless you can show this to be wrong, then you don’t have a good argument; it is simply your opinion.

                  You said, “Btw, human beings are *sentient* *sapient* creatures. They are not genetic blueprints.”

                  Again, you are making a statement, a claim. But you are not providing evidence to back up your statement. If you can’t do that, this is simply your opinion.

                  You said, “Unless the human being is created through rape right?”

                  I explained the reason why I gave that concession. If you would like, I don’t have to make it. I stated that I personally don’t agree with the concession but offer it to save as many lives as possible. And when you consider that only 1% of abortions currently preformed are from rape victims, then that is a huge number of lives saved by offering this concession.

                  You said, “Cancer is natural too. You will have to do better.”

                  Actually according to Webster’s, cancer is defined as, “a serious disease caused by cells that are not normal and that can spread to one or many parts of the body”

                  That is incorrect. Though many people get cancer, they are not normal cells but abnormal ones.

                  Pregnancy, on the other hand, is a natural function produced from the act of sexual intercourse. Pregnancy is not abnormal cells, but are cells that are growing exactly as they are supposed to in the environment they are in.

                  You said, “Which is what you are doing to the woman when you put the rights of microscopic zygote above her. You think that a woman loses ownership of her body the moment she consents to sex which brings us to…”

                  And again, this is not a woman losing our ownership, but a woman who, because she own choice to have consensual sex, has put herself in to this situation. This was not forced on her. That would be rape. When the woman chose to have consensual sex, she agreed that the possibility of getting pregnant was worth the consensual sex she engaged it.

                  You said, “Slut shamer.” in regards to my comment, “If you don’t want to be pregnant, you have one option. Don’t have sexual intercourse.”

                  No shame being implied here; rather just stating that this is the only known way to be absolutely positive that you will not get pregnant.

                  You said, “You are dismissing the bodily autonomy of the woman in favour of something that doesn’t even have a body and might not even develop far enough TO have that body.”

                  Webster’s defines body as, “a person’s or animal’s whole physical self”
                  This means that just because an unborn human being’s body is smaller than yours does not make it any less their body.

                  You said, “About a trillion cells different. Sentience..sapience…not being a microscopic genetic blueprint..existing independently…being fully formed and complete…not being composed of stem cells. Yeah, I think that a ZEF doesn’t qualify as a ‘person’.”

                  Where is your evidence to back up this claim? Right now what you have presented to me is your opinion. Scientifically speaking, you have not shown me nothing to base your opinion on.
                  And you still have not defined the difference between a person and a human being.

                • jejune

                  Not sure what you are reading, but there was nothing in my comment
                  referring to a broken leg. Perhaps you mean to make this comment to a
                  different comment.

                  It has everything to do with it. I easily refuted your analogy, you said that abortion ‘absolves women of the consequences of acting like dirty sluts’ whereas letting your leg heal is the equivalent of giving birth. I pointed out the faults with this logic, and I even went int more detail to prove that giving birth is about a gazillion times more dangerous than letting your broken leg heal. Especially the GIVING BIRTH part vs. getting the cast removed.

                  logic, you fail at it

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

        • C.L. Honeycutt

          You forget to mention that we still give medical attention to people who get hurt in car crashes, no matter what happened. Convenient that.

          Your comments about “human beings” do not follow at all.

          • Albert

            You said, “You forget to mention that we still give medical attention to people who get hurt in car crashes, no matter what happened. Convenient that.”

            I didn’t forget to mention anything. I just didn’t mention it. You are not me so you don’t know my mind. Just because you would have mentioned something doesn’t in anyway mean I forgot to mention it. This is an assumption on your part.

            But, since you did mention it, yes, people in car crashes do get medical attention; so what? What’s your point?

            You said, “Your comments about “human beings” do not follow at all.”

            What do you mean by that?

        • Spuddie

          “If a woman and a man choose to engage in sexual intercourse they are
          accepting all the consequences that come along with that action. The
          fact that they don’t want to get pregnant is besides the point.”

          Actually its entirely the point. Thanks to modern medicine and whatnot being pregnant is not a given consequence of having intercourse. Claiming so is just so much assumption and special pleading on your part.

          A better analogy is you are claiming that dying of a burst appendix is the consequence of being human. Never mind that we have the ability for it not to be so.

          Unless you can find a way to separate a fetus from its mother, it will never be equal to her until its born. Nobody has to care what you think about a woman’s decision to abort, its not ever going to be your decision to make. Its not growing in your body. You have no say in the matter.

          • Albert

            You said, “Actually its entirely the point. Thanks to modern medicine and whatnot being pregnant is not a given consequence of having intercourse.”

            That is incorrect.

            A consequence is, as webster’s defines it, “something that happens as a result of a particular action or set of conditions”

            You get pregnant from exactly that, a particular action or set of conditions. Pregnancy is a possible consequence of having sexual intercourse. The fact that you can abort the newly created individual human being in no way takes away from the fact that pregnancy is a consequence of sexual intercourse.

            If you logic followed that pregnancy wasn’t a consequence of sexual intercourse, we wouldn’t be having this discussion because people wouldn’t be getting pregnant and abortions would not be happening. But that isn’t the case, is it? People do have sexual intercourse; and sometimes they get pregnant when they were hoping not to. So they go to a doctor to abortion the newly created human being so that they lives don’t have to change from what they are right now. This does not mean that pregnancy is not a consequence of sexual intercourse.

            You said, ” Claiming so is just so much assumption and special pleading on your part.”

            An assumption[assume], as Webster’s would define it is, “to think that something is true or probably true without knowing that it is true”

            Special pleading is a form of an insincere argument where a position in a dispute introduces favorable details or excludes unfavorable details by alleging a need to apply additional considerations without proper criticism of these considerations

            We know that there is a chance of getting pregnant when people have sexual intercourse. That means this is not an assumption.

            What details did I exclude from consideration to allow me to shape this argument to fit my view?

            If your logic is true, and sexual intercourse does not lead to possibly getting pregnant, then other than seeking a doctor to help with In Vitro Fertilization, how else do women get pregnant, if not through sexual intercourse?

            You said, “A better analogy…”

            I’ll stick with the ones I have used, thanks.

            Perhaps what you mean is that a possible consequence of having an appendix is that it could burst. Or that dying is a consequence of an appendix bursting. But applying the consequence to the human instead of the appendix is not using the word consequence correctly.

            You said, “Unless you can find a way to separate a fetus from its mother, it will never be equal to her until its born.”How do you come to that conclusion?

            You said, “Nobody has to care what you think about a woman’s decision to abort, its not ever going to be your decision to make.”

            You’re right, no one has to care what I think. Just like I don’t have to care what you think. This gets us no where. There is no argument there. What is your point?

            You said, “Its not growing in your body. You have no say in the matter.”

            The problem is, it’s not just one body that is involved here. You have 1, the mother, and 2, the newly created human being that is inside of her.

            So is we followed your logic, then perhaps I wouldn’t have a say in the matter, but the unborn human person does.

            Who is allowing that human being to decide what happens to her body? After all, it’s not the mothers body, but a completely separate human being inside of her.
            That means there are two people involved. And because of that, they should both have a say in what happens.
            It’s not the mother’s body that is getting tore limb from limb or being chemical burned, it’s the one that isn’t able to speak out.

            We speak out for those that can’t, for those that are unable to because of their situation, because they don’t have the strength to defend themselves.

            This is a moral issue. And just because this is happening inside the mothers body, does not give her the right to take the life of another living human being.

            To say that it is not killing, you first have to show that it is not a human being. I believe science is on my side for this argument.

            We have put people in prison for killing the unborn, Scott Peterson comes to mind. He was charged with killing his wife and their unborn child. How is it murder when he did it, and not when the mother does it? The answer is, it’s not. They are both murder.

            And quite honestly, the fact that you don’t think I have a say in the matter means nothing to me. I have just as much say as the next person when it comes to moral issues within my country.

            • Spuddie

              It would only be a consequence if it were a certainty in the action.Thanks to birth control and abortion, it is not the case. Since they exist, there is no certainty to pregnancy with sexual activity. So it is only a consequence if you chose it to be by avoiding such things. In other words, its only your consequence, not one for anyone else.

              Just because you want it to be one and remove many decades of social and medical advancement doesn’t mean I have to take it seriously.

              Nobody said every birth is unwanted. That people do not have children intentionally. So your “by your logic” argument is just so much hyperbole.

              Biology is a harsh mistress. A fetus cannot have existence beyond what its mother chooses for it. Since it can’t live outside of its mother’s will. Its always going to be subordinate to its mother.

              Not accepting such basic truths is why your POV is inherently irrational and attacks personal autonomy. You have to attack the born living people to allegedly protect the unborn.

              “The problem is, it’s not just one body that is involved here. ”

              But its not in your body! So your concern may be noted but there is no compelling reason why anyone has to care.

              “We have put people in prison for killing the unborn, Scott Peterson comes to mind. ”

              He killed a born person and the fetus wasn’t in his body. The fact that you can’t distinguish between the act of abortion and murder shows a level of dishonesty and cognitive dissonance. Born people have rights. Unborn people are only acknowledged under the law if their mother wanted them alive.

              “This is a moral issue.”

              I find it immoral for someone to dictate what others can do with their bodies based on emotional pleas, dishonest arguments, and attacking their autonomy.

              In order to push your POV you have to attack a born woman through slut shaming, insults, and devalue their ability to act in their interests. There is nothing moral about that.

              • Albert

                You said, “It would only be a consequence if it were a certainty in the action.Thanks to birth control and abortion, it is not the case.”

                What? Birth control is not 100% full proof; that means that even if you take every precaution known to man, you COULD still get pregnant. Even if you got your tubes tied and your partner had a vasectomy, this is not a 100% guarantee that you will not get pregnant.

                Abortions happen AFTER you are already pregnant. They don’t stop you from getting pregnant. They stop you from staying pregnant. That’s a pretty big difference considering we are discussion consequences.

                I’m not sure what you are missing here, but it doesn’t seem you understand what a consequence is; even after I gave you a definition from Webster’s.

                You said, “Just because you want it to be one and remove many decades of social and medical advancement doesn’t mean I have to take it seriously.”

                I’m not ‘wanting’ or ‘not wanting’ pregnancy to be a consequence of sexual intercourse, it just is.

                The medical advancements have not removed someone from getting pregnant with a 100% accuracy. Unless of course you get a hysterectomy.

                People still get pregnant, even when they have their tubes tied, their partners get a vasectomy and they are using both birth-control and condoms.

                Nothing, and I mean nothing, except not having sexual intercourse, will guarantee you will not get pregnant.

                Whether you take that seriously or not is irrelevant. The fact remains that people still get pregnant even with taking every precaution that they can, save abstinence or a hysterectomy. And if people still get pregnant, then it is a consequence of sexual intercourse.

                • Spuddie

                  Even if not 100%, it makes pregnancy not a certainty of sexual congress. So it is not a consequence of it.

                  Abortion means one does not have to live with an unwanted pregnancy as the “consequence of having sex”.

                  Of course the whole point of your “consequences” spiel is pure slut-shaming anyway. Women who have abortions are just dirty whores and bearing an unwanted child is their punishment.

                  Of course that view is all well and good, but it is no substitute for the fact that it is still her body, not yours. There is no reason your judgment concerning her body is greater than hers.

                  Alleged moral high ground is no substitute for physical possession. The fetus is in her body and alive by her will. So her will is the only thing which matters here.

                  Your opinion on the matter is no different than if I say that you can’t have a blood transfusion because in my view God says such things are wrong.

                • jejune

                  Nothing, and I mean nothing, except not having sexual intercourse, will guarantee you will not get pregnant.

                  And you don’t want people having non-procreative sex.

                  Tell us Albert, why do you feel the need to control other people’s sex lives through forced pregnancy?

                • Albert

                  You said, “And you don’t want people having non-procreative sex.”

                  Never said that. You are inferring that.

                  You said, “Tell us Albert, why do you feel the need to control other people’s sex lives through forced pregnancy?”

                  First of all, pregnancy is different than sex. If you don’t understand that, then I’m not sure I can help you understand much of what I’m saying.

                  Secondly, I’m not trying to control anyone’s sex life. What I’m trying to do is make it clear that when a women gets pregnant, she is no longer the only human being’s who’s rights we need to be concerned with. There is another separate unique individual that is insider her created by the woman’s own actions.

                  How I feel is irrelevant. What is important is that we are not killing human beings at the drop of a hat.

                  Science has shown that a unique human life start at conception. I have shown you a quote a couple of times now that is what they teach future Embryologists. If you disagree with this then please show me how it is wrong.

                  So far, you are not attacking the issue that this is a human being and that killing a human being is murder, but rather you hanging out on the fringes avoiding the real issue and pretending it’s not murder.

                • jejune

                  Never said that. You are inferring that.

                  Yeah, that’s why you said that you would permit victims of rape to get an abortion because they weren’t guilty of having sex…

                  And because you said that a woman MUST give birth because an abortion absolves her of responsiblity for her ‘actions’

                  Yeah right

                  Try harder , you misogynist sex fearing bigot

                • Albert

                  You said, “Yeah, that’s why you said that you would permit victims of rape to get an abortion because they weren’t guilty of having sex…”

                  I explained my reason for giving the concession for rape.

                  You said, “And because you said that a woman MUST give birth because an abortion absolves her of responsiblity for her ‘actions’ Yeah right”

                  Am I wrong? If so, how so?

                  You said, “Try harder , you misogynist sex fearing bigot”

                  And instead of refuting my argument you result to name calling.

                  The difference between your view and mine is that I have science and facts on my side. So far, all you have is opinion and ridicule.

                • jejune

                  I explained my reason for giving the concession for rape.

                  Yeah, it pains you to do so, but they aren’t sluts so…you don’t think they should be punished.

                  And instead of refuting my argument you result to name calling.

                  Already refuted all your bullshit arguments.

                  The difference between your view and mine is that I have science and facts on my side. So far, all you have is opinion and ridicule.

                  I have lots of science on my side, I just haven’t bothered yet to waste the energy on you, ignorant twit.

              • Albert

                Plus there is nothing about certainty in the definition of consequences; only that certain criteria is met for it to happen. So if a sperm fertilizes an egg, there is a pregnant women at the moment.
                If you knew that it was for certain that you would break your leg while skiing or fall from a mountain when rock climbing, I’m sure you wouldn’t do it. But breaking a leg is a possible consequence of skiing and falling is a possible consequence of rock climbing.
                It is no different for getting pregnant. If you engage in sexual intercourse there is a possibility you could get pregnant, therefore it is a consequence of that action.
                And it doesn’t matter how much you don’t want it to happen.

                • Spuddie

                  Again only a consequence if you chose it to be one. Hence not a consequence at all except for your actions.

                  Its an irrelevancy anyway because you still have to justify why your opinion on the matter must override the ability of a woman to act in her own interests with her own body.

                  Claiming moral high ground is not enough. Being allegedly moral still doesn’t mean you get to dictate what someone does with their body. You can’t. You are avoiding the issue.

                • Albert

                  You said, “Again only a consequence if you chose it to be one. Hence not a consequence at all except for your actions.”

                  Let’s see, we have birth control pills, not 100% effective in stopping a pregnancy. We have tubal ligation or a vasectomy, both not 100% effective in stopping a pregnancy.

                  So tell me again how you chose pregnancy to not be a consequence?

                  You said, “Its an irrelevancy anyway because you still have to justify why your opinion on the matter must override the ability of a woman to act in her own interests with her own body.”

                  It has never been my contention to override the ability of any woman to act in her own interests with her own body. In fact, I support that 100%.

                  The issue though is not what she is acting on with her own body, but rather that she is acting on someone else’s body against their consent.

                  The woman can do whatever she wants to her body, that’s fine, but she can not do anything to that human being that is insider of her because of her own actions. Once that human being was created by her consensual sex, she is responsible to care for that human being until it is able to do so on it’s own.
                  You said, “Claiming moral high ground is not enough. Being allegedly moral still doesn’t mean you get to dictate what someone does with their body. You can’t. You are avoiding the issue.”

                  And again, I’m not telling women what they can or can’t do with their own bodies. It telling women that they can’t do to another human being’s body.

                  Two separate bodies, that’s the key here.

                  The points that make my argument are:

                  1) The woman is willingly engaging in consensual sex knowing that pregnancy is a possible outcome regardless of what precautions she uses, including tubal ligation.

                  Just as in a car, if you hit another car you are held responsible regardless if you intended to hit that car or get into an accident. The same if you get pregnant. Your intentions may have been to just have some pleasurable sex, but the outcome, albeit an accident, is still your responsibility.

                  2) At conception a new unique human being is created and has its’ own separate body from the mother. The science I have shown you is proof of this and you have not shown anything to refute it.

                  3) Equal rights for all human beings means all human beings.

                  Webster’s defines equal as “the same in number, amount, degree, rank, or quality : having the same mathematical value : not changing : the same for each person”

                  Once you exclude even one, you are not wanting equal rights, but special rights.

                  You have stated that women should have the right to say what happens to their own body. And I agreed. The problem is you don’t acknowledge what science has proven; that at conception, a newly unique individual human being, separate from the mother, is created.

                  4) Abortion is morally wrong based on the fact that science has shown that what is created at conception is a human being. and to kill a human being is called murder.

                  Webster defines murder as, “the crime of deliberately killing a person” And Webster defines a person as, “a human being”

                  Therefore, if science is correct, and I believe it is, that a new unique human being is created at conception, then to terminate that human beings life is murder.

                  You can pretend to deny these facts or you can refute them. But to merely use opinion as you have been doing does nothing to support your position.

                  I honestly would prefer you attempt to refute them because then at least I could see you are basing your argument not something substantial and not just on your emotions.

                • Spuddie

                  Albert, as I have said for a 3rd time, the whole “consequences” argument is complete and utter bullshit.

                  You are trying to argue that your self-righteous moralizing is more important than the decisions a woman makes regarding her own body. Sorry, just because you think your position is correct, it doesn’t mean it has to be taken seriously. Somehow “equal rights” to you means all pregnant women must be subservient to your will and opinion.

                  Your moralizing is not more important than the personal liberties of others. I may think swearing and blasphemy are morally wrong, but I have no right to tell others not to do them.

                  “It has never been my contention to override the ability of any woman to act in her own interests with her own body.”

                  Bullshit, if you are attacking their ability to chose to bear a child or not, that is exactly what you do.

                  The fetus has no separate interests because it has no existence beyond its mother’s will for it to be. You have not refuted that one bit.

                  You avoid the issue entirely because you can’t argue around it. To do so is to ignore her concerns with slutshaming (the whole consequence nonsense) or hold the fetus to have greater rights than the born human being who has the ultimate control over its existence. An irrational, nonsensical point of view.

                  Its not two separate bodies because one is dependent entirely on the other. I don’t have to give a crap whether it can feel or quote Shakespeare in the womb. As long as its life is dependent entirely on the mother’s body, it has no interests greater than its mother’s.

                  She can do whatever she wants to the being inside her body, because it is her body and hers alone which bears the risks and burdens of pregnancy. You can’t tell her what to do with her own body any more than you can ban blasphemy and swearing because you feel its wrong.

                • Albert

                  You said, “You are trying to argue that your self-righteous moralizing is more important than the decisions a woman makes regarding her own body. Sorry, just because you think your position is correct, it doesn’t mean it has to be taken seriously. Somehow “equal rights” to you means all pregnant women must be subservient to your will and opinion.”

                  I do believe that moral rights are very important. They shape our society in ways that benefit everyone if we are careful in what we restrict and what we allow.

                  But I never said that a woman’s decisions regarding her own body are not important. In fact, I have said several times that I support a woman’s decision in what she does with her own body. But what is growing inside the woman is a unique individual human being separate from the mother. And for that body, she does not have a say in, only her own body. And when she chose to have consensual sex, she chose this outcome as one of the possibilities of what could happen. This was not done blindly on her part. She understood there was a chance she could get pregnant and she went through with it anyway.

                  You said, “Bullshit, if you are attacking their ability to chose to bear a child or not, that is exactly what you do.”

                  It was her choice. That is one of my points that you keep missing.

                  You said, “The fetus has no separate interests because it has no existence beyond its mother’s will for it to be. You have not refuted that one bit.”

                  Seems to me, that if they are growing, that is an interest of theirs. And if the mother is wanting an abortion, then that interest is separate from it’s mothers. If not, then it would self abort on it’s own.

                  You said, “You avoid the issue entirely because you can’t argue around it. To do so is to ignore her concerns with slutshaming (the whole consequence nonsense) or hold the fetus to have greater rights than the born human being who has the ultimate control over its existence. An irrational, nonsensical point of view.”

                  Consider consequences as nonsense all you want; the fact remains that pregnancy is a consequence of the woman’s actions. If she knowingly engages in consensual sex, she is knowingly willing to accept that she could possibly get pregnant. The fact that she might want to ignore that fact while she is in the middle of enjoying herself is her problem, not biology’s.

                  And you down playing her response doesn’t make it any less her responsibility.

                  You said, “Its not two separate bodies because one is dependent entirely on the other.”

                  Perhaps you don’t understand what I mean by separate? Even with something like milk that can be in one container can still be separate from the cream. It is two bodies. If you don’t accept that, I’m willing to listen to any scientific evidence you have in support of your argument.

                  You said, ” I don’t have to give a crap whether it can feel or quote Shakespeare in the womb. As long as its life is dependent entirely on the mother’s body, it has no interests greater than its mother’s.”

                  And you base this one what? Because quite honestly, it sounds like opinion, nothing more.

                  You said, “She can do whatever she wants to the being inside her body, because it is her body and hers alone which bears the risks and burdens of pregnancy.”

                  That is incorrect. If is not her body. That is exactly my whole point. You need to provide scientific proof to back up your claim or all you are doing is spewing opinion.

                  You said, “You can’t tell her what to do with her own body any more than you can ban blasphemy and swearing because you feel its wrong.”

                  Actually, we have many laws in place that keep people from using their bodies in a way that could harm other people. The fact that there is currently a law in place that allow abortions is exactly what I’m fighting against. There is no consistency in that law. Every other law we have states that you are not allowed to harm another person against their will. This is what abortion does. It is contrary to every other law we have in place. Even contrary to laws established in the same state that are against infanticide.

                  Professionals in the field have shows that a newly created human being starts life at conception. If you deny this then you need to show proof that this is incorrect. Your opinion means nothing. If it is a human being from conception, then to terminate it’s life is murder.

                • Spuddie

                  “But I never said that a woman’s decisions regarding her own body are not important.”

                  But obviously it is not as important as your opinion on the subject. Since you only respect her decisions if they are in line with your thinking.

                  The whole “consequence” and “responsibility” nonsense standing in for the notion that a woman with an unwanted pregnancy is a dirty slut unworthy of making a proper decision on the subject as opposed to fine upstanding moralistic you. Your opinion mattering more than every woman who is capable of giving birth. How narcissistic of you.

                  “And you down playing her response doesn’t make it any less her responsibility.”

                  Her responsibility according to you. One which forgoes any consideration of her person. You are constantly treating giving birth to unwanted children as a punishment either directly or indirectly. Again, your opinion on the matter doesn’t override the fact it is still her body in question here. Not yours.

                  “Perhaps you don’t understand what I mean by separate?”

                  I understood it perfectly and found it spurious and lacking in a basis in reality. As long as a fetus can’t survive outside her womb, your definitions of “a separate body” are pure bullshit. It has no separate existence until born, no rights, no personhood. It doesn’t exist without her will. No other form of human existence has such a unique dependency. Therefore you can’t ever consider it equivalent to any born person.

                  You keep ignoring it or pretending its irrelevant, but its the only fact which is important here. None of your moralizing, slutshaming, insults to the decision making process of women or phony claims that a fetus can be treated the same as a born person.

                  I don’t have to give a flying crap when you think life begins or how much of a dirty shameful irresponsible person a woman can be. Its in her body, a fetus can’t be removed by people like yourself who want to save it, it doesn’t live unless she wants it to be born. So her decision is always going to be the most important one here.

                  The problem is you think you are naturally superior to all women and they must abide by your opinion as to their own bodies. The anti-choice POV is all about arguing through a sense of smug self-styled superiority.

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                  Irrelevant.

                  Unique individual or not, it does not have a right to use a woman’s body without her explicit ongoing consent.

                • islandbrewer

                  Therefore, if science is correct, and I believe it is, that a new unique human being is created at conception, …

                  Really? How many unique human beings? Just one? If I split a blastula stage into two roughly equal cell masses, and each grows into a person, are they still just one unique human being? If I split them into 8 equal cell masses? I think at around 16, the cells are close enough at the end of their initial totipotency to not be able to fully differentiate, but that’s not the point.

                  If they are more than one unique human being, at what point did they become two? At the point at which I split the two cell masses? If that’s true, and I put the two cell masses back together after a couple mitotic cycles, are they two people fused into one body, or are they just one unique human being, again?

                • Albert

                  You said, “Really? How many unique human beings? Just one? If I split a blastula
                  stage into two roughly equal cell masses, and each grows into a person,
                  are they still just one unique human being?”

                  Well, first the claim is from Embryologists, professionals in that field. So the question would have to be directed to them as I am for sure no expert. But I’m sure they could give you an answer. If you get one, please feel free to let me know what you find out; with references, of course.

                  We do know that a sperm can fertilize an egg and it could split to form two unique human beings from the same egg. We know them to be identical twins. And this can happen even for multiples. I agree, this is a possibility.

                  But for the sake of argument, lets say you are correct and it’s not a single human being but two or eight. What does this get you?

                  They are still human beings, right?This doesn’t change my argument in the least. And it doesn’t seem to help your argument at all.

                • islandbrewer

                  The preferred current term is developmental biologist, but embryologist isn’t offensive or anything like that.

                  You didn’t answer the last part. My point is that a blastula isn’t a human being. It’s a mass of cells. It can be split into several masses that can eventually be grown into human beings, or put into a single mass that can eventually grow into one human being. Until it’s no longer a mass of cells that can be split and rejoined into indeterminate numbers of things that eventually grow into human beings, the cell mass itself can’t be called “a human being.”

                  Webster’s can’t be used as an arbiter of who a person is through the semantic legerdemain and swappable definitions of things like “human being” or “life” as you’d like it to be.

                • Albert

                  You said, “The preferred current term is developmental biologist, but embryologist isn’t offensive or anything like that.”

                  Are you sure those are the same thing?

                  When you look at this sentence, it doesn’t seem like they are interchangeable, but rather are closely knitted with each other: “The ability to make precise observations has been among the greatest skills of embryologists, and even today modern developmental biologists looking at gene expression patterns are “rediscovering” regions of the embryo that were observed by embryologists a century ago.” [ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK9974/ ]

                  Developmental biologist is defined as, “Developmental biology is the study of the process by which organisms grow and develop. Modern developmental biology studies the genetic control of cell growth, differentiation and morphogenesis, which is the process that gives rise to tissues, organs and anatomy, and even regeneration and aging,”

                  And embryologist is “A physician who specializes in embryology” and embryology is “the branch of biology and medicine concerned with the study of embryos and their development.”

                  Perhaps Embryologist is more specific in their field, what do you think?

                  You said, “You didn’t answer the last part. My point is that a blastula isn’t a human being. It’s a mass of cells.”

                  I did answer you and said that is a question better suited for the Embryologists. But in the spirit of fairness, I will do my best to answer it.

                  Your whole mass cell approach is in contradiction with what Embryologists have stated.

                  They have stated: “Human development begins at fertilization when a sperm fuses with an oocyte to form a single cell, a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.[Chapter 2 p.14 – First Week of Human Development - The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology : Authors - Keith Lean Moore, Trivedi V. N. Persaud, Mark G. Torchia : Edition 9, illustrated, reprint : Publisher Elsevier/Saunders, 2013 ISBN 1437720021, 9781437720020]”

                  As you can see, they are specifying a single cell marks the beginning, not a mass of cells. Plus when you think about it, isn’t that all we all really are anyway is a mass of cells clumped together?

                  For me to take your view on this you will need to provide some evidence that supports it.

                  You said, “Webster’s can’t be used as an arbiter of who a person is through the semantic legerdemain and swappable definitions of things like “human being” or “life” as you’d like it to be.”

                  Why not?

                • islandbrewer

                  I can only speak to the current usage of the terms. I worked in a developmental biology lab where we all referred to our fellows as developmental biologists, and only the old fellers used the term “embryologist.” Because developmental biology encompasses more than just the study of the embryo stage, “developmental biologist” is typically the preferred term. “Embryologists” are biologists, not physicians, if we’re talking about the study of embryos and their development.

                  If the dictionary states a definition that’s not the same as it’s commonly used, particularly in a field where it’s used most often, why should you slavishly obey some stupid book that doesn’t accurately reflect reality?

                  If you truly believe that “we all really are anyway is a mass of cells clumped together,” then why would you object to abortion?

                  Persons, sentient beings, think and feel and experience. Totipotent stem cells don’t, no matter how big the clump. I realize you likely don’t really know enough biology to argue meaningfully about the biology of an embryo, but I’m sure you’re great at linking things from some pro-life website. Suffice it to say that your lovely unique fertilized egg is about as much of a person as a tumor. Neither is a person, and you have yet to assign it any particularly persuasive biological reason why it should be considered such. (Argue, don’t throw up links in place of argument.)

                  But whether it’s a person is sort of the red herring of the anti-choice argument. Even if a fetus is writing poetry and playing chess, no woman is or should be legally obliged to be pregnant or become pregnant.

                • baal

                  Having been a PhD in developmental biology, there is something downright nasty tasting in having a religionist tell you (and me by extension) what the biology is all about and which names to use for whom. I’m still waiting for one of them to throw a fit about the HeLa cell line since it’s a ‘person’ under their usual horrible definitions.

                • islandbrewer

                  I know. As soon as I read the “No, the dictionary says … ,” I know I’m arguing with a bag of rocks.

                  Edit: Not you, Albert! I’m sure you’re the exception and an epitome of intellectual precision, and your use of the dictionary is merely meant to maintain consistency in terminology!

                • Albert

                  You said, “I worked in a developmental biology lab where we all referred to our fellows as developmental biologists, and only the old fellers used the term “embryologist.””

                  Interesting. What did you do there? Are you yourself a developmental biologist?

                  Seeing that you are in this field to some capacity, Do you have other textbooks or journals that refute this quote?

                  “Human development begins at fertilization when a sperm fuses with an oocyte to form a single cell, a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.[Chapter 2 p.14 – First Week of Human Development - The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology : Authors - Keith Lean Moore, Trivedi V. N. Persaud, Mark G. Torchia : Edition 9, illustrated, reprint : Publisher Elsevier/Saunders, 2013 ISBN 1437720021, 9781437720020]”

                  You said, “If the dictionary states a definition that’s not the same as it’s commonly used, particularly in a field where it’s used most often, why should you slavishly obey some stupid book that doesn’t accurately reflect reality?”

                  I use Webster’s because it has been around for quite a long time and most people are open to using those definitions as a common ground in discussions. Plus most people accept the definitions that are in there. It keeps tangents in discussions to a minimum.

                  Do you have a suggestion for a different source? The source isn’t as much of an issue as understanding what each other means when using certain terms.

                  You said, “Persons, sentient beings, think and feel and experience.”

                  And why should this definition of a person be accepted as the one to use and not the one that Webster’s has?

                  You said, “I’m sure you’re great at linking things from some pro-life website.”

                  Actually, if you look at the links I have been linking to here, none of them are pro-life specific. WebMD, is not a pro-life site. The quote I posted above is directly from the textbook that I took the time to find. I only wish that it wasn’t a locked book, I would have liked to read more from it.

                  My goal is accuracy and truth. If your arguments can refute the evidence I have found, then I would be stupid to not follow where the truth leads, right?

                  You said, “Suffice it to say that your lovely unique fertilized egg is about as much of a person as a tumor.”

                  Again, this depends on what a person really is, doesn’t it? According to Webster’s, a person is a human being, and a human being begins at conception.

                  Is it possible that I’m wrong about this? Sure, but so far, I have not see a more solid argument.

                  You said, “Neither is a person, and you have yet to assign it any particularly persuasive biological reason why it should be considered such.”

                  Well, the quote in the The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology textbook, I would say is a start.

                  Webster’s, though you suggested it is incorrect, is normally accepted as an authority in English and what the words mean.

                  Also there is reason and logic in that when you look at what a consequence is, you can see that pregnancy is a consequence of consensual sex.

                  This might sound very weak, but what particularly persuasive biological reasons do you have on your side?

                  You said, “Even if a fetus is writing poetry and playing chess, no woman is or should be legally obliged to be pregnant or become pregnant.”

                  I agree. But if they chose to engage in consensual sex, then they are obligated to carry that new human being to term. To end that human beings life against it’s will is murder.

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                  “But if they chose to engage in consensual sex, then they are obligated to carry that new human being to term.”

                  Wrong. One is never obligated to let another person use their body (or parts thereof). Life or death is irrelevant, as it is always the indivdual’s choice whether or not to donate use of their body (or parts), whether that use is a “consequence” of their actions or purely accidental.

                  “To end that human beings life against it’s will is murder.”

                  Wrong again. Removing the thing that is violating her body is self-defense.

                • jejune

                  But if they chose to engage in consensual sex, then they are obligated
                  to carry that new human being to term. To end that human beings life
                  against it’s will is murder.

                  But it’s ok to kill rape babies because the rape victim didn’t CHOOSE TO PUT IT THERE, therefore, it ain’t murder

                  Right sweetie?

                • Albert

                  You said, “But it’s ok to kill rape babies because the rape victim didn’t CHOOSE TO PUT IT THERE, therefore, it ain’t murder”

                  It’s not okay. I never said it was okay. I stated that this is a concession I would allow if all abortions for convenience were deemed illegal was put in place.
                  This is agreed to grudgingly, in order to reach an agreement to improve the situation in regards to how many other abortions are preformed not involving rape.

                • jejune

                  It’s not okay. I never said it was okay. I stated that this is a
                  concession I would allow if all abortions for convenience were deemed
                  illegal was put in place.

                  Actually, you orignally said that rape victims didn’t make the decision to have sex, therefore, you’d let them off the hook.

                  Because they don’t need to take *responsibility* for their *actions*.

                  Slut-shamer.

                • jejune

                  Just a heads up, I told a friend of mine about Albert, and she said that she has repeatedly schooled Albert in embyrology and fetal development on alternet…

                  Yet he persists in insisting that pregnancy begins at conception and that zygotes are homonculi, all based on some 20yo quote from a pro-life website heh…

                  He’s just repeating the same lies over and over, and hoping that something will stick.

                • islandbrewer

                  Yeah, I was starting to notice how strange it was that was fixating on tangential things like “developmental biologist” vs. “embryologist” as if that were some sort of important game changing argument. That, and slavish fetishization of quotes (he includes the ISBN numbers!) tells me that actual argument isn’t his strong suit.

                • Albert

                  Another interesting thing I found here [ http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/237954.php ] Is that though there might be varying opinions on when a pregnancy starts, more doctors that did this questionnaire answered with at conception.

                  66% (1154) of the doctors responded to the questionnaire
                  57% answered – at conception
                  28% answered – at implantation
                  16% answered – not sure

                  But as I said before, this doesn’t help your argument in the least. If Embryologists are stating that a new human being(or multiples there of) begin life at conception, pregnant or not, the responsibility is the same for the mother.

                • islandbrewer

                  If I have eight cell masses and join them, and they eventually grow into one human being, then they weren’t really eight different “human beings” in the first place, right?

                  They need not even be genetically identical. Chimerism occurs pretty frequently.

                  My point again is that they’re just a mass of cells. They can be grown into as many fetuses as we have the technology to manipulate. Their genetic uniqueness has nothing to do with the question of whether they’re human beings or not.

                • islandbrewer

                  Is the woman somehow morally obliged to become pregnant? If not, you must have no problem with oral contraceptives or morning after pills, and aren’t one of those idiots who refers to them as “abortifacients,” right?

                • Spuddie

                  Not actually addressing my point. Why should your opinion matter over what a woman chooses to do with her body?

                  Just because you think she is a dirty slut, doesn’t mean you have any say in what she can do with her life. Alleged moral high ground doesn’t give you carte blanche to control someone’s personal being.

                  “It has never been my contention to override the ability of any woman to act in her own interests with her own body. In fact, I support that 100%.”

                  Then you should support the ability of a woman to chose whether to keep a pregnancy or not. Otherwise you are just lying to me.

                  A fetus can’t consent because it has no independent existence. You can’t claim otherwise. It only lives because the mother wants it alive. So its “interests” are always going to be an irrelevancy.

                • Albert

                  You said, “Not actually addressing my point. Why should your opinion matter over what a woman chooses to do with her body?”

                  Well, let me see if I can try and answer this in a manor that will be direct.

                  Because it is not her body that I have an opinion about. I have already stated several times that I support her in being able to make decisions in regards to her own body. It’s when she makes choices for other human beings bodies that I am sticking my two cents in. Does that clear it up? Because I’m not sure how many different ways I can tell you that it’s not her body but that the body belongs to someone else besides her.

                  You said, “Just because you think she is a dirty slut, doesn’t mean you have any say in what she can do with her life. Alleged moral high ground doesn’t give you carte blanche to control someone’s personal being.”

                  First you are inferring things I never said. Secondly, it is just your opinion as to what I have a say in. And holding to your moral ground doesn’t give you any more right to control someone’s personal being, namely the unborn.

                  The only difference is that I’m providing reasons for my stance that is consistent with every other law we have in the US with regard to harming of human beings. You have only stated opinions. In a court of law, my reasons would fair better than your opinion.

                  You said, “Then you should support the ability of a woman to chose whether to keep a pregnancy or not. Otherwise you are just lying to me.”

                  That is incorrect. I’m not lying to you; rather you are misunderstanding my stance. I support the ability of a woman to chose what happens to her OWN body. Again you are missing the point that a newly human being created at conception from the woman’s right to chose consensual sex also has a human body and a stake in this pregnancy.

                  Why is it so difficult for you to understand that there are two bodies there during a pregnancy?

                  Please read my posts before you reply. You are misunderstanding my position. you are also inferring things I never said.

                  Is there any points in my argument that you can provide evidence for that refutes it?

                • jejune

                  A clump of cells doesn’t have a body, dumbass.

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                  That’s the thing — nobody asked for your “two cents”, and, more importantly, you don’t get to make decisions for other people.

                  And the body of the thing inside her damn well belongs to her, as long as it is using her as a life support system.

                • Kodie

                  Because it is not her body that I have an opinion about. I have already
                  stated several times that I support her in being able to make decisions
                  in regards to her own body. It’s when she makes choices for other human
                  beings bodies that I am sticking my two cents in. Does that clear it up?
                  Because I’m not sure how many different ways I can tell you that it’s
                  not her body but that the body belongs to someone else besides her.

                  Why does that “other human being body” inside her get to call the shots? It doesn’t have opinions. Basically you and everyone who argues like you are projecting your opinions inside the uterus of a woman to a clump of cells and deciding for it what another human body should do.

                  You do have an opinion about her body! You are crawling up inside her uterus to put words in the mouth of something that literally doesn’t have a mouth. You are being sentimental and projecting feelings it doesn’t have, and knowledge, and hopes, and everything else, to express an opinion about the woman’s body — that it only matters as an environment, it’s a hostile take-over.

                • jejune

                  sorry, I gotta add…he only projects his feelings onto the clump of cells if this clump was created through consensual sex..

                  otherwise…he doesn’t really care :)

                  apparently, only consensual sex zygotes have feelings!

                • Spuddie

                  “It’s when she makes choices for other human beings bodies that I am sticking my two cents in.”

                  And since only one of them in question is born, and the other has no independent existence outside of the body of the born one, you can have your $0.02 back.

                  There may be :”2 bodies” but only one of them matters. The one who is born, the one who is capable of independent autonomous existence. The fetus will never matter. It has no rights or interests which can exist beyond the mother’s. Only the mother’s decision can ever matter, despite your attempts to ignore it.

                  “And holding to your moral ground doesn’t give you any more right to control someone’s personal being, namely the unborn.”

                  Bullshit. The unborn can’t exist without the born person choosing to keep it alive. So the mother always has the right to control its existence. Its in her body, her rules. A pregnant woman can be a tough landlord.

                  You have been trying desperately to pretend some kind of obligation exists to keep a fetus alive. Hence your nonsense about “consequences” and “responsibility”. But that is just wishful thinking on your part. You can no more pretend it exists as I do to claim your kidney if I need one out of desperate medical need.

                  A right to privacy means some decisions will never be for others to chime in on. What a woman does to her body AND WHATEVER IS INSIDE IT is the most deeply personal decisions she can make. It will never be subject to your judgements or anyone else.

                  Even if you think she is a dirty, irresponsible, slutty slut for having sex and an unwanted pregnancy, the fetus is still in her body and her body is what keeps it alive. She has no automatic responsibility to keep it alive. She only has a responsibility to her self, her life and what the pregnancy will mean towards it. The fetus has no rights and doesn’t matter here. If you can take possession of it from the mother, it might. But biology is a harsh mistress here. You are SOL.

                  You don’t have to like the decision, your input never mattered here. Its in her body. You can’t protect a fetus without attacking her. Since the mother is a born person with independent existence, her rights take precedence over any alleged right to a fetus to be born.

                  “Is there any points in my argument that you can provide evidence for that refutes it?”

                  A fetus can’t survive outside its mother’s will for it to survive. That is the only evidence which matters. You ignore it, minimize it and try to patch over it with insane moralizing but it ultimately renders your argument a steaming pile of cognitive dissonant, misogynist, moralizing garbage

                • Albert

                  You said, “There may be :”2 bodies” but only one of them matters.”

                  Based on what?

                  You said, “The one who is born, the one who is capable of independent autonomous existence. The fetus will never matter. It has no rights or interests which can exist beyond the mother’s. Only the mother’s decision can ever matter, despite your attempts to ignore it.”

                  You are basing this on nothing more than your opinion. Your opinion removes equal rights for all human beings. Your opinion causes class discrimination. Your opinion pits one humans value above another.

                  What I base my argument on is equality across the board for all human beings. All human’s are valuable and have a right to life.
                  I have used science to show that professionals in their field have stated that a human being (or more than one human being, if we are taking about twins) starts life at conception. There is consistency in my view on how we should treat all humans.

                  You said, “Bullshit. The unborn can’t exist without the born person choosing to keep it alive.”

                  That is correct.
                  Which is why when the woman chose to have consensual sex, she chose to accept every and all outcomes from the action, including caring for a new human being if her biology created one. This is no different than her being responsible for caring for her child after birth.

                  You said, “So the mother always has the right to control its existence. Its in her body, her rules.”

                  It’s in her body because of choices she already made. If she didn’t want to get pregnant, she should have though long and hard about having consensual sex or not. It’s not like she is ignorant to the fact that getting pregnant is a possible outcome from her actions. “Oops, I didn’t know that!” doesn’t absolve her of her of the consequence of her actions. This is consistent with every other situation she could be in regardless of the action she has preformed.

                  You said, “A pregnant woman can be a tough landlord.”

                  A landlord can not kill their tenants. In fact, a landlord has to make sure that the place that is being rented out is livable and up to code.

                  You said, “You have been trying desperately to pretend some kind of obligation exists to keep a fetus alive. Hence your nonsense about “consequences” and “responsibility”.

                  The obligation stems from the fact that we have human rights that are equally applied to every human being.

                  Since science has shown us that what is created from sexual intercourse is a new human being, equal rights apply to that human being.

                  Since we apply rights and protections to all human beings equally, this would include the unborn human beings as well. Because of that, a woman is obligated to care for any child, hers or not, that is within her sphere of influence.

                  For example, a woman is locked in a building and finds that in a different room is a baby that is not her own. On a table there is enough food and supplies to care for that baby for at least a month. They finally let her out only to find the baby is dead. She tells them, “This child is not my own. I never intended to ever care for a child therefore, it was not my responsibility to care for it.”
                  She would be charged with murder in this situation because she willfully didn’t care for the child when she had the ability to do so.

                  There is this thing called ‘de facto guardianship’ that requires the woman, even though the child is not hers, to be the care giver in the absence of the child’s parents.

                  If this is applied equally to all human beings then the mother of her unborn child is the de facto guardian of that unborn human until she is able to birth it and put it up for adoption. At that point in time, a new de facto guardian can be assigned to care for the child.

                  This is not pretending that obligation exists, but show that they do and is consistent with how we treat other human beings.

                  You said, “A right to privacy means some decisions will never be for others to chime in on. What a woman does to her body AND WHATEVER IS INSIDE IT is the most deeply personal decisions she can make. It will never be subject to your judgements or anyone else.”

                  A prima facie right is a right that a person has in given circumstances, in contrast to an absolute right , which is universal and inherent and can not be overridden in any situation. If there is no conflicting right, a prima facie right becomes an absolute right. However, it can be overridden in circumstances in which other moral rights have a stronger claim. An absolute right entails a correlative absolute obligation or duty on others to respect it, while a prima facie right entails only a correlative prima facie obligation or duty. [ http://www.blackwellreference.com ]

                  Your right to privacy is a prima facie right when it comes up against the moral issue of a human beings right to life.

                  Every human being has the right to life. A fetus, as science has shown is a human being, so that fetus too has a right to life.

                  Though the mother has a right to decide what shall happen in and to her body, the right to life is stronger and more stringent. Her right to privacy is not as strong as the right to life.

                  The mothers choice to willingly consent to sexual intercourse was her exercising her right to decide what shall happen in and to her body. Her acceptance in doing that action concluded in one of many options for her, one being getting pregnant. She accepted this possible outcome when she engaged in consensual sex.

                  Now, there is not just her life involved, but the life of another human being and perhaps even more if it’s twins.

                  Now in this situation, the right to life outweighs the mother’s decision of what shall happen in and to her body. Her privacy has been trumped by a stronger right. So the fetus may not be killed; an abortion may not be performed.

                  You said, “You can’t protect a fetus without attacking her.”

                  That may very well be, but just like I can’t save a child from a mugger without attacking him, some attacks need to be done in order to save a life. And as I explained above, the right to life is inherent to all human beings.

                  You said, “Since the mother is a born person with independent existence, her rights take precedence over any alleged right to a fetus to be born.”

                  A human being is a human being is a human being. Rights are given to human beings equally. Those rights are not based on that human’s size, location or their environment or even their level of development.

                  This statement of yours is simply conjecture on your part; wishful thinking at best.

                  You said, “A fetus can’t survive outside its mother’s will for it to survive. That is the only evidence which matters.”

                  Though that might be a true statement, it doesn’t remove the responsibility of the mother to care for that child.

                  The right to life supersedes the mothers comfort or desires and is replaced with an obligation to care for that child even if she is wanting to give it up for adoption. Until such time, that new unique human is her responsibility to care for the best she can.

                  A unborn human being.has the same right to life as any other human being, born or unborn. It is an inherent right that you can not take away. Abortion takes away that right and must be made illegal just like any other form of murder.

                • Kodie

                  A unborn human being.has the same right to life as any other human
                  being, born or unborn. It is an inherent right that you can not take
                  away. Abortion takes away that right and must be made illegal just like
                  any other form of murder.

                  A broken leg has the same right to stay broken as any other leg, broken or unbroken. It is an inherent right that you cannot take away. Setting that leg and putting a cast on it takes away that right and must be made illegal, just like any other form of medicine.

                • Spuddie

                  “Based on what?”

                  A FUCKING UMBILICAL CORD and the inability of a fetus to survive outside the mother’s womb! That’s all I need here.

                  Your unwillingness to recognize this condition exists renders your arguments ridiculous narcissistic moralizing crap.

                  Your argument is based on denigrating women, their ability to make decisions and their privacy concerning their bodies. You consider giving birth to be moral punishment and have never said word one about what happens after they are born. Your notion of equality starts at conception and ends at birth.

                • Albert

                  You said, “A FUCKING UMBILICAL CORD and the inability of a fetus to survive outside the mother’s womb!”

                  That’s not an argument, that’s an opinion. The fact that you don’t believe all human beings are equally valuable doesn’t make it so.

                  I’ll explain why that is so:
                  In the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in article 2, it states: “Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.” [ http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml ]

                  Did you see where it said, “birth or other status.” That ‘other’ includes those that are not born yet.

                  You need to present a better argument than saying there is an umbilical cord.

                  You said, “Your view of human rights is defective.”

                  These are not my human rights, that would be opinion. My reasoning comes from the these Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Feel free to show where these Human Rights are defective.

                  You said, “You want it exercised for people who can’t ever excercise it against born people who can.”

                  What do you mean by against?

                  You said, “A fetus is not equal to a born person no matter how much you hold your breath. Its not an opinion, it is biology. The fetus has no independent existence, so it doesn’t ever matter here.”

                  Webster’s defines biology as, “a science that deals with things that are alive (such as plants and animals) : the plant and animal life of a particular place : the processes that occur in a living thing”

                  Science by definition is, “knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation”

                  Science, including biology, has nothing to say on the subject of human values. This is a misuse of the tools within science.

                  If you disagree, then please, by all means, explain how biology determines human value.

                  You said, “Your argument is based on denigrating women, their ability to make decisions and their privacy concerning their bodies. You consider giving birth to be moral punishment and have never said word one about what happens after they are born. Your notion of equality starts at conception and ends at birth.”

                  Instead of pretending to know what I’m basing my arguments on, why don’t you address the points I have made and refute those?

                  It seems you would fair better to tear down my arguments instead of pretending I believe something I never said.

                  To help you out, how about we start with a basic question that could help you refute my claims:

                  After reading this quote:

                  “Human development begins at fertilization when a sperm fuses with an oocyte to form a single cell, a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.[Chapter 2 p.14 – First Week of Human Development - The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology : Authors - Keith Lean Moore, Trivedi V. N. Persaud, Mark G. Torchia : Edition 9, illustrated, reprint : Publisher Elsevier/Saunders, 2013 ISBN 1437720021, 9781437720020]”

                  Do you agree or disagree with this quote?

                  If you disagree with it, what is your scientific basis for disagreeing with it?

                  If you agree with it, we can move on to the next question, okay?

                • Spuddie

                  Its an opinion that an umbilical cord exists which ties a woman to a growing fetus and said fetus can’t survive outside of the womb?

                  No. Its biology. You are an idiot.

                  If you become pregnant, you can make decisions concerning an unwanted pregnancy. Otherwise, tough luck.

                • Albert

                  You said, “Its an opinion that an umbilical cord exists which ties a woman to a growing fetus and said fetus can’t survive outside of the womb?”

                  You didn’t read what I said. And you are also changing the subject of your original statement.

                  The umbilical cord was not the issue. The value of a fetus was the subject of your original statement.

                  Biology has nothing to say on the subject of human values. This is a misuse of the tools within science.

                  If you disagree, can explain how biology determines human value?

                  You said, “If you become pregnant, you can make decisions concerning an unwanted pregnancy. Otherwise, tough luck.”

                  Again, more opinion.

                  I also asked you a question that you failed to answer. Perhaps I can post it again to see if you will answer it this time.

                  After reading this quote:

                  “Human development begins at fertilization when a sperm fuses with an oocyte to form a single cell, a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.[Chapter 2 p.14 – First Week of Human Development - The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology : Authors - Keith Lean Moore, Trivedi V. N. Persaud, Mark G. Torchia : Edition 9, illustrated, reprint : Publisher Elsevier/Saunders, 2013 ISBN 1437720021, 9781437720020]”

                  Do you agree or disagree with this quote?

                • Spuddie

                  The umbilical cord IS the reason for the value of the fetus here. Your opinion doesn’t change that. Your avoidance of this subject shows how vacant your view really is.

                  You think that the unborn are exactly the same as born people. It is untrue. Its an impossibility. The unborn have that umbilical cord and live inside a woman’s body. That distinction creates values here. Its the only fact anyone has to consider here.

                  It is utter dishonesty on your part to equate a born person with the unborn. The two are not the same and can never be equal. One has an independent autonomous existence, the other doesn’t.

                  Since the mother’s independent autonomous existence controls the fetus’s existence in all things, it is always the one which will matter more. They are not, nor can be ever be considered equal. Its not an opinion, it is the logical consequence of that umbilical cord and placenta. The relationship created by biology. One which cannot be changed by your wishful thinking and moralizing.

                  You value a fetus over its mother. This is not rational, sane or honest. It bespeaks of contempt for women. That your moralizing must override their choices. Your POV is pitiable in its mendacity, doublespeak and repugnant in the values professed.

                • Albert

                  You said, “The two are not the same and can never be equal. One has an independent autonomous existence, the other doesn’t.”

                  Webster’s defines independent as “: not dependent: as in : not subject to control by others : not requiring or relying on something else : : not requiring or relying on others (as for care or livelihood) (2) : being enough to free one from the necessity of working for a living

                  And autonomous is “: existing or acting separately from other things or people : having the power or right to govern itself”

                  And existence is “reality as presented in experience : sentient or living being : the manner of being that is common to every mode of being ”

                  By your definition, “independent autonomous existence” You are also excluding any human being that requires someone else to care for them. This pretty much includes every human being until they are 18 years of age.

                  Is it your stance that a mother can murder her children at any time until they are 18 years of age?

                  If not, then I think you need to come up with a better definition of how they are different.

                  You said, “Its not an opinion, it is the logical consequence of that umbilical cord and placenta.”

                  That is not logical at all. The umbilical cord or placenta do not make the human being any less a human being.

                  You said, “The relationship created by biology.”

                  This is the same relationship for a mother and her son at any age. Biology created that relationship. Can she murder her son at any age?
                  And you can’t change that by your wishful thinking and moralizing either.

                  You said, “Your POV is utterly dependent on ignoring biological facts in favor of fantasies of control and slutshaming.”

                  That is incorrect. If fact, My POV is based on the fact that science has shown that a new human being is created at conception. That is biology at it’s core.

                  You said, ” Its all about ignoring personal liberties and privacy in order to push your moralistic selfish and plainly dishonest and ignorant stance on to women. To control them.”

                  What personal liberties am I ignoring? I fully support the woman’s right to say what happens to her body. I have never wavered from that fact.

                  Her privacy stops when someone else’s right to life starts.

                  And this is not to control them, as the choice to have consensual sex was theirs to make. If anyone put themselves in this situation, it was them.

                  This is the third time I am posting this question to you. Is there a reason you are avoiding answering it? This is akin to your whole argument on biology, right? It should be an easy one for you to answer. So please answer it.

                  After reading this quote:

                  “Human development begins at fertilization when a sperm fuses with an oocyte to form a single cell, a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.[Chapter 2 p.14 – First Week of Human Development - The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology : Authors - Keith Lean Moore, Trivedi V. N. Persaud, Mark G. Torchia : Edition 9, illustrated, reprint : Publisher Elsevier/Saunders, 2013 ISBN 1437720021, 9781437720020]”

                  Do you agree or disagree with this quote?

                • Spuddie

                  More bullshit on your part. Quit the stupid dictionary cut and pastes. You may paste the definition but you certainly don’t understand it.

                  Again you are not getting the distinction between born and unborn.

                  “My logic” depends on the facts presented. Yours depends on distorting them and making crappy analogy and fact-free associations.

                  A person who is incapacitated is not entirely dependent on a unique individual for survival. Your BORN son is as well.

                  Any human being can step in as a proxy for them. That is the advantage of being born over being unborn. Any human being can care for the existence of a born person. ANY PERSON. Even that is a form of independent autonomous existence. A court can even appoint people to do such things. Imagine trying to get a custody order for a fetus. You act as if it is possible. More wishful thinking on your part.

                  A fetus can only be cared for by one human being on the entire planet. Its mother. This unique position separates it from a born person. That unique position is what you constantly ignore in favor of slutshaming and blind assertions.

                  “Her privacy stops when someone else’s right to life starts.”

                  BULLSHIT. Your desire to worship a fetus doesn’t make such obligations and responsibilities exist. Its in her body, how she handles her body is always going to be her business. Never yours. She has possession of the fetus, its using her body. There is nothing you can do to change that relationship.

                  “What personal liberties am I ignoring? I fully support the woman’s right to say what happens to her body”

                  BULLSHIT! You simply don’t. Stop lying.

                  You think she has no right to make decisions about what goes on inside her body. You think your opinion matters more than her ability to make decisions. She has the right to control her body and whatever is inside it. You think it doesn’t exist. You know better for women than any of them.

                • Albert

                  You said, “Quit the stupid dictionary cut and pastes. You may paste the definition but you certainly don’t understand it.”

                  Why are these dictionary cut and pastes stupid?

                  What I’m doing it try to confirm understanding of words you use.

                  If these are incorrect definitions, then please give me the definition that you understand them to mean. If you can’t, then there is no reason to think I don’t understand.

                  You said, “”My logic” depends on the facts presented. Yours depends on distorting them and making crappy analogy and fact-free associations.”

                  What facts? You have claimed that an unborn human is different than a born human because it is attached to the mother via an umbilical cord and it’s location. You claim that the unborn is not a independent autonomous existence being.

                  Please explain how a human being not being able to be cared for by more than one specific human(even court appointed) makes them any less a human being or of lesser value?

                  Please explain how a human being that requires help to survive is any less human or not as valuable as one that doesn’t need help?

                  Please explain how the location of a human being makes them any less a human being or of lesser value?

                  You said, “BULLSHIT. Your desire to worship a fetus doesn’t make such obligations and responsibilities exist.”

                  For this to be true, you first have to show that the unborn is not a human being. Are you able to do that? If not, then you are simply stating your opinion.

                  If the unborn is a human being, as I have shown it is from conception, then they have the same human rights as every other human being. If you don’t agree with that, then you need to show how they are excluded in a different way than just you “saying so”.

                  There is a thing called a de facto guardianship. This is the care taker that is able to care for those that can’t care for themselves. Since I have shown that the unborn is a human being with the same right to life as you an me, the mother, If the mother is the only one that can care for their child, is then obligated to do so.

                  Here is the logistics of it are as follows: Human being > right to life > Mother only one able to care for > The mother is obligated to care for the child.

                  You said, “Its in her body, how she handles her body is always going to be her business.”

                  Yes, it is. I have not once denied this. But the unborn is not her body is it? So now you are giving her say over another human beings body. This is not consistent with your argument.

                  Either a human being is the only one that can say what happens to their body or they are not. If they are not, then you can’t claim that I can’t “force” her to have the baby. If you say they are the only ones that can say what happens to their body, then it is not the mothers body to say what happens to it.

                  You said, “She has possession of the fetus, its using her body. There is nothing you can do to change that relationship.”

                  There is no reason to change that relationship but rather this is exactly what she is obligated to care for it.

                  You said, “BULLSHIT! You simply don’t. Stop lying.”

                  Why is it you ignored my question? I asked you what personal liberties am I ignoring?

                  You said, “You think she has no right to make decisions about what goes on inside her body.”

                  She can do whatever she wants to her body. The body of the human being inside of her when she is pregnant is not her body. That is my whole argument.

                  If you don’t believe that a human being starts life at conception, then you have to show me how you come to that conclusion. If you unable to do that, then my argument stands.

                  And if it is a human being, then it has the same right to life as you and me.

                  You said, “You think your opinion matters more than her ability to make decisions.”

                  I’m not basing this on my opinion. I’m basing this on the fact that science shows that what is growing inside of her is a human being from conception.

                  And because of that fact, the abortion is not her decision to make but rather the unborn human being inside of her. Her decision ended when she chose to have consensual sex.

                  You said, “She has the right to control her body and whatever is inside it.”

                  Again, opinion not based on any facts. Simply opinion.

                  You said, “You think it doesn’t exist. You know better for women than any of them.”

                  I’m not even saying what is better for women; that is their choice to decide, not mine.

                  What I’m arguing is that no one has the right to murder another human being.

                  When you say that a woman can murder her child, you are giving her a right that supersedes a human beings right to life.

                • Spuddie

                  Your whole argument hinges on ignoring the obvious difference between the born and unborn in a dishonest fashion.

                  What you think of as irrelevant, that only a mother had unique control over the life of a fetus, is why abortion is a rights issue for her and her alone. Any born person can exercise their interests or have one act on their behalf without compromising the bodily integrity and autonomy of another born person. Not true for a fetus.

                  Therefore it has no interests greater than its life supporting mother. its life is irrelevant in comparison to its mother As for your dictionary junk, it is condescending and an attempt to focus in irrelevancies. The umbilical cord and placenta are what separate the born from the unborn. You pretend it is unimportant. You have to because it allows for the illogical stance to hold a born person hostage to people who only care about unborn life. But it still comes down to practical facts.The mother possesses the fetus in her body. It is always her choice. That is if you have an ounce of respect for the born. You don’t. You advocate restraining “wayward” women to your will.

                • Albert

                  You said, “…As for your dictionary junk, it is condescending and an attempt to focus in irrelevancies.”

                  I explained why I use dictionary definitions. It is to bring clarity to the conversation; not to focus on irrelevant things but to figure out if we are understanding the same thing.
                  For example: Many use the word “person” in regards to the unborn but they don’t use it for the born.

                  This is a different understanding of the word ‘person’ then I understand it to be.

                  I understand a person to be a human being and a human being is a person. The words are interchangeable. I can show that Webster’s sees these definitions as I do.

                  A human being, as science has shown, starts life at conception; therefore, a person = human being = starts life at conception = same as any other human being/person.

                  So now we see two different views of what the word “person” means. This is the reason I provide the definitions. If you don’t agree with the definitions I have used, then I welcome you to explain why you don’t agree with them. If not, I will assume you agree with them and the make my argument from there.

                  You never did answer if you agreed or disagreed with the quote I gave you. Why is that?

                  What is your definition of a person?
                  What is your definition of a human being?

                  You said, ” The umbilical cord and placenta are what separate the born from the unborn. You pretend it is unimportant.”

                  First of all, I don’t pretend anything is unimportant.

                  Secondly, yes, the umbilical cord and placenta are what separate the born from the unborn. But I think this helps my argument to show that the mother is a separate human being from the unborn.

                  You said, ” You have to because it allows for the illogical stance to hold a born person hostage to people who only care about unborn life.”

                  How is it illogical? If the woman created that unborn human being by her actions, and the unborn is a human being from conception, then it follows that this human being has the same rights as every other human being out there. Their body, though small than the mother’s does not mean that the mother has more rights than the child. The child does not have any more rights than the mother either. their rights are equally applied.

                  Every human being, when doing any kind of action is accepting every and all outcomes from that action. No one is excluded. Once you exclude a group of people from their obligation to those consequences, you are not being for equal rights for all human beings.

                  Your practical facts:
                  “The mother possesses the fetus in her body.”
                  But the fetus is a separate unique individual human being with their own body regardless of it’s size or level of development.

                  You said, “It is always her choice.”
                  It is always her choice of what she does with her body and her body alone. If she chooses to have consensual sex, then she is taking the outcome of getting pregnant into account when she makes that choice. Once she does engage in sexual intercourse and finds she is pregnant, then she is obligated to all the consequences that comes with that situation.

                  You said, “That is if you have an ounce of respect for the born. You don’t. You advocate restraining “wayward”
                  women to your will.”

                  There is no restraining women when they are the ones that have willfully engaged in consensual sex. They have willfully accepted all the outcomes from that action. You can’t pick and chose which actions are acceptable, you have to take them all. You can’t take reject some or all of them and still do the action.

                  The logic is as follows:
                  Decide to do an action > do the action > outcome from that action occur > deal with the consequences from that action.
                  If a woman decides to have sex > then does it > and she gets pregnant from that action > then she has to deal with those consequences that come from that action.
                  Because the new life that she created is a human being from conception, she is now obligated to care for that human being at least until birth. This is part of the consequence of her action.

                  If she went rock climbing and fell from the cliff, she could be in a coma for 9 months. There is no way for her to say that she does not want to be in that state for that long or to say that she never intended for that to happen. She has to deal with those consequences from the action she chose to do.
                  This is so logically consistent, I’m amazed that you don’t see it.

                  The only reason I can give that you don’t see it, is because you are willfully choosing to dismiss it in favor of convenience. Which means you are advocating for murder instead of life.

                • osiote

                  A fetus can only be cared for by one human being on the entire planet

                  Which is why, in the forced birther mind, abortion = murder, while refusing to help your born child is merely ‘letting them die’

                  Sorry to keep harping on this, but it’s been bugging me for a while. It really is just an excuse to treat pregnant women as second class citizens.

                  7 days ago, Albert wrote: In the case of rape, I give the concession to the woman to abort if she is wanting to do so.I do this, not because I agree this should happen, as I don’t believe the child should ever be punished for the crimes of the father, but I give this concession because this was not consensual sex.

                  He also has some thoughts on the unhealthy side effects associated with pregnancy – blindness, diabetes, cancer, obstetric fistula, hemorrhoids, PPD, etc etc..

                  These along with pregnancy are KNOWN consequences from consensual sex. If you don’t want to have any of these happen, then don’t engage in consensual sex, right? How much more simpler is that?

                  And this:

                  IT WAS HER CHOICE TO ENGAGE IN CONSENSUAL SEX.

                  Sorry, I don’t want to put it in all caps, but I think you are not understanding that this is her choice.

                  He sees pregnancy as punishment for female sexuality, bar-none.

                • osiote

                  You have been trying desperately to pretend some kind of obligation exists to keep a fetus alive

                  that obligation = biology is destiny

                  especially if the woman chose to have sex

                  I find that a lot of forced birthers believe that parents should not be obligated to provide biological donations to BORN children, but, if a woman is pregnant, suddenly refusing care = murder

                  the attitude seems to be one of ‘if it’s inside you, tough luck, to extricate yourself is to commit infanticide’

                  because unhooking someone from the blood that you are giving them mid-transfusion really isn’t that different from unhooking the fetus from your uterus

                  this is why forced birthers such as Albert have to come up with the ‘but the uterus is the ZEF’s natural environment’ bullshit – which really is just another way of saying that anatomy = destiny

                  assholes

                • jejune

                  IN case you missed it, he proved that he is in it 100% for the slut-shaming, because he said, a few days ago, that he has sympathy for rape victims because they didn’t CHOOSE to have the sex.

                • Spuddie

                  I knew it the moment he started saying pregnancy is the “consequence” of having sex.

                  Its his big thing. He tells people they should have their tubes tied if they want non-procreative relations.

                • osiote

                  Yeah. And he thinks he can pull the wool over our eyes by pasting the dictionary definition of ‘consequence’

                  He is now trying to backtrack and say that since rape pregnancies are so rare, it is politically expedient to punish the sluts instead!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                • jejune

                  Just as in a car, if you hit another car you are held responsible
                  regardless if you intended to hit that car or get into an accident

                  If you hit another person with your car and they need a new kidney you are not legally required to donate a kidney.

                • jejune

                  So if a sperm fertilizes an egg, there is a pregnant women at the moment.

                  And you have the gall to lecture us on biology.

                  hahahaha

                  The woman is not pregnant until the zygote reaches the uterus and attaches itself to the uterine wall. And about 60-18% of those self abort.

                  And it’s funny how you don’t use ‘consequence’ to describe good things. You don’t say ‘hey Albert, all that studying you did lead to good grades. You had better deal with the CONSEQUENCES of your actions’

                  You are all about punishing people for daring to have sexual freedom.

                • Albert

                  You said, “The woman is not pregnant until the zygote reaches the uterus and attaches itself to the uterine wall. And about 60-18% of those self abort.”

                  Show me where your scientific evidence for this is please. If you look into this article [ http://www.webmd.com/baby/guide/understanding-conception ], it states, “After the egg is released, it moves into the fallopian tube. It stay there for about 24 hours, waiting for a single sperm to fertilize it.”

                  Here is another article [ http://www.webmd.com/baby/interactive-pregnancy-tool-fetal-development#week-1 ] you can read that states that conception is when it starts, not when the egg attaches to the uterine wall.

                  If conception is when a sperm fertilizes an egg, as I have stated, then this is indicating that pregnancy starts at conception. The fact that whatever percentage self abort doesn’t mean the woman wasn’t pregnant. Miscarriages

                  can happen even up to the 20th week. Does that mean you were not pregnant because some chromosomal abnormalities have occurred?

                  So I’m more than open to see evidence that backs up your claim.

                  You said, “You are all about punishing people for daring to have sexual freedom.”

                  As I have stated before, I could care less if people have sex protected or not. I am all about keeping human beings alive when they are being killed against their will.

                  Evidence speaks louder than opinion. So I’m waiting for you to show me the evidence that shows that a unique individual human being is not created at conception. Do you have that evidence or are you going to stick to opinion?

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                  Fine, but pregnancy itself does not begin until implantation.

                • Albert

                  You said, “Fine, but pregnancy itself does not begin until implantation.”

                  I’m waiting for your evidence of this claim.

                • jejune

                  You’re such an ignorant fucktard.

                • jejune

                  6o-80% of zygotes self-abort, dumbass

                  Either they don’t even reach the uterus, and if they do, they fail to implant, or they die after implanting, or they die when they reach the embryonic stage

                  Fuck me are you ignorant about pregnancy

                  God damn

                • Albert

                  You said, “6o-80% of zygotes self-abort, dumbass”

                  And, what’s your point?

                  You said, “Either they don’t even reach the uterus, and if they do, they fail to implant, or they die after implanting, or they die when they reach the embryonic stage”

                  Okay, and?

                • jejune

                  In other words, THE WOMAN ISN’T PREGNANT UNTIL THE EGG ATTACHES ITSELF TO THE UTERINE WALL AND ESPECIALLY BECAUSE SO MANY ZYGOTES ABORT

                  UNDERSTAND NOW?

                • Albert

                  This still does not gain you anything as it is still shown to be an
                  individual before the pregnancy is confirmed. Which means you still have
                  to contend with human equality and the consistency of laws protecting
                  human beings from murder. Abortion, is not consistent with any other
                  laws in place for protecting human beings.

                  The fact that some expel from the woman’s body on their own is irrelevant. This doesn’t address those that did attach and then are being ripped from their holding place against their own will.

                • jejune

                  Seeing as how a zygote can be created in a petri dish i would say no, pregnancy does not begin at fertilization.

                • Kodie

                  They are incapable of having a will.

                • jejune

                  The woman is not pregnant until the zygote reaches the uterus and attaches itself to the uterine wall.

                • Albert

                  You said, “The woman is not pregnant until the zygote reaches the uterus and attaches itself to the uterine wall.”

                  Okay, and if science has shown that when a sperm fertilizes an egg a unique individual human being is created, the whole pregnancy issue is a moot point. Because the fertilization happens before the attaching to the uterine wall.

                  This still does not gain you anything as it is still shown to be an individual before the pregnancy is confirmed. Which means you still have to contend with human equality and the consistency of laws protecting human beings from murder. Abortion, is not consistent with any other laws in place for protecting human beings. This is why we fight against it.

                • jejune

                  No, dumbass.

                  The woman is NOT pregnant until the zygote can attach to the uterine wall and start leeching her body of nutrients.

                  That IS what pregnancy IS.

                  This still does not gain you anything as it is still shown to be an individual before the pregnancy is confirmed

                  Nope. The reason these zygotes self abort is because there is no ‘unique individual’ because the ‘individual’ is often nothing more than a piece of defective genetic blueprint.

                  And as has been explained to you, repeatedly, zygotes can split into twins, triplets etc. So, shove the ‘unique individual’ bullshit up your ass.

                • Albert

                  You said, “The woman is NOT pregnant until the zygote can attach to the uterine wall and start leeching her body of nutrients.”

                  There are many doctors that don’t agree with your statement.

                  66% (1154) of the doctors responded to the questionnaire
                  57% answered – at conception
                  28% answered – at implantation
                  16% answered – not sure

                  Source: [ http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/237954.php ]

                  Now, to be clear, I am in no way saying that this is conclusive or even the best data on this issue; but if this is a reflection of what doctors believe, then they seem to flow more towards conception instead of at implantation.

                  Do you have any data that supports your view?

                  You said, “Nope. The reason these zygotes self abort is because there is no ‘unique individual’ because the ‘individual’ is often nothing more than a piece of defective genetic blueprint.”

                  I agree. The most common explanation I have heard is that there is a chromosome error of sorts. So it can’t continue.

                  But for those that can continue, they are actually a human before implantation. If not, they wouldn’t implant, they would be expelled same as all the other ones.

                  You said, “And as has been explained to you, repeatedly, zygotes can split into twins, triplets etc.”

                  So an egg splits. What you then have are two unique individuals instead of just one. I’m not sure how this hurts my argument in the least.

                  The fact that I speak in terms of an individual human being as opposed to multiples, doesn’t change the fact that what is created at conception is a human being (or multiple human beings in the case of twins, triplets etc.)

                  The difference between a single human being and multiples is explained in this quote:

                  “Totopotent stem cells are the most powerful and have the astonishing ability to become any cell or tissue in the body. For example, identical twins arise after a fertilized egg divides in two. Instead of continuing to divide as part of one zygote, each totipotent cell develops into a separate animal, one a genetic copy of the other. (Nonidentical, or fraternal, twines develop from two separately fertilized eggs.) When a zygote is just a few days old, the cells inside began to receive instructions to differentiate further and so lose their totipotence. At this stage, some cells are instructed to become the embryo, others to become the tissues of the placenta. Another cascade of signals form the inner cell mass, yet another, the three germ layers of the blastocyst. Along the way, cells become more and more specialized until they can no longer change at all.” [Chapter 5, p.60 - Stem Cell Now: A Brief Introduction to the Coming Medical Revolution : Author - Christopher Thomas Scott : Published by Plume, a member of Penguin Group(USA) INC. Previously published in a Pi Press Edition. 2006 ISBN: 0-13-173798-8,0-452-28785-5]

                  Whether a single zygote or multiples, they are all human beings at conception.

                • osiote

                  Whether conception refers to fertilization or implantation would seemingly even impact “established pregnancies” such as an ectopic pregnancy. If conception is defined as at implantation, ectopic pregnancies could not be called pregnancies. However, some medical professionals who
                  oppose birth control, including prominent member of Focus on the Family Walter Larimore, have argued that the medical definition of conception should include fertilization

                  You fuckers like to pretend that pregnancy begins at fertilization so you can ban Plan B and certain forms of birth control.

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                  Actually, abortion is 100% consistent with other laws.

                  It’s called SELF-DEFENSE.

                • Albert

                  You said, “It’s called SELF-DEFENSE.”

                  I agree that there are times when we are justified in taking the life of a human (even a fetal human); but only when that life threatens the life of an innocent person (like the mother whose life is at risk if she continues the pregnancy).

                  But you are not wanting to take a life only in situations where the mother’s life is being threatened with death, rather you are wanting to be able to take another human life when the only thing threatened is the “circumstance” of the mother.

                  This is not self-defense, as you presume, but you attempting to justify homicide over nothing more than a matter of convenience.

                  “I’m not ready for a baby. The timing is wrong for me.”

                  “I can’t afford a baby now.”

                  “I already have finished having the children I planned on having. I have other people depending on me; my children are grown.”

                  “I don’t want to be a single mother. I am having relationship problems.”

                  “I don’t feel mature enough to raise a child. I feel too young.”

                  “This child would interfere with my education or career plans.”

                  “My husband (or partner) wants me to have an abortion.”

                  “My parents want me to have an abortion.”

                  “I don’t want people to know I had sex or got pregnant.”

                  None of those situations are a situation where self-defense is the issue.

                  A ectopic pregnancy would be a situation where taking one human life is required in order to save one. This is a situation where if left alone would result in two deaths. And the goal is to protect as many lives as we can.

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                  Incorrect.

                  I have the right to use force, lethal force if necessary, to prevent or to end the violation of my body.

                  Pregnancy is the most intimate invasion possible.

                  It has nothing to do with “convenience”.

                  It has everything to do with keeping myself in a functioning and mostly-healthy state, something I cannot do with a hitchhiker on board. Psych meds, even the mild ones, aren’t exactly fetus-friendly…

                • osiote

                  but only when that life threatens the life of an innocent person

                  but you find it perfectly acceptable for a woman to be permanently disabled as a result of pregnancy, right?

                  permanent blindness, diabetes, cancer, colostomy bag…

                  you think women should be tortured with these disabilities for the *crime* of having sex

                  you’re a monster

                • islandbrewer

                  So if a sperm fertilizes an egg, there is a pregnant women at the moment.

                  False. A woman is pregnant if and only if there is an implantation in the uterus. It’s a long established and biologically significant definition. Please keep that in mind.

                • Albert

                  You said, “False. A woman is pregnant if and only if there is an implantation in the uterus. It’s a long established and biologically significant definition. Please keep that in mind.”

                  Do you have a resource to back up that statement?

                  This link [ http://www.webmd.com/baby/guide/understanding-conception ] indicates that “After the egg is released, it
                  moves into the fallopian tube. It stay there for about 24 hours, waiting
                  for a single sperm to fertilize it. All this happens, on average, about
                  two weeks after your last period.”

                  So if we go with your premise, I’m not sure what you have gained in your argument.

                  Lets say you are correct, for the sake of argument; this doesn’t change when conception happens. So technically, there is a human being created before implantation. If it expels naturally, than no harm no foul, right? If it implants, then the woman becomes pregnant and the human being inside of her continues to grow. This doesn’t do anything for your argument that I can see.

                  And just wondering, do you know what an ectopic pregnancy is? If so, why is it called a pregnancy if it is not in the womb, but in the fallopian tube?

                  Again, this argument gains you nothing. It would still be a human being before or at the time of pregnancy.

                • islandbrewer

                  So, if there were some sort of pharmaceutical that prevented implantation, then the woman would have never become pregnant in the first place, right?

                  So you have no objections to things like morning after pills or regular oral contraceptives, I take it?

                • Albert

                  You said, “So, if there were some sort of pharmaceutical that prevented implantation, then the woman would have never become pregnant in the first place, right?”

                  That is correct. That is what birth control pills, condoms and other contraceptives are for.

                  You said, “So you have no objections to things like morning after pills or regular oral contraceptives, I take it?”

                  I have no problem with any contraceptives that stop the egg and the sperm from joining. Anything after that is just another form of abortion.

                • islandbrewer

                  I have no problem with any contraceptives that stop the egg and the sperm from joining. Anything after that is just another form of abortion.

                  Wait, weren’t you the one who wan’t to use the dictionary as a bludgeon for your argument? Since you like Webster’s, let’s go with that:

                  Abortion: A medical procedure to end a pregnancy.

                  If a woman isn’t pregnant to begin with (because nothing has implanted), then the prevention of implantation isn’t an abortion, Mr. Dictionary guy. Regular oral contraceptives and the morning after pill both prevent implantation of fertilized eggs (oral contraceptives can also prevent ovulation, there are several options with oral contraceptives).

                  Are you advocating deviation from your slavish reliance on the dictionary when it doesn’t suit your ends?

                • cjvg

                  Reality, science and plain fact do NOT support that all sex among humans is meant for procreation.
                  There is plenty of hard scientific evidence that actually points to the opposite!

                  Human sex is rarely a guarantee of pregnancy.
                  Human females are only fertile 3 days out of a cycle
                  Even then one time sex only has a chance of resulting in a pregnancy 20 to at most 25% of the time.
                  Clearly not a system designed to lead to pregnancy with every sexual encounter.
                  Every scientific indication is that Sex among human(oids) is also meant to be a relaxing/ bonding and/or comforting experience.

                  In contrast sex among animals that go in heat will almost always lead to pregnancy even if there was only one instance of sexual contact. These same animals do not have any sexual contact when not in heat.
                  Clearly this is a system that is purely meant for procreation and much much different from ours!
                  Humans on the other hand do not chose to have or not have sex based on the possibility of conception, their decision is based purely on the fact if they want to have sex with the person in question.

                • Albert

                  You said, “Reality, science and plain fact do NOT support that all sex among humans is meant for procreation.”

                  And this means what? I’m not saying that every time someone chooses to have sex they will get pregnant. I’m saying that if they choose to have sex, that getting pregnant is a possibly outcome from that action.None if this has any bearing as to whether abortions should be allowed or not.

                • cjvg

                  Obviously you can not read!

                  Becoming pregnant from having sex is only a possible outcome on about 3 days in a cycle!
                  The rest of the time there is no possibility at all of becoming pregnant.
                  No ovum released, no fertilization possible regardless of how many sperm you have floating around in there.

                  “If you engage in sexual intercourse there is a possibility you could get pregnant,”
                  “If you engage in sexual intercourse there is a possibility you could get pregnant, therefore it is a consequence of that action.”
                  I just pointed out how this assertion of your is patently false and as such NOT a valid argument to restrict choice.
                  Consent to sex is NOT consent to pregnancy!

                  After having reality and basic biology explained you still chose to double down on your dishonest and easily refuted statements about pregnancy always being a possible outcome of sex!
                  “I’m saying that if they choose to have sex, that getting pregnant is a possibly outcome from that action. None if this has any bearing as to whether abortions should be allowed or not”

                  As for your skiing analogy, just because it is a possible outcome that I might break a leg it is not your right to make the decision if I can go skiing and if, or were i’m getting my leg treated!

                • Albert

                  You said, “I just pointed out how this assertion of your is patently false and as such NOT a valid argument to restrict choice. Consent to sex is NOT consent to pregnancy!”

                  Webster’s defines possibility as, ” a chance that something might exist, happen, or be true : the state or fact of being possible : something that might be done or might happen : something that is possible possibilities : abilities or qualities that could make someone or something better in the future”

                  The frequency that something happens does not change that it could. The fact that you might think you are safe from getting pregnant except for on 3 days, does not take away from the fact that you can still get pregnant.

                  I’m not sure what you are arguing against?

                  A consequence is something that happens as a result of a particular action or set of conditions. When those 3 days comes along, as you put it, then is when you can get pregnant.

                  If there is even one change in one hundred million, there is still a chance. And the choice you make to engage in consensual sex could end up in you getting pregnant.

                  Even if that chance is minimal, it is still there. There is no 100% effective way to not get pregnant except to not engage in sexual intercourse.

                  And as long as that minimal chance is there and you engage in that action, then you are accepting pregnancy as a possible outcome. You weighed the possibility and went for it anyway.

                  So contemplating every and all possible outcome, weighing the cost and accepting those options and then engaging in consensual sex, you have accepted pregnancy as a consequence of your actions.

                  I don’t know how much plainer I can say this. The fact that you don’t want to accept it does not in anyway mean it can’t or won’t happen. No different than a broken leg. You not intending to break your leg, doesn’t mean it won’t happen. But, that’s the risk you take when skiing. And that is a cost that you have accepted in doing so; no different than engaging in consensual sex and getting pregnant.

                • Kodie

                  I don’t know how much plainer I can say this. The fact that you don’t
                  want to accept it does not in anyway mean it can’t or won’t happen. No
                  different than a broken leg. You not intending to break your leg,
                  doesn’t mean it won’t happen. But, that’s the risk you take when skiing.
                  And that is a cost that you have accepted in doing so; no different
                  than engaging in consensual sex and getting pregnant.

                  Why are you so stupid? If it is no different than a broken leg, why do we repair broken legs? AGAIN, you fail to see how these examples would only be similar if we require broken legs to be consequences as punishment for skiing. Skiing is legal, it’s fun, people like to do it, people risk a broken leg, and then when that accident happens, they go get it fixed up so they don’t have to go the rest of their life with a broken leg. Nobody is ever moralized for skiing or breaking their leg while skiing. Nobody has to live with a broken leg forever. 6 weeks in a cast is the abortion part. Just because healing a leg takes 6 weeks longer than an abortion doesn’t mean we don’t do it.

                  “I don’t know how much plainer I can say this.”

                • Albert

                  First of all, I was not equating a broken leg with a pregnancy in any other way than to say they are both consequences as a result of an action.

                  You considering pregnancy a punishment is nothing more than you reflecting your emotions and expecting it to be a valid argument. But it’s not. Your view is a personal opinion.

                  Do we fix broken legs? Yes, of course we do. But that is because when a leg breaks, this is not a normal thing to happen to a leg.

                  In regards to a pregnancy, it is a normal thing that happens if you have sexual intercourse. Though it doesn’t happen every single time you have sex, the body is not responding in a manor that it shouldn’t. The biological process that happens is exactly what would happen when the right conditions are present.

                  Though a leg breaking is a possible outcome from skiing it is not a normal process for a leg.

                  This is not the case in regards to a pregnancy. A natural function of sexual intercourse is to produce offspring. When a woman gets pregnant, this is not breaking a system.

                  So to presume these consequences, a broken leg and a pregnancy, are the same in any other way than equating them as consequences is not understanding the context of the analogy.

                  So to reiterate, a broken leg is not normal, a pregnancy is normal. Both are consequences from an action preformed. To infer more than that is to misunderstand their context.

                • Kodie

                  You considering pregnancy a punishment is nothing more than you
                  reflecting your emotions and expecting it to be a valid argument. But
                  it’s not. Your view is a personal opinion.

                  Appeal to nature, logical fallacy.

                  You are the one who considers it a punishment. You think sex is dirty and women shouldn’t do it at all unless prepared to be bogged down for the rest of their life.

                  Pregnancy is a reversible situation, like a broken leg. It’s only a punishment if freedom to have an abortion is taken away and women have to stay pregnant when they don’t want to be. You’re the punisher here. You’re the one telling the skier they should have thought about that before getting on the chair lift, and if they want to take the risk, they have to keep their broken leg forever. Putting skis on your feet and sliding down from the top of a mountain covered in snow is the fucking definition of unnatural.

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                  There is nothing “normal” about having a parasitic entity feeding off of you.

                  Or do you think tapeworms and the like are “normal”, too? After all, a tapeworm infection is a biological process that happens exactly when the right conditions are present. How about hookworms? Pinworms? A tapeworm cyst in the brain? All perfectly natural…

                • Albert

                  You said, “There is nothing “normal” about having a parasitic entity feeding off of you.”

                  So if being pregnant and giving birth is not the normal way that humans have offspring, can you tell me what is the normal way for this to happen?

                  These parasitic entities, as you call them are in exactly the right environment they are supposed to be in. If you place them in a different environment, they will die. This is no different than putting a two year old at the bottom of a pool and you expecting them to come up for air in 45 minutes and be okay.

                  In regards to a Tapeworm, you are correct, an infection is a biological process that happens exactly when the right conditions are present.

                  But an infection is a disease caused by germs that enter the body. This means they are invaders. They are trespassing.

                  This is not the case for a unborn human being. A mother’s womb is the baby’s natural environment.

                  Someone, or something, trespasses when he’s not in his rightful place, but a baby developing in the womb belongs there.

                  And though you might feel it is there not welcomed, it is there, where it is supposed to be, because of the actions of the mother, who knowingly understood that even though this outcome doesn’t happen every time you engage in sexual intercourse, it is a possibility.

                  You weigh the risks in every action you do. And if you knowingly go through with it that action, then you are accepting the consequences, whatever they may be.

                • Kodie

                  Someone, or something, trespasses when he’s not in his rightful place, but a baby developing in the womb belongs there.

                  Only if you want it to.

                  If you invite someone to your house for an hour to drink tea, but they bring along their brother, and the two of them get their suitcases with them and tie you to a chair in the basement, while they live upstairs in your house as if it’s theirs, there is something wrong with this scenario. The contract was “an afternoon” and “tea”. It wasn’t kidnap me and hide me in the basement while you take over the dwelling.

                • Albert

                  You said, “Only if you want it to.”

                  So please explain to me how you stop yourself from getting pregnant?

                  Let’s see, you can use contraceptives, right? But that isn’t 100% preventive, is it?

                  You can get a tubal ligation, right? But even that isn’t 100% preventive, is it?

                  You could have your partner get a vasectomy, right? But that isn’t 100% preventive, is it?

                  You could also do all of those things together to even increase your chances of not getting pregnant, right? But even doing all that there is still a chance that you could get pregnant.

                  So if you do all of those things because you don’t want to get pregnant, and the chance still exists.

                  You wanting to not get pregnant is pretty much irrelevant unless you can prevent it 100% of the time.

                  You said, “If you invite someone to your house for an hour to drink tea, but they bring along their brother, and the two of them get their suitcases with them and tie you to a chair in the basement…”

                  This would be akin to rape, not consensual sex.

                  And I have already explained my position on those types of situations. I’m speaking not of situations where rape is involved, but where the woman was willing and engaged in consensual sex.

                • Kodie

                  Well, if you’re too stupid to get analogies, having this discussion any further is useless. You didn’t win any converts, you failed here. There is no successful argument you can make. There is no excuse you are unwilling to make. And you can just pack up your things and leave. Quick, before you’re aborted, you unwanted fetus.

                • Albert

                  You said, “Well, if you’re too stupid to get analogies, having this discussion any further is useless.”

                  No, I get the analogies that are being presented. But I think they are being applied incorrectly. That is a big difference.

                  You said, “You didn’t win any converts, you failed here.”

                  Nope, I didn’t fail. It was never my goal to convert you. If anything, the most I could realistically hope for is that you will think about what I have said and consider the evidence I have presented. Maybe even go back through the conversation and really look to see what I said. Because that is what I do with your comments. I do this because I believe we should all strive to learn all we can about those we engage with as well as what they have to say. There have been some very knowledgeable things said here and I have learned a few more things. Some things I learned is that not all information people share is accurate. Some is just wrong. But there is also things I have learned in statements made that were true. but sadly, nothing based on facts or resources that are shared. But all in comments that expect me to give them authority without evidence. that, I do not do.

                  You said, “There is no excuse you are unwilling to make. And you can just pack up your things and leave. Quick, before you’re aborted, you unwanted fetus.”

                  Just stating that I have not had any successful arguments is invalid if you are not able to show how they are false. And I’ not making excuses, I have built a case based on reason, logic and facts.

                  - Pregnancy is a possible consequence of sexual intercourse.
                  - Because pregnancy is a possible consequence of sexual intercourse,
                  once the woman consensually engages in sexual intercourse she is
                  accepting every and all consequences, including possibly getting
                  pregnant based on the simple fact of continuing on with that action.
                  - Science has shown that a human being starts life at conception.
                  - Human rights to life apply to every human regardless of size, location, their environment or their level of development, or they are not equal rights.
                  - Since a unborn human being has the same rights to life as every other human being, including those that are born, then an abortion can not be allowed as this is murder.

                  Nothing any of you have said refute these arguments.

                  Many have tip-toed around them thinking that you are declaring them invalid. The problem is everything that has been stated is simply opinion that you all expect me to take as authoritative. This is not how truth is found.

                  If you are growing weary, there is no one forcing you to be here. But I think I am going to stay around for a while. I rather enjoy the back and forth we have been doing.

                • osiote

                  If you place them in a different environment, they will die.

                  zygotes and 14 day old embryos seem to survive just fine in ivf freezers.

                  because of the actions of the mother

                  Unless of course she was raped, then the ‘natural place of the unborn baby’ thing can be thrown out the window, because the rape victim isn’t a slut, so she shouldn’t have to deal with the *consequences* of being raped.

                • Albert

                  You said, “zygotes and 14 week embryos seem to survive just fine in ivf freezers.”

                  Actually, the effect of duration of cryopreservation on the developmental potential on the embryo remains to be elucidated. Reports in the lay press indicate that human embryos which had been cryopreserved for 7.5, 8.0 and 8.25 years resulted inlive births following thaw and intrauterine transfer. ['Live birth from a zygote cryopreserved for 8 years' http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/content/13/10/2970.full.pdf ]

                  But something that has to be understood is that when in this state, the zygotes are not progressing or developing. In other words, their development has been literally frozen in time. Once thawed, they still require the woman’s womb to continue developing. So, yes, in this state they do not die, but they don’t develop either. Once development is started again, there is no other environment that is sufficient for them to survive. Technology has not gotten to that point yet. Perhaps if it did, more lives could be saved.

                  You said, “Unless of course she was raped, then the ‘natural place of the unborn baby’ thing can be thrown out the window, because the rape victim isn’t a slut, so she shouldn’t have to deal with the *consequences* of being raped.”

                  Do you need me to explain my position on this point again?
                  Because I have explained my concession to you and why I have given it. I see no reason to continue to explain it to you if you are not willing to understand it.

                • osiote

                  But something that has to be understood is that when in this state, the zygotes are not progressing or developing.

                  So what. They are still ALIVE.

                  Because I have explained my concession to you and why I have given it

                  Yeah, it’s bullshit. Because I called you out on it, lest you forget, you said, ‘the rape victim didn’t choose to have sex’.

                • Kodie

                  I may have missed a whole bunch of posts that I don’t want to go back and re-read, but whenever I see an exception for rape, I also try to remember that people like Albert have a very narrow definition of what is rape that doesn’t include all other understandings of rape.

                • osiote

                  Yes. He is probably like that politician who said that rape only counts as rape if the girl is a virgin and is viciously attacked and sodomized by a knife wielding psychopath.

                  Oh, and she’d have to prove that she was raped within 24hrs otherwise she loses her right to get an abortion!

                • Kodie

                  As I explained elsewhere recently, the biblical concept of rape is an offense to a man for damaging his property, and in some cases, the woman is considered complicit, i.e., it’s possible for a woman to actually have consensual sex with a man, and also be raped, if she is the property of her father or her husband, so that’s why they punish rape victims in ass-backward theocracies with death. I mean, if she is ruined, there is no reason to keep her around. If you drop your delicate vase, you don’t save the pieces, you sweep them up and say oh well as you dump them in the trash. It is not considered possible to rape your own wife, since she has to consent, since she is your wife. She has no bodily autonomy should she get pregnant, because that’s her job now. She got herself looked after in return for sexual favors and inevitable unpreventable childbearing. Her pregnancy isn’t hers, it belongs to her husband.

                • Albert

                  You said, “So what. They are still ALIVE.”

                  Fair enough. I will concede that point.

                  I restate my statement, If you place them in a different environment, other than, cryopreservation, they will die.

                  Is that better?

                  You said, “Yeah, it’s bullshit. Because I called you out on it, lest you forget, you said, ‘the rape victim didn’t choose to have sex’.”

                  I do recall that I said, “the rape victim didn’t choose to have sex.”
                  I also said, “I make this concession, not because I agree with it, but because if we can save the lives of those pregnancies that are not from rape.”

                  Why is this bullshit?

                • osiote

                  You said, “Yeah, it’s bullshit. Because I called you out on it, lest you forget, you said, ‘the rape victim didn’t choose to have sex’.”

                  I do recall that I said, “the rape victim didn’t choose to have sex.”I also said, “I make this concession, not because I agree with it, but because if we can save the lives of those pregnancies that are not from rape.”

                  Why is this bullshit?

                  It is bullshit because you ONLY made the concession after I pointed out your inconsistencies in regards to rape babies vs. consensual sex babies. You wax poetic about how every zygote is an infant, yet you will let rape victims murder those infants because they ‘didn’t choose to have sex.’ I pointed this out, and only then did you make the ‘concession’ because you realize that you have been caught, rather blatantly I might add, slut-shaming.

                  And besides – what kind of crap is the “well, I would make a concession to allow the murder of some people of lesser status, just to save the others”? So if innocent white adult men were being rounded up and executed, would you be ok with continuing to permit the execution of the disabled in order to save the rest?

                  You don’t “make concessions” with PEOPLE’S LIVES, jackass.

                • Albert

                  First off, I redid my statement: “If you place them in a different environment, other than, cryopreservation, they will die.”

                  You didn’t say if that was better or not.

                  You said, “It is bullshit because you ONLY made the concession after I pointed out your inconsistencies in regards to rape babies vs. consensual sex babies.”

                  That’s incorrect. The inconsistency is the concession.

                  I’m not wanting to treat babies from rape victims any different from consensual sex babies. I want to treat them the same.

                  Webster’s defines concession as, “something done or agreed to usually grudgingly in order to reach an agreement or improve a situation”

                  I am making the concession, not because I agree with it, but because it could improve the situation.

                  The concession makes the inconsistency in order to save as many lives as possible.

                  Is this ideal, no, not in the least. But the end result is an improvement from where it is now. And that makes the concession grudgingly acceptable.

                  You said, “So if innocent white adult men were being rounded up and executed, would you be ok with continuing to permit the execution of the disabled in order to save the rest?”

                  Of course I wouldn’t be okay with it. I have never said I would be okay with rape victim babies being aborted either. It’s not a matter of being okay with it. It’s a matter if the situation improves.

                  If they were rounding up all men and executing them and then allowed the concession that it would only be white men, then that is an improvement. Is it better to stop all execution? Of course, that is what I would prefer to do.

                  You said, “You don’t “make concessions” with PEOPLE’S LIVES, jackass.”

                  This is coming from someone that agrees to abortions? Interesting.

                  In 2012 there were 333,964 abortions reported. That means that if the reported statistic of abortions from rape is 1%, that means that 3339 abortions were done because of rape.

                  If you can save 330625 human beings by allowing 3339 to die, then that is an improved situation. It’s not ideal. It’s not really what I would rather want. But if it stops 99% if those killings, then that is a start in the right direction. Plus the hope is that not all of those 3339 women that were raped will actually go through with an abortion. Which means that maybe even less than 1% will have to die instead of now where it is 100%.

                • osiote

                  This is no different than putting a two year old at the bottom of a pool
                  and you expecting them to come up for air in 45 minutes and be okay.

                  The natural environment for the penis is the vagina. So, there can be no such thing as rape – because dicks belong in vaginas – you know, cuz procreation. It’s NATURAL. Creating offspring is the most NATURAL thing in the world.

                • Albert

                  You said, “The natural environment for the penis is the vagina. So, there can be no such thing as rape – because dicks belong in vaginas – you know, cuz procreation.”

                  Your statement goes against the woman having a say as to what happens to her body. This is inconsistent to the view you have been espousing.

                  A woman gives a male permission to put his penis insider her.

                  She also has given permission to the unborn human being to be there once she has willingly engaged in consensual sex.

                  She is the one that gives permission for both a penis and a unborn human being to be within her.

                  Rape, is a force situation that occurs without the woman’s permission.

                  Procreation is a natural function of humans. If it wasn’t, there would be no more humans.

                • osiote

                  Procreation is a natural function of humans. If it wasn’t, there would be no more humans.

                  Rape is a natural reproductive strategy. It’s a form of cheating, but it is still a completely natural form of reproduction. It enables the male to ‘spread his genes around without having to use any of his resources.

                  As Paul Ryan said, rape is just another method of conception.

                • Albert

                  You said, “Rape is a natural reproductive strategy. It’s a form of cheating, but it is still a completely natural form of reproduction. It enables the male to ‘spread his genes around without having to use any of his resources.”

                  Do you really believe that?

                  You said, “As Paul Ryan said, rape is just another method of conception.”

                  I’m not here to defend Paul Ryan or what he has said or didn’t say. If you have contention with what he said, please take it up with him.

                  If you want to know if I agree with him, then ask me. If not, I’ll not comment on his quotes.

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                  I have a right to not have my body violated.

                  You know who determines if I’m being violated? ME. Because it’s my body.

                  Sit your misogynist ass down and stop trying to dictate other people’s choices.

                • Albert

                  You said, “I have a right to not have my body violated.”

                  I agree 100%.

                  You said, “You know who determines if I’m being violated? ME. Because it’s my body.”

                  I don’t agree. And here’s why.

                  Your body has many basic functions. It is designed to respond a certain way in certain situations. Your menstrual cycle is an example of this. Pregnancy is another. These are things that are natural functions of your body, they are not dictated by choices you make. You can’t will yourself to stop your menstrual cycle; the most you can do is use drugs to stop them for a while. But once you go off those drugs, they start again. It’s a natural function of your body. You also can do things to help prevent pregnancies; tubal ligation, the pill, IUD and so on. But we both know that none of those will 100% guarantee that you won’t get pregnant, right?

                  So when you have consensual sex, you are knowingly accepting the outcome of pregnancy as a possible outcome from your actions. This is not being violated, this is being accepting.

                  In the case of rape, it would be considered a violation. But even in that case, it’s not the pregnancy that is a violation, but the sexual intercourse.

                  And the whole issue with abortions is what is it that is growing inside the womb of a woman when she gets pregnant?

                  Science says it is a human being from conception. If so, that human being has the same rights as you do. And you being it’s mother has a obligation to care for that child as long as it is in your care. If you birth the baby and put it up for adoption, that is your choice. But up until them, it is your obligation to care for the well being of that human being inside of you.

                  And in the situation of a pregnancy, it is no longer just your body, but that body of another human being. So though you have a say about what happens to your body, you don’t have a say as to the other body growing inside of you other than to do all you can to care for it’s well being.

                  You said, “Sit your misogynist ass down and stop trying to dictate other people’s choices.”

                  What I’m stating is that is exactly what I’m trying to prevent. When you preform an abortion you are dictating other people’s choices.

                  I’m saying that the person inside of a pregnant woman is there because of a choice she made. And now that it is there, she must allot that new human being the same rights that she herself lives by. And because of that abortion is the dictating choices for a human being that is not themselves. This is a contradiction.

                  Science has shown that the unborn is a human being from conception?

                  Do you agree with science?

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                  You really don’t understand the concept of consent, do you?

                  I will not listen to some misogynistic MAN lecture me about MY BODY.

                • Albert

                  You said, “You really don’t understand the concept of consent, do you?”

                  Webster’s defines consent as, “to agree to do or allow something : to give permission for something to happen or be done”

                  When you have consensual sex you are accepting every and all outcomes(consequence) from that action. If one of those outcomes is that you get pregnant, then this was a cost you weighed when you engaged in sexual intercourse.

                  Once pregnant, what is growing inside of you is a unique individual human being. Science has shown that.

                  Therefore, it is not your body, but the body of another human being.

                  I support your right to have a say in what happens to your body. And when you choose to engage in sexual intercourse this is when you give your consent, or approval of every outcome that can result from that action.

                  You might not like that, but that is the reality of it.

                  Webster’s defines murder as, ” the crime of deliberately killing a person”

                  And it defines person as ” a human being”

                  Therefore, if you choose to have an abortion you are murdering another human being. The fact that there is a law that condones this sort of action is besides the point. Reality doesn’t lie. And this law is exactly what we are fighting against so that abortions are placed where they should be, in the right category of murder.

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                  If it is in my body or using my body, it is under my control, and I have the right to withdraw consent at any time, for any reason.

                  Stop lecturing us, you woman-enslaving asshole.

                • Albert

                  “If it is in my body or using my body, it is under my control, and I have the right to withdraw consent at any time, for any reason.”

                  If it was under your control, then you could have not gotten pregnant in the first place, right?

                  You can’t take away consent from something that never required your consent. Where you CAN take away consent is whether you engage in sexual intercourse. If you consent to that, then any outcome from that is out of your control.

                  And once you are pregnant, you are only in control of your own body, not the separate body that is growing inside of your. You are now obligated to care for that human being no different than if it was 1 day old, 1 month old and so on.

                  You said, “Stop lecturing us, you woman-enslaving asshole.”

                  And how exactly am I enslaving you when the choice to have consensual sex is yours to make?

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                  By forcing me — or any woman — to gestate an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy.

                  You sit there lecturing us about our bodies and about “responsibility” when we can all see right through your weasel-words. It is nobody’s “responsibility” to gestate, ever. Pregnancy should always be a choice, and you would make it an obligation by virtue of having a functioning uterus.

                  SLAVERY.

                • osiote

                  And slut-shaming, I found the quote, about rape victims, from 7 days ago:

                  In the case of rape, I give the concession to the woman to abort if she is wanting to do so.I do this, not because I agree this should happen, as I don’t believe the child should ever be punished for the crimes of the father, but I give this concession because this was not consensual sex.

                  He is now saying that he is only making the concession to stop the 99% of slutty pregnancies. But if so, why didn’t he say so 7 days ago when asked about rape?

                • Albert

                  You said, “By forcing me — or any woman — to gestate an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy.”
                  Let me ask you something.
                  Susan Smith shocked the nation with the murder of her children. She
                  believed her two young boys were an obstacle to remarriage, so she
                  placed them in her car, fastened their seat belts, and drove them into
                  the lake. [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Smith ]

                  Would you say that Susan Smith was enslaved?
                  She had to kill those children so that she would be in control of her life by getting rid of unwanted children, right?

                  She had them for much longer than 9 months; doesn’t this just mean she was in slavery longer than some others?

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                  Susan Smith’s born children could (and should) have been passed off to another, capable, caregiver.

                  You can’t do that with a z/e/f! It is, by it’s nature, parasitic, and it is known to have negative, even fatal, effects on the host. Sure, it has human DNA, and the potential to become a baby, but in the interim, it is infringing on another person’s body, and therefore fully subject to it’s host’s decisions. If the host decides she doesn’t want to host (or continue hosting) the parasite, she is legally, morally, and ethically in the right, and you’ve no grounds for telling her otherwise. It is her choice.

                  Not yours.

                  Not EVER yours, unless it’s your uterus* that’s occupied.

                  To force a woman to continue hosting that parasite against her will? Unforgivable.
                   
                   
                   
                  *No, I’m not talking about your wife, dude.

                • Albert

                  You said, “Susan Smith’s born children could (and should) have been passed off to another, capable, caregiver.”

                  I agree.

                  You said, “You can’t do that with a z/e/f!”

                  I agree again.

                  You said, “It is, by it’s nature, parasitic, and it is known to have negative, even fatal, effects on the host.”

                  Again, I agree.

                  Sure, it has human DNA, and the potential to become a baby, but in the interim, it is infringing on another person’s body, and therefore fully subject to it’s host’s decisions.

                  And here is where I disagree.

                  Webster’s defines infringing as, ” to do something that does not obey or follow (a rule, law, etc.)”

                  This unborn human being is exactly where it is supposed to be. Therefore, it FOLLOWS that if a woman chooses to have consensual sex and gets pregnant, then this unborn human being is not infringing on the woman, but is exactly where it should be. Therefore, it’s not trespassing, or holding the woman hostage or whatever else you want to incorrectly infer to this relationship.

                  You said it has human DNA. Does that mean you would concede that it is a human being?

                  You said, “If the host decides she doesn’t want to host (or continue hosting) the parasite, she is legally, morally, and ethically in the right, and you’ve no grounds for telling her otherwise. It is her choice.”

                  Based on what?
                  It’s not based on equal rights, because what is inside of her is a human being.
                  It’s not based on it being there against her will, because she accepted this as a possible outcome when she chose to have consensual sex.
                  What you are describing is that if the mother wants to kill her child for whatever reason she can do so. That is called murder.
                  We don’t allow one human being to murder another human being except in cases where it is self defense. I have show that this human being is not there attacking the mother but that the mother, from her actions created this human being and it is exactly where it is supposed to me. Which means she now has the obligation to case for the well being of that new unique human being.

                • dance commander

                  This unborn human being is exactly where it is supposed to be.
                  Therefore, it FOLLOWS that if a woman chooses to have consensual sex and
                  gets pregnant, then this unborn human being is not infringing on the
                  woman, but is exactly where it should be. Therefore, it’s not
                  trespassing, or holding the woman hostage or whatever else you want to
                  incorrectly infer to this relationship.

                  Anatomy is not destiny. Dicks are meant to go in vaginas, that does not mean rape is right, even though it IS a completely natural biological process and is in fact an evolutionary reproductive strategy.

                  We don’t allow one human being to murder another human being except in cases where it is self defense

                  Abortion IS self-defense.

                  I have show that this human being is not there attacking the mother but that the mother

                  And I have shown you that it does in fact attack her. It is genetically programmed to grow as big as possible and to take as many nutrients from her body as it can – even if she goes blind, develops diabetes, or loses bone mass as a result.

                  I gave you that long list of the side effects of pregnancy. Every year 1.2 million women in the USA are permanently disabled as a result of pregnancy.

                  Birth itself can also be 72 hours of pure painful torture, or it can end in a dangerous c-section which is MAJOR surgery and can require months and months of healing, and also lead to permanent disability.

                  If you injure someone in a car crash you are not required to undergo torture and disability to preserve their lives.

                  So why do you require it of women? Oh right…because they chose to have sex. And female sexuality, in your world, is criminal and must be punished with a forced pregnancy that can kill and maim.

                • Albert

                  You said, “Anatomy is not destiny.”
                  What is that supposed to mean?

                  Grass is not running. You are comparing to different things and expecting to come to a morally acceptable reason to murder a human being.

                  You said, “Dicks are meant to go in vaginas, that does not mean rape is right, even
                  though it IS a completely natural biological process and is in fact an
                  evolutionary reproductive strategy.”

                  This is a very bad analogy. Rape is not a natural biological process; it is a crime.
                  As far as reproduction goes, that is a biological process.
                  That biological process doesn’t know about ethical or moral issues, such as abortion. That is a philosophical issue outside of the biological field. The reproduction process doesn’t no right from wrong, it just is. Hence the reason it is a process; one stop follows another and so on and so on.
                  You claim it to be wrong because you want to absolve yourself of the obligation and responsabilty to the human being inside of you. But either all human beings have equal rights or they don’t. And from everything you keep saying, it is clear you don’t believe in equal rights for all human beings.

                  You said, “Abortion IS self-defense.”
                  How do you come to that conclusion?
                  You use words like trespassing, infiltrated, hostage, captor and the like to pretend that the z/e/f willfully brought itself into being so that it could devour the mother; all the time forgetting that the mother’s actions are the whole reason that the z/e/f/ is there in the first place. You ignore that whole issue because you don’t want to admit that the z/e/f would not be there if it wasn’t for the woman’s involvement in consensual sex.

                  You said, “And I have shown you that it does in fact attack her. It is genetically
                  programmed to grow as big as possible ”

                  Webster’s definition of attack is, “to act violently against (someone or something) : to try to hurt, injure, or destroy”

                  Being genetically programmed to grow in the womb, it’s natural environment, is not an attack on the woman. If the z/e/f crawled up insider her on it’s own, then that would be an attack; but that isn’t how it happens. Perhaps you might need a biology lesson on how sexual intercourse can bring about a woman becoming pregnant?

                  You are woefully using words incorrectly to describe a human beings growth pattern in a manor that does not follow that words definition.

                  The pregnancy process is not a violent act. It is not a deliberate attempt to kill the mother. I do agree that it does have it’s own health risks, but again, you are disconnecting the fact that the mother chose to have consensual sex and has put herself in this situation by her own choices.
                  If she chose to not have sex, she would not have been able to get pregnant and there would not be another human being inside her growing as it naturally does when in the right environment. This process has started with the woman, not the unborn human being.

                  You said, “I gave you that long list of the side effects of pregnancy. Every year
                  1.2 million women in the USA are permanently disabled as a result of
                  pregnancy.”

                  Yes, you did. And I agreed that a woman who gets pregnant could possibly get one or many of those side effects.
                  And every year, 1.2 million women and many more CHOOSE to have sex despite these statistics and possible side effects. What is that? If a woman is taking control of her own body and is not wanting to experience any of these side effects, then why engage in consensual sex? She has chosen to put herself at risk.

                  Once a woman CHOOSES to have consensual sex, she is accepting every one of those side effects as a possible outcome from her action in the sack. The unborn human was also a consequence from her action, not the other way around.

                  You said, “Birth itself can also be 72 hours of pure painful torture, or it can end
                  in a dangerous c-section which is MAJOR surgery and can require months
                  and months of healing, and also lead to permanent disability.”

                  How does this help your case? If anything, it would seem to give woman more reason NOT to engage in sexual intercourse, don’t you think?

                  You said, “If you injure someone in a car crash you are not required to undergo torture and disability to preserve their lives.”

                  But you could do prison time depending on the situation and why you hit them. This doesn’t help you case.
                  Whatever is the outcome from that accident now becomes the consequences you will have to deal with if you hit another person in their car. But you can’t simply tell them, “I never intended to hit you so therefore I’m absolved of any and all responsibility.” Sorry, it doesn’t work that way.

                  You said, “So why do you require it of women? Oh right…because they chose to have
                  sex.”

                  That is correct. It was their choice. Perhaps you are finally starting to see that it was their choice that brought this on themselves.
                  But I do require if of men and women equally. I require everyone to be held accountable for their actions. If a man gets a woman pregnant he should be held responsible too. Just because he isn’t carrying the new human being he was an accomplice to that action. So there are consequences for his actions as well. He needs to be there and care for the mother and their child. The fact that this doesn’t happen a lot is because people have become a part of the “entitlement” generation. And “what’s in it for me” has become the new mantra.

                  You said, “And female sexuality, in your world, is criminal and must be
                  punished with a forced pregnancy that can kill and maim.”

                  That is not correct. It is not a forced pregnancy. The woman chose to have consensual sex, remember? You just said that in the sentence above.

                  Abortion is criminal in my world. You forget that if a pregnancy is allowed to take it’s natural course, an over whelming percentage of women not only would birth naturally but do it with little to no risks to their health. But instead of you focusing on the normal situation, you take the extreme cases to build your case on. But we both know that most pregnancies that go to term are successful and the woman are not so much worst for wear after birth.
                  A woman going to term is a 0.015% chance of the loss of life; where in
                  the case of abortion, it is a 100% chance of loss of life.

                  I had asked you some questions earlier. Are you able to answer them for me?

                  What is a human organism?

                  What is a human being?

                  What makes them different?

                • Kodie

                  This is a very bad analogy. Rape is not a natural biological process; it is a crime.

                  How does calling something a crime eliminate its status as a natural biological process? You don’t make a lot of sense.

                • dance commander

                  The reproduction process doesn’t no right from wrong, it just is. Hence
                  the reason it is a process; one stop follows another and so on and so
                  on.

                  Rape is just another method of conception. All nature ‘cares’ about is the production of the next generation. As long as those genes are propagated, that is the only thing that matters, as far as nature is concerned.

                  You know how ducks reproduce? Solely through rape. There is an arms race of genitals, in fact. The female duck’s vagina has many blind compartments so that the male duck’s organ cannot always ejaculate into the right spot.

                  Rape is a reproductive strategy. And it creates cute little babies. So, what could possibly be wrong with rape?

                  The pregnancy process is not a violent act. It is not a deliberate attempt to kill the mother.

                  Already proven you wrong on that multiple times. And, lest you forget, intent is immaterial. If you are being attacked by a mentally disabled person, and the only way to stop the attack is to kill them, you have that right. EVEN IF THEY ARE NOT IN THEIR RIGHT MIND AND DO NOT KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO KILL THEM BECAUSE THEY ARE INFRINGING ON YOUR RIGHTS.

                  How does this help your case? If anything, it would seem to give woman more reason NOT to engage in sexual intercourse, don’t you think?

                  If a woman is going blind from pregnancy, or developing diabetes or any one of the really dangerous side effects that I listed should she be allowed to get an abortion? Or do you expect a woman to also go blind as part of her penance for having sex?

                  But you could do prison time depending on the situation and why you hit them. This doesn’t help you case.

                  If you injure someone in a car accident do you think that you should be legally obligated to provide biological donations in order to preserve their life? You put them in that situation…you owe them. yes or no?

                  If a man gets a woman pregnant he should be held responsible too.

                  so if a woman needs blood transfusions or organ transplants during the pregnancy to keep the fetus alive you agree with me that fathers should be legally obligated to donate whatever organs are needed to preserve the fetus life? Remember, the father CREATED THE CHILD, he has the same obligations as the mother. If having to donate blood for 9 months causes him to lose his job and go blind, that is somethign he should *accept* because he *chose to have sex*. Right?

                  Abortion is criminal in my world

                  So how much jail time should a woman do if she performs an abortion on herself? Life in prison/ Death penalty?


                  What is a human organism?

                  What is a human being?

                  What makes them different?

                  Already explained this to you numerous times. I suggest you learn to read my fucking posts.

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                  Oh. My. Ceiling Cat.

                  This has been explained to you eleventy-billion times! I’m done, because you’re clearly trolling.

                • Albert

                  You said, “This has been explained to you eleventy-billion times! I’m done, because you’re clearly trolling.”

                  wmdkitty, I’m not trying to make you upset. I’m simply disagreeing with you and stating my position.

                  I’m sorry you feel that is trolling, but it’s not.

                  I did not come here to piss you off. I came here to see if you could answer any of my questions.

                  What is a human being?
                  What is a person?

                  What is the difference between a human being and a person?

                  If you don’t agree that a human being starts life at conception, then I welcome any scientific proof that you might have to refute that

                  Nothing I have said is set in stone. I follow where the truth leads me. And so far, where it has lead me is the by current argument, which is:

                  A human being starts life at conception. Because we have equal rights for all human beings, we don’t discriminate just because someone is smaller, in a different location then us, requires a different environment than us to live or is less developed then ourselves. Because this human being is not an intruder or trespassing, but is exactly where it needs to be to grow, in the mother’s womb; and that human being is there because of the mothers willingness to engage in consensual sex, then that human being has the same right to life as every other human being on our planet. To deprive them of that opportunity, and to take their life against their will, is to not believe in equal rights for all human beings and is actually condoning murder.

                  I have yet to see anything anyone has said here that isn’t based on personal preference or is stated out of convenience or is contrary to bodily autonomy for everyone and also takes away equal rights and replaces it with discrimination against a certain group of human beings.

                  I welcome you to refute my facts(the quotes I provided) and to consider what I have said. This is not about removing a woman’s right to say what happens to her own body, but rather opens that up to all woman, regardless of size, location, environment or their own level of development.

                  All human life is valuable. And because of that, if a woman chooses to engage in consensual sex, she is putting herself, not by force, into the position of possibly getting pregnant. If she does this, then she is now obligated to care for the unborn human being in her womb to the best of her abilities.

                  I’m not requiring her not to use contraceptives or to not get a tubal ligation and insisting that her partner have a vasectomy before they engage in sexual intercourse. I encourage her to use her brain and do all she can to prevent unwanted pregnancies from happening.
                  But on the other side of that coin, because once pregnant another human being is in the picture, I am saying that she is now obligated to care for that other human being at least until it is brought to term and birthed. Then at that point she wants to put the child up for adoption she can do that.

                  I don’t believe my argument is unreasonable and I believe it makes sense for all those involved.

                  Perhaps you disagree, but if you do, please don’t stop the conversation because you are frustrated or hate me. Stick to your guns, if your guns are for truth. Don’t back down,just because someone else thinks differently than you. But do try to understand their point of view. I know, it may not seem like it to you right now, but I have understood your point of view. And because of what I see, I think it is lacking in strength right now, at least in how you presented it to me. But that is no reason to go away. I hope you will say and consider what I have said. Be intellectually honest about your position. See if my view has any merit. If you don’t see the evidence ask for more. If I provide only opinion, call me out. But if I present you evidence (such as the quotes), then study it, research it and present an argument based in facts that refute it. Because then if you did that, And you refuted my proof, I would have no reason to disagree with your view then, would I?
                  But be honest with yourself as well. And if you can’t refute my proof, then perhaps I’m on to something. Perhaps I might have a view worth looking into instead of all the back and forth that normally happens on the interwebs.

                  I guarantee that if you stick to is, do the research and seek the truth, the answers will become crystal clear. Unfortunately, most arguments are based on emotions and “what’s in it for me” and not based on evidence and what is consistent.

                  I hope you will stay. I enjoy our debating.

                • dance commander

                  wmdkitty, I’m not trying to make you upset. I’m simply disagreeing with you and stating my position.

                  stop slut-shaming, and maybe she won’t be so angry with you

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                  That, and insisting that an occupied uterus must remain occupied because RESPONSIBILITY! CONSEQUENCES! CONSENSUAL SEX!

                • dance commander

                  Unfortunately, most arguments are based on emotions and “what’s in it for me” and not based on evidence and what is consistent.

                  Yeah. Not wanting to be permanently disabled from a pregnancy or go through a torturous birth or c-section is oh so SELFISH.

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                  Oh, yeah, I’m so fucking SELFISH for DARING to be on meds that are not compatible with pregnancy, and needing those drugs to stay anywhere near functional. *spits*

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                  A human being starts life at birth, because that is the moment of clear separation from the mother’s body. There is no culture in the world — currently or at any time we know of — that considered the pre-born “people”. Most, in fact, didn’t consider infants to be people, because infant mortality was just. that. high. that it wasn’t worth getting attached.

                  So long as one organism is fully dependent on another organism’s body for survival, that organism is entirely subject to the whims and decisions of the host organism. If the host decides it does not wish to host the parasite, the host has every right to evict it.

                  Also, your continued insistence on being so wrong that even wrong is shaking it’s head? It’s been noted, along with your continued slut-shaming.

                • Kodie

                  and to take their life against their will,

                  Where, exactly, in the single-celled human organism, is its “will”?

                • Cake

                  It’s just a little bit to the left of the soul, of course.

                • Albert

                  You said, “Where, exactly, in the single-celled human organism, is its “will”?”

                  It’s not a will as in desire, choice, willingness or consent, but rather an expression of inevitability.

                  If the unborn human has not expelled from the woman’s body, this shows that it is growing as it naturally should. there is a will to live, so to speak. This follows within the the ‘right to life’ that all human beings inherently have just for being human.

                  The right to life issue brings about the “will”.

                  A doctor that are unable to know the patients wishes, or will for their outcome, presume that it is the patient’s will to live. So when in a situation where they do not expressly know that will directly from the patient the take the inherent understanding that all human beings want to live unless otherwise stated. In those cases they require a DNR order so that they are not held responsible for not responding to the inherent “will” to live.

                  If the unborn human being did not have a will to live, then it would expel itself.

                  I’m sure this will not be acceptable to you but it is the reason I say that they have a will. It is inherent to them first being a human being.

                  “Human development begins at fertilization when a sperm fuses with an oocyte to form a single cell, a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.[Chapter 2 p.14 – First Week of Human Development - The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology : Authors - Keith Lean Moore, Trivedi V. N. Persaud, Mark G. Torchia : Edition 9, illustrated, reprint : Publisher Elsevier/Saunders, 2013 ISBN 1437720021, 9781437720020]”

                  If you disagree with this quote What scientific evidence do you have to show this is incorrect?

                  What is a human being?

                  What is a person?

                  What are the differences between a human being and a person?

                  “Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.” [article 2 : http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml ]

                  See that ‘birth or other status’ portion in there? That covers the unborn.

                  What evidence to you have to show that this unborn human being does not have the same rights as you and me?

                • dance commander

                  If the unborn human being did not have a will to live, then it would expel itself.

                  Healthy ZEF’s miscarry all the time. Clearly, you do not have a clue about how pregnancy actually works.

                  If you disagree with this quote What scientific evidence do you have to show this is incorrect?

                  I have already proven you wrong multiple times, sweetie. Presented you with loads of science that you conveniently ignore.

                • Kodie

                  It’s not a will as in desire, choice, willingness or consent, but rather an expression of inevitability.

                  If the unborn human has not expelled from the woman’s body, this
                  shows that it is growing as it naturally should. there is a will to
                  live, so to speak. This follows within the the ‘right to life’ that all
                  human beings inherently have just for being human.

                  “So to speak” from your mouth. You, outside of a woman’s uterus (as far as we know), putting words “so to speak” into something that doesn’t have its own will to live.

                  A doctor that are unable to know the patients wishes, or will for their
                  outcome, presume that it is the patient’s will to live. So when in a
                  situation where they do not expressly know that will directly from the
                  patient the take the inherent understanding that all human beings want
                  to live unless otherwise stated. In those cases they require a DNR order
                  so that they are not held responsible for not responding to the
                  inherent “will” to live.

                  And if the patient is a minor, the parent is elected to make that decision for it.

                • Albert

                  You said, “”So to speak” from your mouth. You, outside of a woman’s uterus (as far as we know), putting words “so to speak” into something that doesn’t have its own will to live.”

                  Would you rather I use the words ” active disposition” instead of will? This would more accurately describe what I’m talking about. The fact that it is growing shows that it is not wanting to stop. This is, as I said, a will to live. And you didn’t address the whole human rights ‘right to life’ aspect. If you don’t agree with my quotes, then please refute them.

                  And yes, to an extent I am putting words in their mouths as they are unable to speak for themselves. We don’t harm or murder human beings just because they are unable to communicate with us for themselves.

                  You said, “And if the patient is a minor, the parent is elected to make that decision for it.”

                  You are correct. But the decisions made for that minor are in the best interest of the minor, not the mother. This is another example of how the parents are to care for the well being of the child. This doesn’t help your argument, in fact it goes against it.

                  “Human development begins at fertilization when a sperm fuses with an oocyte to form a single cell, a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.[Chapter 2 p.14 – First Week of Human Development - The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology : Authors - Keith Lean Moore, Trivedi V. N. Persaud, Mark G. Torchia : Edition 9, illustrated, reprint : Publisher Elsevier/Saunders, 2013 ISBN 1437720021, 9781437720020]”

                  If you disagree with this quote What scientific evidence do you have to show this is incorrect?

                  What is a human being?

                  What is a person?

                  What are the differences between a human being and a person?

                  “Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.” [article 2 : http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml ]

                  See that ‘birth or other status’ portion in there? That covers the unborn.

                  What evidence to you have to show that this unborn human being does not have the same rights as you and me?

                • dance commander

                  The fact that it is growing shows that it is not wanting to stop.

                  This also applies to bacteria that live inside you as well.

                  And yes, to an extent I am putting words in their mouths as they are unable to speak for themselves.

                  And you erase women in the process.


                  What is a human being?

                  What is a person?

                  What are the differences between a human being and a person?

                  How convenient for you to just ignore all of my replies to you. Especially the ones involving science, that utterly destroy all of the nonsense that you’ve been spewing forth.

                  How convenient indeed. You don’t have a leg to stand on, and you know it. That’s why yo ignore me.

                • dance commander

                  Article 1.

                  All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and
                  rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act
                  towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

                  Article 4.

                  No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

                  ———

                  And just so you know, the European Court of Human Rights decided in FAVOUR of a Polish woman who was DENIED an abortion because the pregnancy was causing her to go blind. They decided that forcing a woman to remain pregnant against her will was WRONG. Suck on that.

                  I guess you’re now going to say that the European Court of Human Rights are all Nazis or something, right?

                  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6470403.stm

                  The European Court of Human Rights has awarded a
                  Polish woman 25,000 euros ($33,000; £16,000) in damages after she was refused an abortion.

                • Kodie

                  “Human development begins at fertilization when a sperm fuses with an
                  oocyte to form a single cell, a zygote. This highly specialized,
                  totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique
                  individual.[Chapter 2 p.14 – First Week of Human Development - The
                  Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology : Authors - Keith Lean
                  Moore, Trivedi V. N. Persaud, Mark G. Torchia : Edition 9, illustrated,
                  reprint : Publisher Elsevier/Saunders, 2013 ISBN 1437720021,
                  9781437720020]”

                  If you disagree with this quote What scientific evidence do you have to show this is incorrect?

                  I don’t disagree with it. There is no disagreement from me with the scientific assessment.

                  What part of that is the important part? How does this support your argument?

                • dance commander

                  I don’t think he understands the science he uses to back up his position.

                  In fact, I don’t think he understands a lot of things. Which is why he just repeats the same shit over and over and over again.

                  The funny thing is, he could have done a better job of finding an embryologist out there who supports his pro-life position. There are plenty of pro-life quotes from anti-choice biologists and ob/gyns who proclaim that a zygote is a homunculus.

                • Albert

                  I first want to say I’m sorry. I didn’t see this post before I submitted my last reply to you. So you are getting this question posed to you again.

                  You said, “I don’t disagree with it. There is no disagreement from me with the scientific assessment. What part of that is the important part? How does this support your argument?”

                  Well, lets see….
                  the important part is all of it. How it supports my argument is explained below:

                  “Human development begins” : Shows that it is a human from this point forward. It can’t be some thing else like a plant or an animal or a kidney or etc.; it is a human being from conception. – That supports my argument that it is a human being from conception.

                  ” marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” : Shows that the human being that began at conception is separate from the women who is carrying this unborn human being. – That supports my argument that this unborn human being has it’s own body.

                  Together, these two facts indicate that what is created at conception is a unique individual human being separate from the woman carrying it.

                  Do you disagree with this assessment?

                • dance commander

                  Together, these two facts indicate that what is created at conception is
                  a unique individual human being separate from the woman carrying it.

                  I’ve proven you wrong on that. But you will ignore it. Because you prefer to debate DISHONESTLY.

                  Really. If you have to LIE in order to make a case for your side, you’ve already LOST.

                • dance commander

                  I first want to say I’m sorry. I didn’t see this post before I submitted
                  my last reply to you. So you are getting this question posed to you
                  again.

                  You’re not sorry. You think Kodie is a broodmare.

                • Kodie

                  I don’t disagree that this is where human development begins, nor do I suppose it might turn into a pumpkin or a watermelon. It’s still not a person with rights.

                  Unique individuals are a dime a dozen. If you think that impresses me, you are mistaken. If you want to keep believing that this distinction makes it also a person, then you have to face the uncomfortable fact that this is also an intruder. Context makes a difference, and it is a person in projection only. No pregnant woman has a baby, they are having a baby. If you want to look at a blob with no brain or spinal cord, even if it already has a beating heart, and say that’s a baby, well, take it out of the womb and put a fucking diaper on it then. I mean, if I were to get inside your head, and pretend I think it’s a person, then I would be held prisoner by that person.

                  If it’s building itself from my body, then it’s not built yet. I can foresee that it will continue a process that I want to shut down before it gets worse. Even for people who want a baby ultimately, it always gets worse. No matter how much you love them, they always cost your health, time, and money. It is like being mugged in a fucking alley, so if you want to give that it is a person, you have to allow for all possible legal responses to that “person”, one of which is “GTFO”.

                  What you are also trying to imply is that it can’t possibly be a criminal, since it has no immoral intentions. It just grows like a weed because it has the will to live! You are imparting upon it the will of a whole human being, differentiating it from all the other organisms on earth by virtue of its human DNA, but absolving it likewise on the premise that it has no moral or ethical responsibility, it’s just a wittew baybee! Spare all of us your version of logic. It has no moral or ethical responsibility because it’s a fucking fish at this point. It doesn’t have wants or wills, it doesn’t know what it’s heading for, any more than cookie dough does.

                  You are superstitious, so every time you bring up a scientific factoid that you think supports your position, you are implying that it is never ok to intervene in natural processes, and yet you only reserve this judgment for women who have consensual sex. You have a fetish, sir!

                • Kodie

                  And yes, to an extent I am putting words in their mouths as they are
                  unable to speak for themselves. We don’t harm or murder human beings
                  just because they are unable to communicate with us for themselves.

                  We aren’t harming or murdering any human beings here. So you are attributing qualities to them out of your fantasy definitions, like you know what it wishes.

                  You said, “And if the patient is a minor, the parent is elected to make that decision for it.”

                  You are correct. But the decisions made for that minor are in the
                  best interest of the minor, not the mother. This is another example of
                  how the parents are to care for the well being of the child. This
                  doesn’t help your argument, in fact it goes against it.

                  How does it go against it? That you don’t consider the woman a person, but you consider something without a brain that you have to put words in the mouth that it doesn’t have yet’s mouth, a person?

                • Albert

                  You said, “We aren’t harming or murdering any human beings here. So you are attributing qualities to them out of your fantasy definitions, like you know what it wishes.”

                  That is incorrect.

                  “Human development begins at fertilization when a sperm fuses with an oocyte to form a single cell, a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.[Chapter 2 p.14 – First Week of Human Development - The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology : Authors - Keith Lean Moore, Trivedi V. N. Persaud, Mark G. Torchia : Edition 9, illustrated, reprint : Publisher Elsevier/Saunders, 2013 ISBN 1437720021, 9781437720020]”

                  This quote is not my fantasy definition. This is from a textbook that is used to teach students.

                  You might not agree with it, but please, feel free to show me how this is incorrect.

                  You said, “How does it go against it? That you don’t consider the woman a person, but you consider something without a brain that you have to put words in the mouth that it doesn’t have yet’s mouth, a person?”

                  You are incorrect on my position. I consider the woman AND the unborn a person. Both of them. Not one or the other. If you are going to pretend to know my mind, at least read through my posts so you can try to get my view right.

                  “Human development begins at fertilization when a sperm fuses with an oocyte to form a single cell, a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.[Chapter 2 p.14 – First Week of Human Development - The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology : Authors - Keith Lean Moore, Trivedi V. N. Persaud, Mark G. Torchia : Edition 9, illustrated, reprint : Publisher Elsevier/Saunders, 2013 ISBN 1437720021, 9781437720020]”

                  If you disagree with this quote What scientific evidence do you have to show this is incorrect?

                  What is a human being?

                  What is a person?

                  What are the differences between a human being and a person?

                  “Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.” [article 2 : http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml ]

                  See that ‘birth or other status’ portion in there? That covers the unborn.

                  What evidence to you have to show that this unborn human being does not have the same rights as you and me?

                • dance commander

                  You might not agree with it, but please, feel free to show me how this is incorrect.

                  If you disagree with this quote What scientific evidence do you have to show this is incorrect?

                  1) Biologist Johnathan M Sullivan Md PhD writes:

                  You and I contain much, much more information, both genetic and otherwise, than a blastocyst. That’s why I can write this column and you can read it, whereas a blastocyst just.. .sits there. Indeed, that is the exactly the point of stem cell research: the stem cells in the blastocyst have not yet acquired the molecular programming required for differentiation, and so they remain pluripotent, awaiting the necessary molecular signals (the information) that will tell them whether to become nerve or muscle, skin or bone.

                  Yes, once upon a time we were blastocysts, too. Nothing more than a little clump of cells, each of them a snippet of DNA surrounded by cytoplasm. But that DNA was later transcribed into RNA, and that RNA was translated into proteins. And some of those proteins were transcription factors that told other cells in the blastocyst what to do, when to divide, where to migrate. Transcription factors regulated the expression of still other transcription factors. Genes were turned on and off with clockwork precision. Some genes were methylated, so they could never be turned on again.

                  In other words, the genome and the proteome of the blastocyst were changed as the embryo accumulated molecular information that the blastocyst did not have.

                  The embryo became a fetus, with complex orientations of tissues–loaded with spatial, genetic, biochemical and mechanical information that simply did not exist in the embryo.

                  The fetus became a child with a nervous system, and that nervous system sucked up information about the world, hard-wiring pathways for vision and movement, learning to make subtle distinctions between this and that, accumulating information that simply did not exist in the fetus.

                  In other words, the blastocyst launched a genetic program that both extracted and acquired information. It didn’t start out as a human being. It became a human being, with a personality, feelings, attitudes and memories, by accumulating information that was not there before.

                  Equating a blastocyst with a human being is like equating a brand new copy of an inexpensive spreadsheet program with the priceless databases that you’ll eventually build up with that program. It’s no less ridiculous than saying that a blueprint has the same value as a skyscraper–that it is the skycraper.

                  No. They are not the same.

                  2) Biologist Scott Gilbert writes:

                  Genetics

                  This view states that a genetically unique person begins at conception – a fertilized egg now hosts a complete genome, making it distinct from the sex cells that came before it. This definition has the advantage of saying that a new individual has been created that can be distinct from its parents, but is still limited by the fact that
                  this embryo is still in an early stage of development and far from viable as an individual.

                  This view also causes a funny paradox in the case of monozygotic (identical) twins: each twin does not exist as an individual when “its life begins” – that is, when it is conceived as the embryo doesn’t split into two parts until later. This paradox could possibly be resolved by considering the pre-twinning embryo as a disparate entity
                  from either of the resulting embryos. This is why viewing the formation of life as a continuous process rather than a single event is beneficial.

                  Instructions for Development and Heredity are NOT all in the Fertilised egg. The view that we are genetically determined by the combination of parental DNA has been shown to fall far short of the complete story. How
                  the DNA is interpreted can vary greatly affected by things such as the maternal diet. Similarly some development requires certain bacteria to be present. Thirdly, and most surprisingly, the level of maternal care can determine which areas of DNA are ‘methylated’ which radically alters
                  how they are interpreted. As such the view that we are ‘complete but unformed’ at conception is far from accurate.

                  The Embryo is NOT Safe Within the Womb. Modern research shows that 30% or fewer fertilised eggs will go on to become foetuses. Many of these early miscarriages
                  are because of abnormal numbers of chromosomes. The view that every fertilised egg is a potential human being is wrong in around 70% of cases.

                  There is NOT a Moment of Fertilisation when the passive egg receives the active sperm.Again recent research has shown that the previous commonly held view that the fastest sperm races towards the egg and, bingo, we’re up and running is wrong on many levels. Fertilisation is a process taking up to four days. As such there is no magic moment, rather there is a process.

                  There is NO consensus amongst scientists that life begins at conception.There isn’t even consensus amongst scientists as to whether there’s consensus. However, Scott Gilbert’s paper lists embryologists who support each of the major view points belying the common and oft
                  repeated assertion that there is consensus amongst embryologists, let alone scientists.

                  Neurology

                  Just as death is usually defined by the cessation of brain activity, so the start of life can be defined as the start of a recognisable Electroencephalography[wp] (EEG) pattern from the fetus. This is usually twenty four to twenty seven weeks after conception.[1]

                  The point of using neurological factors rather than other signs such as a heartbeat is that this is a much more useful indicator from the point of view of science. A heart beats using mostly involuntary muscle movements so is really little different from any other spontaneous motion or metabolic processes. A heartbeat means relatively
                  little in real terms, although it is more dramatic from an emotive point of view.

                  When discussing the philosophical and/or ethical
                  issues, surrounding the start of life the desire for science to provide a clear cut human/non human boundary is very understandable. We need to be able to define this because it is important in our laws and our understandings. However, even from the brief descriptions given above, it is clear that there is no simple answer that science can give. It may well be that reality doesn’t have an answer for us, and that “when does
                  life begin?” is, in fact, a meaningless question.

                  The entity created by fertilization is indeed a human embryo, and it has the potential to be human adult. Whether these facts are enough to accord it personhood is a question influenced by opinion, philosophy and theology, rather than by science.

                  Indeed, the potential for human life can begin very early, but it is personhood that is the sticking point. The question is very much whether the two are equal and therefore happen at the same point. Leaving the answer in the hands of philosophy and opinion however makes
                  the distinction between “life” and “non-life” purely subjective and the answer will be different for everyone. This is the most important fact to bear in mind, particularly when discussing legalities – subjective thoughts cannot and should not be forced upon everyone fairly.

                • Kodie

                  Because you’re so ignorant and willful, you think that it bears on the conversation, but it really doesn’t. It only says human development starts. You have a fantasy that believes that it is a human person even though it demonstrates no such qualities, and that you know what it wants just by how it behaves.

                  Do you know what a flower wants? Do you know what a tennis ball wants? Do you know what the mashed potatoes want? What evidence do you have that this is an unborn human being with rights the same as you and me? And why do you keep ignoring the implication that IF you want to consider it a person, you have to apply rights to the human being it is inside of? It is so easy for you to dismiss her as being “responsible” for this “consequence” and allow her to suffer.

                  You never answered my questions about diarrhea or gonorrhea either.

                • Kodie

                  Albert, when you keep asking for refutation of your cite, why does jejune have to keep posting the same things over and over again and you don’t address the response?

                  It is one thing to ignore something, but to ask for it and then ignore it and then keep asking the same question indicates to me that you are uncomfortable with the truth. You are doubling down on what you think is a gotcha, but it’s stupid because you are getting knowledgeable, scientific responses that refute, address, or expand upon the proper context of your claims. So the smart thing to do in a debate would be to address it or drop it altogether, not keep asking and ignoring the answer.

                • Albert

                  You said, “We aren’t harming or murdering any human beings here. So you are
                  attributing qualities to them out of your fantasy definitions, like you
                  know what it wishes.”

                  That is simply your claim or those like you. If what is created at conception is “human”, then it is a human being. If you don’t agree with that, then you need to show how a human is different than a human being.

                  I’m not attributing any qualities that are not there. If what it is, is a human, then that is what it is. If it’s not a human, then what is it?

                  Can it become something other than a born human? Could it become a dog perhaps? If not, then it has to be something specific. Logic shows that if the egg and the sperm that joined are both from human beings, then what is created is also a human being.

                  So if it is a human, and we have laws on the books that indicate it is wrong to murder human beings, then it is murder. I don’t know what else you can call it.

                  You said, “How does it go against it?”

                  If you are killing the child(the abortion), then that is not in the best interest of the child.
                  To care for a child is to do what you can to keep them alive and well. Abortion takes that life. That is the exact opposite of caring for them.

                  You said, “That you don’t consider the woman a person, but you consider something without a brain that you have to put words in the mouth that it doesn’t have yet’s mouth, a person?”

                  I never said I don’t consider the woman a person. In fact, I have been adamant that what we are dealing with is two people/human’s from the point of conception. It is no longer just one human(the woman), but now two or more in the case of twins.

                  The fact that the unborn doesn’t have a voice/mouth at its
                  earliest stages is just a fact of life. As it grows it will have a mouth and a voice if allowed to continue growing.

                  Just like a 1 year old is not yet able to reason, they start doing that when they are 4 or more. And if allowed to continue growing they will do well in that ability. But at any time if one person stops another persons life, they are removing that person’s natural ability to grow and develop.

                  The unborn human is there because of the actions of the mother. The mother is obligated to care for that newly created human being because she is the only one that can. Once this new human is birthed, if she is wanting to relinquish her obligation to care for that child, that is up to her. But at no time is what she is carrying not a human being. It isn’t like when she finds out she gets pregnant she is thinking, “Oh my, what will it be? Perhaps a dog or a cow? Who knows!”
                  No, she knows it is a human being. To ignore that fact is to be deliberately ignoring the facts.
                  To call the unborn human something else, like a lump of cells, or a parasite, is to remove her emotional attachment to it so that it makes it easier to end that unborn human’s life. It brings about the idea that what she is removing is of no consequence. But the fact remains that it is a human being, just like the mother, only at an earlier stage of development.

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                  *sigh*

                • dance commander

                  Albert is such an idiot. Someone new comes along, so he hauls out the same worthless arguments that have only been trounced numerous times before.

                  YOU WANT TO KILL TODDLERS DON’T YOU????????

                • dance commander

                  Should fathers be forced to donate blood organs etc DURING the pregnancy in order to preserve the life of the fetus?

                  Remember, the men consented to sex, they are also consenting to keep the fetus alive, just like the woman. Even if it severely inconveniences them and demands the use of their body.

                • Kodie

                  See that ‘birth or other status’ portion in there? That covers the unborn.

                  That’s a selective interpretation that ignores several other clauses, including Article 30:

                  Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying
                  for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or
                  to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and
                  freedoms set forth herein.

                  IF you want to grant personhood to a zef, you have to apply Article 30, and then read all the clauses to see if the zef is a violator of any of them.

                  Your selective interpretation takes “birth or other status” as a whole clause meaning whether it is born or not, like a literal birth, or “other status”, i.e., pre-born. You see what you want to see. In most, if not all, the nations cosigned, abortion is legal, and yet no one has considered them in violation of the treaty. Pre-borns are not assigned personhood by this treaty, as of Article 1. “Birth or other status” is a generic clause that admittedly allows for selective interpretation for categories of statuses not known or defined, such as ability or sexual orientation. If we interpret it selectively, who is to say a dog or a farm or a chair is not a human with dignity and reason and conscience? “Birth or other status” like being an animal, a business, or a piece of furniture.

                  Article 1:

                  All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and
                  rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act
                  towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

                • dance commander

                  If you were genuinely interested in having an intellectually honest debate, you wouldn” repeatedly ignore the science that you are presented with. it was fucking convenient for you to pretend that your feelings were all hurt because I pointed out your slut-shaming. This gives you an out, so you can ignore all my other VALID SCIENTIFIC claims.

                  You’re an intellectually dishonest coward who couldn’t debate his way out of a paper bag. Prove my claims wrong, I dare you. You can’t which is why you ignore me.

                • Albert

                  Kodie, I commend you. This is a very good argument in support of your position. It gives me a lot to think about.

                  Very well stated and presented. Kudos.

                  You have given me lots to think about regarding this declaration. It does not change my mind in the issue of abortion, but it has given me some things to think about.

                • dance commander

                  Funny how you won’t think about all of the scientific evidence I have presented you with.

                  Or how you won’t answer Ella Warnock’s question.

                  Why not Albert? What are you afraid of?

                • Albert

                  Jejune, I’m definitely not trying to avoid any questions asked of me; and definitely not afraid. Not sure why anyone would be afraid to answer a question. And I will admit when I have been given an answer that is well stated.

                  I have had many comments thrown at me and have not had the time to answer them all. If I haven’t answered yours, that could be the reason why.

                  I did not see any comments from Ella Warnock, is that the name I should see it under?

                • dance commander

                  Yes.

                  Ella Warnock.

                • dance commander

                  And I am sure that Kodie will appreciate your condescending tone.

                  From someone as highly intelligent and learned as yourself, I am sure she will take it as a compliment.

                • Albert

                  I hope she does. I wasn’t being condescending, I was actually giving her a compliment. No reason not to. She presented a great argument in regards to that document.

                • dance commander

                  Just so you know:

                  http://www.policymic.com/articles/30925/un-report-classifies-lack-of-access-to-abortion-as-torture

                  The UN quite clearly doesn’t consider fetii to be the ‘other status’ if they did, they wouldn’t be pro-choice.

                • Kodie

                  It has given you something to think about using your interpretation of the document anymore and just leaving it out, while you press the forced birth agenda anyway. Good for you, you removed one of your many terrible arguments because you realize how weakly it supports your position that you can’t be reasoned out of.

                • osiote

                  No dumbass, because they weren’t attached to her blood supply, leeching nutrients from her body.

                  She could have given them up for adoption.

                  Stop trying to compare a born child to a parasitic embryo you dumb repetitive fuck.

                • Ella Warnock

                  Of course she had them longer than nine months, as they were born children that she clearly granted ongoing consent to until their birth. Even up to the point of her sending them into the lake, she could have surrendered them to another’s care.

                  Is there ever a time when a father is, literally, on the hook for physically supporting a fetus? Should he be legally obligated to donate blood, organs – anything at all, really – to ensure survival before birth? If not, why not? Half of that very special and unique DNA is his, after all.

                • Ella Warnock

                  But . . . it did require my consent. Any outcome is, quite literally, completely within my control. I don’t require permission from any outside source. I don’t even require legality. Born people don’t get any guarantees in this life; why should zefs be any different? Because they aren’t, of course.

                • Albert

                  You said, ” Any outcome is, quite literally, completely within my control.”

                  If that was true, then you wouldn’t get pregnant in the first place. When was the last time you noticed your menstrual cycle had started and you just willed it to stop? If you can’t do that, then you are not in control of it. The most you can do is take medications that will alter your bodies chemistry to “trick” your body into not knowing it’s that time of the month. And the same for pregnancy. To have control over it, you would be able to willfully stop it. But you can’t. The most you can do is react when it happens.

                  You said, “Born people don’t get any guarantees in this life; why should zefs be any different? Because they aren’t, of course.”

                  So what follows from your comment is that a woman is welcome to go kill her 3 and 4 year old children because there are no guarantees, right?

                  The premise that I pose is that we give those unborn humans the same rights as those that are born. So the mother that is obligated to care for her children, so is the woman that has an unborn human child.

                  If you were near a child that was abandoned, you have an obligation to do all you can to care for that human child. If you leave it where it is, you are just as guilty as the person that left he child there. You become the ‘de fecto guardian’ until such a time comes when you can hand the child off to authorities.

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                  “If you were near a child that was abandoned, you have an obligation to do all you can to care for that human child. If you leave it where it is, you are just as guilty as the person that left he child there. You become the ‘de fecto guardian’ until such a time comes when you can hand the child off to authorities.”

                  Actually… NO. I’m not even obligated to care for that child, only to find someone who will.

                • Albert

                  You said, “I’m not even obligated to care for that child, only to find someone who will.”
                  And until you find that “someone” you are obligated.

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                  Nope, still not obligated.

                • Albert

                  Then you are contradicting your first statement, “Only to find someone who will”.
                  Your statement is a form of obligation to do something to help or care for that child.
                  You morally acknowledged that you can’t simply see the child and walk away as if it never entered your mind again.

                  You were morally obligated to, in the least of effort, find someone to would care for the child.

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                  No contradiction there — I am finding a responsible adult to care for said hypothetical child, NOT caring for it myself. Two very very different things.

                • dance commander

                  You were morally obligated to, in the least of effort, find someone to would care for the child.

                  If the woman you have impregnated is sick during the pregnancy, and that sickness will injure/kill the fetus, should you, Albert, be legally obligated to provide the woman with round the clock blood transfusions, bone marrow or even organs if she needs in order to sustain the life of the fetus?

                • Albert

                  You said, “If the woman you have impregnated is sick during the pregnancy, and that sickness will injure/kill the fetus, should you, Albert, be legally obligated to provide the woman with round the clock blood transfusions, bone marrow or even organs if she needs in order to sustain the life of the fetus?”

                  I believe the male should do, and is even obligated to do everything he can to aid in helping keep his child and the mother safe and healthy. If he has the right blood type then I would think he would love them enough to do a round the clock blood transfusion if that is what it took. I know I would do that for my wife.

                  But there are issues with your scenario. Voluntary organ donation is not like pregnancy. You are not donating an organ to the human being inside of you. Your womb is the natural environment for that stage of development.
                  If you are wanting to equate them together then your “organ donation” of your womb was done voluntary when you chose to have consensual sex because pregnancy is a possible outcome that you can not stop from happening to a 100% option.

                  When you equate pregnancy with organ donation you are reducing human beings to the level of commodities.

                • dance commander

                  So in other words, the male, who had a hand in impregnating the woman and creating the ‘baby’, should not be legally obligated to preserve it’s life should it or the woman fall sick, because use of his body turns him into a ‘commodity’

                  However, using the woman’s body as biological support, and treating her like a commodity is totes ok.

                  Thanks for confirming what I always suspected. You only care about punishing women for having sex. Yet you think men should be able to walk away freely with no physical obligations whatsoever.

                  You are misogynist pig.

                • Albert

                  You said, “Thanks for confirming what I always suspected. You only care about punishing women for having sex. Yet you think men should be able to walk away freely with no physical obligations whatsoever.”

                  And as always, putting words in my mouth that I didn’t say.

                  Your whole premise ignores the fact that the woman was a willing party to consensual sex. The woman knows fully well that pregnancy is a possible outcome that will be effecting her body, not the males body she chooses to engage in sexual relations with. With her knowledge if all of this, if she is still willing to engage in sexual intercourse then she is accepting her getting pregnant as a possible outcome of her own actions.

                  The fact that organ donation is different than pregnancy makes it not an obligation, even if you want to pretend it is, it is not.

                  As I stated above, I believe the male does have an obligation to do all he can to care for the well being of the mother and the child. And if he loves them, as he should if they are having sex, then he should be willing to do whatever it takes to help them.

                  But pregnancy is not organ donation. Punishing a woman for having sex is not what I’m doing here. If she chooses to have sex, then she must be willing to accept all of the outcomes that come with that. No one forced her to have sex, she did that on her own. You play up all the ideas that make her a victim in this scenario all the while forgetting that she is in control of her own body and chose to engage in consensual sex. You make women sound stupid and dumb to the point that they did not have a choice in getting them into the situation they are currently in when they get pregnant. That’s rather sad.

                  Women are not a victim, but a proponent of consensual sex. They choose to do it, they accept the consequences. If they don’t want to get pregnant, then they should not have sex. Plain and simple. Because once the do, then they are accepting that they could possibly get pregnant. And that is them taking control of their own body, no one else. To try and pin it on the male that engaged in consensual sex is rather laughable to me. The reason is because you claim that “A woman has complete control of her body!” and then once she is pregnant, it’s like she didn’t know what she was doing. She lost all ability to think for herself and is not the victim that was so influenced by the male that should couldn’t help but have sex. It’s his fault! It’s his fault!

                  This is a classic example of someone not taking responsibility for their own actions. “The devil made me do it!”, “The dog ate my homework!”, “I couldn’t get here on time because of traffic!”, “I didn’t know I could get pregnant!” They are all excuses used to deflect responsibility where it should be.

                  A woman chooses to allow a man inside her. If not, that is rape. Consensual sex is not rape, it is agreed to by the people involved. That means she is responsible for her own actions.

                  Are you starting to get the picture? She is not a helpless victim in this situation but an actual willing party to it. The fact that she chose to not be concerned that she could get pregnant is a consequence of her actions. A consequence she now has to deal with.

                  And the problem is she is no longer having to deal with her life, but the one growing inside of her.

                  You say even if it is a human(as if it could be something else), it’s not a person; it doesn’t have a brain. But you provide no scientific evidence to show this to be true.

                  I asked all of you what is the difference between a human being and a person and no one has told me what the difference is.

                  You say it is not a person, as if that is what decides the value of a human being; that they can think or reason.

                  This is why I say you have turned human beings into a commodity. Because they have no value you to you unless they do something for you.

                  It’s interesting how a woman can find out she is pregnant and everyone can be happy for her. Her friends plan a baby shower and get all prepared for the big day when the unborn human comes to term and is birthed. Not once during that whole time do you her the friends or the mother talk about this unborn human as a parasite or just a lump of cells. No, they treat it as what it is, a human baby, the child of that mother.

                  Maybe you should try this the next time you are with a friend of yours that decides she wants to keep her unborn child. Go up to her and ask her, “So how is that little parasite doing today?”, or “Have you felt that lump of cells kick yet?” I’m wondering what sort of response you will get?

                  Embryologists have stated that a human individual starts life at conception. They have stated this because science shows this to be true. What is created when the sperm and the egg join is not something that can only be a human being. It can’t be something else. And even if you agree with that point, to claim that a pregnancy doesn’t happen until the egg connects to the uterine wall, does not change that what it is, is a human being at the earliest stages of life.

                  To claim it’s not a person doesn’t help your case either because human rights are for all humans, there is no distinction of size, race, color, creed, or level of development. And if what is created at conception, is a new individual human, then he/she too should have those same rights as every other human does.

                  Science is on my side on this one. Your philosophical claim that it’s not a person is nothing more than opinion. It is your way of justifying your desire to murder innocent children who are helpless to defend themselves just so you can continue living life as you want to, absolving yourself of your responsibilities to care for your own offspring.

                  I don’t hate women, as you presume, I married one. I just believe that women, if they are in control of their own bodies as they say they want to be, are then also held responsible for the situations they put themselves in. And when they choose to engage in consensual sex, they are obligated to care for the child they were a part in making until such time as they are able to place it up for adoption.

                  We require women to care for their born children; this is no different. You may not like it, but your liking it is not as important as the life of another human being.

                  You want to say you want control of your own body? Then take control, stand up and own your responsibilities.

                • dance commander

                  Your whole premise ignores the fact that the woman was a willing party to consensual sex.

                  So was the man.

                  The fact that organ donation is different than pregnancy makes it not an obligation, even if you want to pretend it is, it is not.

                  The fetus uses the woman body, it uses her organs to sustain it’s life. Pregnancy IS organ donation. And it is far far more dangerous than giving up a portion of your liver, blood or bone marrow.

                  As I stated above, I believe the male does have an obligation to do all he can to care for the well being of the mother and the child

                  But not legally. So, in other words, if the father’s body is the ONLY thing that can save the fetus’ life, you think he should have the right to walk away. You don’t think the woman should have that same right. Because she spread her legs. However, the ejaculator should not be forced to undergo the same obligations – even though he is 50% responsible for creating the precious unborn baby.

                  Punishing a woman for having sex is not what I’m doing here.

                  Yet you are. You think women should be treated like incubators whereas you think that forcing men to donate their body = treating men like objects.

                  Clearly, you believe that sex is a crime for which ONLY women must be punished. If a man doesn’t want to donate his body to help gestate the fetus, you think he should have the right to walk away. You won’t extend that same right to women. Why?

                  A consequence she now has to deal with.

                  A consequence the man shouldn’t have to deal with, even though he too CHOSE TO HAVE SEX.

                  This is a classic example of someone not taking responsibility for their own actions.

                  Yet you think men should be allowed to create an unborn baby, which is essentially putting in harm’s way, and then be able TO WALK AWAY AND NOT TAKE ANY RESPONSIBLITY FOR THEIR ACTIONS.

                  And the problem is she is no longer having to deal with her life, but the one growing inside of her.

                  Well according to you, the man shouldn’t have to risk life and limb, even though he made the same choices.

                  I asked all of you what is the difference between a human being and a person and no one has told me what the difference is.

                  I have told you multiple times dumbass. Perhaps you could learn to fucking read? People have brain activity. People are sentient. People can feel think and have the capacity to suffer. You want to subjugate women to an insensate clump of cells that is smaller than the period at the end of this sentence. All because they chose to have sex. Yet you wouldn’t dream of forcing men to do the same.

                  This is why I say you have turned human beings into a commodity. Because they have no value you to you unless they do something for you.

                  Well, judging from your response to my question, women ONLY have value as incubators. Objects to be used to sustain a fetus’ life. However, you view men as people, people who have a right not to be subjugated to a fetus.

                  HOW IRONIC

                  Embryologists have stated that a human individual starts life at conception. They have stated this because science shows this to be true.

                  I have proved you wrong numerous times. With science. And no, embryologists disagree on that one, you ignorant twit.

                  And when they choose to engage in consensual sex, they are obligated to care for the child they were a part in making until such time as they are able to place it up for adoption.

                  While men can just walk away…do you sense a theme here? NO OBLIGATIONS TO CARE FOR THE FETUS DURING THE PREGNANCY

                  Your philosophical claim that it’s not a person is nothing more than opinion.

                  Proved you wrong, if you’d only bothered to read my numerous replies on the subject.

                  I don’t hate women, as you presume, I married one.

                  60 year old muslim men who marry and rape 12 year old girls can’t be misogynist because they are married right? Dumbass.

                  It is your way of justifying your desire to murder innocent children who are helpless to defend themselves just so you can continue living life as you want to, absolving yourself of your responsibilities to care
                  for your own offspring.

                  Yet you think a man should have the legal right TO ABSOLVE HIMSELF OF RESPONSIBLITIES ONCE HE IMPREGNATES THE WOMAN, AND YOU PUT HIS BODILY AUTONOMY ABOVE THE LIFE/HEALTH OF THE PRECIOUS INNOCENT CHILD HE PUT IN HARMS WAY BY CREATING IT IN THE FIRST PLACE

                  You may not like it, but your liking it is not as important as the life of another human being.

                  Yet the man’s body is more important than the life of the human being he created, isn’t it?

                  You want to say you want control of your own body? Then take control, stand up and own your responsibilities.

                  Unless you’re a guy. Then you can create a child, walk away, and absolve yourself of all responsibility.

                  You think that men have the right to bodily autonomy and that women do not. Thanks for proving it.

                • Albert

                  You said, “So was the man.”

                  Yes, I agree. I’m not removing his responsibilities. The fact that he isn’t carrying his child does not absolve him from responsibility to be there to help in anyway he can.

                  You said, “The fetus uses the woman body, it uses her organs to sustain it’s life. Pregnancy IS organ donation. And it is far far more dangerous than giving up a portion of your liver, blood or bone marrow.”

                  When that child is birthed, what organ is the mother left without?

                  You said, “But not legally.”

                  I agree. But morally, yes. The same as it currently is for the woman.

                  You said, “So, in other words, if the father’s body is the ONLY thing that can save the fetus’ life, you think he should have the right to walk away.”

                  As I stated above, I believe the male does have an obligation to do all he can to care for the well being of the mother and the child.

                  You said, “You don’t think the woman should have that same right. Because she spread her legs.”

                  That is not true. I believe the woman does have an obligation to do all she can to care for the well being the child, no different than the man does. But the care is dependent on different factors as he is not carrying the child. It would be absurd to insist that the man feed the child during it’s time in the mothers womb. It’s absurd to insist that the man give the child his blood instead of the woman. These are just ploys that go against the very nature of the mother-child situation called pregnancy. Now if there was a breakthrough in science that allowed men to carry their unborn children to term, then hey, go for it. I’m all for them helping in anyway they can.

                  But your scenario is created, not to be reasonable, but to produce an outcome that is very rare at best. It is produced to point the responsibility to someone else instead of who it belongs to.
                  You presume that if I say no, the man should not be forced to donate his organs that this is being unfair or siding with bodily autonomy for men but not for women.

                  This is incorrect.

                  What I’m saying is the woman knows she can get pregnant if she engages in consensual sex. It is her body, not the man’s body, that will have an unborn human growing in it if that consequence happens.

                  Therefore she is under a high level of concern to weigh the options. She care needs to decide one way or another on if she is okay with the possibility of getting pregnant; the man does not.
                  But this is HER body. She is the one saying what goes on with it, not him. If she says, “no” to the guy, he keeps away and no pregnancy is possible.
                  But once she accepts to engage in sexual intercourse, then she has agreed that the possibility of getting pregnant is an option she weighed and is now willing to accept as a possible outcome.

                  You said, “Yet you are. You think women should be treated like incubators whereas
                  you think that forcing men to donate their body = treating men like
                  objects.”

                  When a woman is pregnant, her womb is an incubator. That’s just a plain fact.

                  But that is not how I am treating her. You keep ignoring the fact that the woman has, by her choice, put herself in this situation. Why do you keep avoiding that fact?

                  Was the sex consensual? Yes!

                  Did the woman know she could possibly get pregnant? Yes!

                  Was she forced to have sex:? No!

                  Therefore what follows from that is that 1) she is not forced into being an incubator, this was a known outcome of her own actions. She is not a victim here as you presume. She willingly accepted this as an outcome when she chose to have sex. Plain and simple. It was not forced on her. This is not going against bodily autonomy because she chose to engage in consensual sex on her own.
                  Forcing a man to donate his organs does go against bodily autonomy. Because now you are forcing him to do something that is against his normal bodily function.

                  And the object I am speaking of is not the man or the woman, but the child. That is a human inside of her womb. It is growing exactly where it should be. This is not a trespasser where you can say it doesn’t belong. This unborn human is exactly where it should be and it is there because the woman chose to have consensual sex with her male partner.

                  You said, “Yet you think men should be allowed to create an unborn baby, which is essentially putting in harm’s way, and then be able TO WALK AWAY AND NOT TAKE ANY RESPONSIBLITY FOR THEIR ACTIONS.”

                  How about you defend your argument instead of keep trying to tell me what I think. Each time you done that, you have been wrong.

                  You said, “People have brain activity. People are sentient. People can feel think and have the capacity to suffer.”

                  Yes, I saw that answer. But that isn’t what I asked you. What I asked you was “What is the difference between a human being and a person?”

                  Also, do you have any scientific evidence to back that up or is it strictly philosophical in nature?

                  You said, “Well, judging from your response to my question, women ONLY have value as incubators. Objects to be used to sustain a fetus’ life.”

                  Except for the fact that I don’t have that view of women. This is all perceived by you. Not once have I have said that or claimed that was the case. What I have said is that a woman’s womb is an incubator for a unborn human child. But that isn’t the whole woman, not is it?

                  And to be perfectly clear, I never said a woman’s only value is being an incubator. I have said that woman, men, born and unborn are all valuable. I have said they are all equally just as valuable. I don’t hold one as more valuable as the other.

                  You said, “I have proved you wrong numerous times. With science. And no, embryologists disagree on that one, you ignorant twit.”

                  WHERE?!!!
                  They disagree with when pregnancy starts but where is the other scientific evidence of what it is at conception?
                  If you want to say that pregnancy starts at the time that the egg attaches to the uterine wall, that’s fine. I have no problem with that. But this does not answer what it is at conception. That is what you have not shown different evidence for.

                  An human being starts at conception. That means this is an individual with it’s own bodily autonomy separate from the mother. You might not agree with that, but once you don’t you don’t get to claim bodily autonomy yourself. Sorry, it doesn’t work that way. and human rights are just that human rights. Not person rights, but human rights. And if what is created at conception, though in a different environment or location and is smaller than you or even less developed than you does not make it any less a human as you are. Perhaps it’s not a person, but your evidence for that is lacking. This is nothing more than rhetoric used to cover up your desire to murder innocent unborn human beings.

                  You said, “NO OBLIGATIONS TO CARE FOR THE FETUS DURING THE PREGNANCY”
                  If the fetus is a human being then the obligation outside of the womb is the same as inside the womb. you wanting it to be something other than a human does not make it so. You are wanting to not treat humans equally but to discriminate with malice.

                  You said, “Yet you think a man should have…”

                  Again putting words in my mouth and not defending your argument. This gets you know where and is incorrect to begin with.

                  You said, “Unless you’re a guy. Then you can create a child, walk away, and absolve yourself of all responsibility.”

                  It cracks me up that you are wanting a man to be responsible for a child that the woman wants to abort. Where is the logic in that?

                • dance commander

                  If you actually cared about the life and health of the fetus, you wold agree that men should be FORCED to donate their bodies alongside women.

                  A man would only have to donate a portion of his liver. Not all of it. And blood, well, if he has to donate blood during the entire 9 months that’s only going to be a minor inconvenience. As is bone marrow donation. And humans have two kidneys. And all of the above is SAFER and less painful than pregnancy.

                  But you are more concerned with a man’s right to his body than with the life of the fetus. Yet you expect women to get sick and become permanently disabled from pregnancy. While you think that a man should have no legal physical obligations, because then he will simply be USED AS AN OBJECT. And you can’t see how forcing the woman to provide biological support is treating her like an object.

                  You value a man’s bodily autonomy, you put that ahead of the fetus.

                  Yet you think a woman signed up for permanent disability the moment she had sex.

                  It’s not about the babies with you. Never has been. And this proves it.

                • Albert

                  You said, “If you actually cared about the life and health of the fetus, you wold
                  agree that men should be FORCED to donate their bodies alongside women.”

                  What I care for or don’t care for is irrelevant. I take responsibility for my actions. I was there with my wife the whole time she was pregnant with my three children. I would have done whatever I needed to, to make sure they were healthy and well taken care of. I owned my responsibilities as did my wife.

                  Your idea that a man should be forced to donate goes against your whole bodily autonomy argument. If you are saying a man should be forced to donate, then a woman does not have bodily autonomy as you are claiming she has. your argument becomes moot.

                  You said, ” And all of the above is SAFER and less painful than pregnancy.”

                  And? If the woman was being in control of her own body then it was her choice to allow the man to ejaculate inside her, right? The choice to possibly go through pregnancy started once she allowed that to happen. She brought the risk of pregnancy on herself. This is not slut-shaming, as I’m sure you will say, but stating a fact. If she chose to engage in consensual sex, then she accepted the outcome of pregnancy as a possibility. I’m not calling her a slut. You do that when you claim that is what I’m doing with my comments like this.

                  You said, “You value a man’s bodily autonomy, you put that ahead of the fetus.”

                  I value everyone’s bodily autonomy equally. The unborn human is not a trespasser, the woman chose this as a possible outcome so it is there by invite once she chose to have consensual sex. So because of that, she now has to care for that unique individual’s bodily autonomy just the same as she would anyone else. and her bodily autonomy was not violated because the new unborn human is there because of her actions.

                  You said, “Yet you think a woman signed up for permanent disability the moment she had sex.”

                  Did she think that sex could cause this as a possible outcome? You seem to think this is a possible outcome so I would presume that if you believe this then you are opening yourself up to that risk once you chose to engage in sexual intercourse. Sounds like a woman taking charge of her own body and her own situations, don’t you? She is making the choice, not me.

                • dance commander

                  What I care for or don’t care for is irrelevant. I take responsibility for my actions.

                  You think that all women should be legally obligated to risk life and limb to gestate a pregnancy.

                  You don’t think men should have that same legal obligation.

                  You think men should be able to create a child, put it in harm’s way, and then be able to walk away if they so choose. No obligations to keep it alive.

                  A man’s right to his body comes before the ‘innocent child’ according to you.

                  According to you, the fetus’ right to life comes before a woman’s right to her own body.

                  It’s a double standard.

                  You believe that men should have the right to bodily autonomy, even if that results in a ‘dead baby’ but that women should not have that same right. Even though both are EQUALLY responsible for putting the UNBORN BABY in that situation.

                  You have been caught with your pants down Albert. It is now blatantly clear that you only oppose abortion because you have a fear and hatred of female sexuality. The thought of women choosing to have consensual sex bothers you to no end. If women are not choosing to have procreative sex, you believe that the pregnancy should be punishment for their ‘irresponsible’ actions.

                  This is why you 1) let rape victims off the hook – they didn’t CHOOSE to have sex. Your original words and 2) you don’t hold men to the same standard as women

                • Kodie

                  When you equate pregnancy to an obligation, you are reducing women to incubators. The fetus feeds and grows off her flesh. Don’t pretend it’s otherwise.

                • dance commander

                  Yes Kodie, but that is what women were MADE FOR.

                  Once the man ejaculates he can absolve himself of responsibilty. Anything else is SLAVERY.

                • Albert

                  You said, “Once the man ejaculates he can absolve himself of responsibilty. Anything else is SLAVERY.”

                  I disagree. I hold men just as responsible. There is no absolving yourself from your actions. The man, though he is not carrying the child does not get off the hook of being there to help in anyway he can.

                  If the woman chooses to never have sex with him again this does not negate his responsibilities to his child. If the woman never wants to see the guy again, that is her choice, but he is still responsible for the child, through birth, labor or whatever else. He does not get absolved from his responsibilities and I will fight that battle line just as hard as I do the one against abortion.

                • dance commander

                  I hold men just as responsible. There is no absolving yourself from your actions

                  No you don’t.

                  You think the woman should risk life and limb if she chooses to have sex.

                  You don’t hold men to the same standard.

                  You don’t even think men should be legally obligated to donate blood to save the fetus’ life during the pregnancy.

                  DOUBLE FUCKING STANDARD

                • Kodie

                  But there are issues with your scenario. Voluntary organ donation is not
                  like pregnancy. You are not donating an organ to the human being inside
                  of you. Your womb is the natural environment for that stage of
                  development.
                  If you are wanting to equate them together then your
                  “organ donation” of your womb was done voluntary when you chose to have
                  consensual sex because pregnancy is a possible outcome that you can not
                  stop from happening to a 100% option.

                  Men don’t have wombs, is that what you’re saying? After all this time, do you think the only physical part of a woman that gets used during pregnancy is her womb?
                  ???

                  Can she just refuse to give her blood and organs and let it hang out in the womb until it magically grows itself from god’s love and Jesus’s tears? You have such a poor grasp of biology.

                • dance commander

                  Zing!

                • Ella Warnock

                  Actually, all women should be assumed to be pregnant after the man ejaculates, until proven otherwise. We need to spend even more money we don’t have to support a “fertility” infrastructure. Any woman of child bearing age, no matter her relationship status or lack thereof, is to have a pregnancy test every month. “Miscarriages” shall be viewed with an abundance of side-eyed skepticism.

                • Albert

                  You said, “When you equate pregnancy to an obligation, you are reducing women to incubators.”

                  A woman’s womb is an incubator. This is what helps the unborn human to grow. This is one of the main purposes for why her womb is designed as it is, to birth children. This is not inconsistent, but naturally how her body was designed.

                  But me telling a woman that she is obligated to care for her own child is not reducing her to anything. She is that child’s mother. And just as we hold women and men accountable to parent or be guardians over their unborn children, this is no different. This is not reducing anyone to anything. We don’t reduce children to slaves because we hold them accountable to clean their rooms or take out the trash. A woman is still fully a woman who can and has made choices about how her body is to be used. And she chose the outcome of possibly being pregnant when she chose to engage in consensual sex. You keep ignoring her being a volunteer in that action.

                  You said, “The fetus feeds and grows off her flesh. Don’t pretend it’s otherwise.”

                  I don’t pretend that a fetus does that. A parasite is a good definition of what the unborn human does while in the womb. But it’s not an intruder, or trespassing. It was exactly where it is supposed to be. And the only reason it is there is because of the mother’s actions.

                • Kodie

                  But you don’t hold anything else in the world up to that standard. She is not that “child’s mother” – it is not a child, and whether she allows it makes her its mother. We have technology now, we can calculate the costs and measure it against the benefits, and having a child has a cost to her physically and financially that you’re exempting a man from. That’s slavery, pal.

                  We don’t regard any other living or non-living thing with as much superstition as you do a zygote. It does not belong in a womb if the host has a way to reverse the situation and wishes to. If you have a sapling tree growing too close to your house, you pull it out. You might transplant it, but it’s no big deal to you if you throw it in the trash either. You end life all the time. If you have a special reason that humans have to regard pregnancy as the same inevitability as mice do, then say so. Humans are problem-solvers; pregnancy is a problem. Marriage is just one solution to that problem, but we have other safe options now.

                • Albert

                  You said, “But you don’t hold anything else in the world up to that standard. She is not that “child’s mother” – it is not a child, and whether she allows it makes her its mother.”

                  Webster’s defines it as “an unborn or recently born person”

                  Interesting, huh?

                  Susan Smith didn’t want her kids; in fact, she killed them in a lake strapped in their car seats. The fact that she didn’t want them didn’t change the fact that she was their mother. It’s a biological connection.

                  Granted, once born, the mother can remove her obligation to them and allow some other woman to adopt the child/children. Then that becomes their ‘adopted’ mother. But they never lose their biological mother through that whole process. Sorry. That can’t be taken away just because you don’t want it. Once you are pregnant and that unborn human being is growing inside of you, you are it’s mother.

                  You said, “We have technology now, we can calculate the costs and measure it against the benefits, and having a child has a cost to her physically and financially that you’re exempting a man from. That’s slavery, pal.”

                  And here you have it again that you are equating a human life to a commodity.

                  I guess Susan Smith was just calculating the cost as well, right?

                  She was well within her rights to push those two kids into the lake and let them drown because it was to much of a physical and financial burden on her, right?

                  No harm no foul right? After all, it’s just like throwing out a pair of jeans you don’t want anymore, right?

                  You said, “We don’t regard any other living or non-living thing with as much superstition as you do a zygote.”

                  In my view I hold all human life as valuable as any other human life. No superstition in that equation whatsoever.

                  You said, “It does not belong in a womb if the host has a way to reverse the situation and wishes to.”

                  And my argument is that the woman weighed that option when she decided to engage in consensual sex. That was within her wishes that this could be a possible outcome.

                  You said, ” If you have a sapling tree growing too close to your house, you pull it out.”

                  Are you equating human beings to be just as valuable as trees?

                  You said, “You end life all the time.”

                  And that is part of my argument too. Human life is too valuable to allow it to end if we can help it not to end.

                  You said, “If you have a special reason that humans have to regard pregnancy as the same inevitability as mice do, then say so.”

                  Mice are not human beings. Are are you also equating human beings to mice? If so, it might explain a lot of your views on all of this.

                  You said, “Humans are problem-solvers; pregnancy is a problem. Marriage is just one solution to that problem, but we have other safe options now.”

                  Safe for who? Seems to me your “solution” kills a human being every time it is used to solve your problem.

                • Kodie

                  Yes, I don’t know why you are partial to hoarding as much human tissue as you can, but would force a tree to stop growing. What is your rationalization here?

                • dance commander

                  Human life is too valuable to allow it to end if we can help it not to end.

                  That life that you consider to be OH SO VALUABLE is a life that you would allow to die rather than have a situation where men are legally obligated to provide biological support during the pregnancy. Because a man’s bodily autonomy outweighs the fetus’ right to life. Because the fetus should die rather than a man be forced to donate a body part to save the life of the fetus/woman.

                  Allow me to laugh at the hypocrisy.

                • Niemand

                  Human life is too valuable to allow it to end if we can help it not to end.

                  In general, I agree. I hate to see human lives wasted. For example, the life wasted when a child does not have a school to go to that stimulates xer mind and is safe. Therefore, I favor generous funding of public schools. Or the life lost because someone can’t afford medical care. That’s a tragedy to me. Therefore, I support universal health insurance. Or the life lost because we haven’t bothered to find the cure for such and such disease because it isn’t profitable to treat. Therefore, I support increasing the funding to the NIH and support for the production of orphan drugs. Or the life lost to despair due to poverty or inequality. Therefore, I support increasing taxes on the wealthy to provide transfers to poor people to increase their wealth. Or the life lost when a pregnancy kills a young woman. Or the life lost when a crazed fanatic shoots an OB. Therefore I support choice and oppose anti-choice terrorism.

                  Somehow, I doubt you mean any of the above by “human life”. It’s so much safer to love an embryo, isn’t it? They can’t talk back to you.

                • Ella Warnock

                  More importantly, they can’t obstinately disagree. You can project any number of happy, shiny, rainbow unicorn farty things onto a cipher. So much easier to deal with them instead of those pesky, stubborn women who are always not wanting to have babies or something stupid like that.

                • Albert

                  You said, “Or the life lost when a pregnancy kills a young woman. Or the life lost when a crazed fanatic shoots an OB. Therefore I support choice and oppose anti-choice terrorism.”

                  “The absolute risk of a U.S. woman dying from pregnancy-related problems is still ‘very small,’ lead researcher Dr. Cynthia J. Berg, of the CDC’s division of reproductive health, said in an interview. But, she added, the new findings do underscore the importance of women ‘making sure they are in the best possible health before pregnancy.’ All women, Berg said, should try to have a pre-pregnancy visit with their ob-gyn and, if needed, get their weight and any chronic medical conditions, like high blood pressure or diabetes, under control before becoming pregnant. For their study, Berg and her colleagues looked at data on 4,693 pregnancy-related deaths reported to the CDC between 1998 and 2005. Pregnancy-related death was any death occurring during or within one year of pregnancy that was attributed to a pregnancy complication. The researchers estimate that for that eight-year period, the national rate of pregnancy-related death was 14.5 for every 100,000 live births.” [ http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/12/02/us-pregnancy-deaths-idUSTRE6B15P220101202 ]

                  “In the U.S., violence directed towards abortion providers has killed at least eight people, including four doctors, two clinic employees, a security guard, and a clinic escort.”

                  and

                  “According to statistics gathered by the National Abortion Federation (NAF), an organization of abortion providers, since 1977 in the United States and Canada, there have been 17 attempted murders, 383 death threats, 153 incidents of assault or battery, and 3 kidnappings committed against abortion providers.”

                  and

                  “According to NAF, since 1977 in the United States and Canada, property crimes committed against abortion providers have included 41 bombings, 173 arsons, 91 attempted bombings or arsons, 619 bomb threats, 1630 incidents of trespassing, 1264 incidents of vandalism, and 100 attacks with butyric acid (“stink bombs”). The New York Times also cites over one hundred clinic bombings and incidents of arson, over three hundred invasions, and over four hundred incidents of vandalism between 1978 and 1993. The first clinic arson occurred in Oregon in March 1976 and the first bombing occurred in February 1978 in Ohio.
                  [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence ]

                  So lets put that number for woman dying during pregnancy and those killed by pro-lifer’s around 6000 just to find a round number, okay?

                  “Planned Parenthood reported a record number of abortions in 2012 as America’s largest abortion provider performed a record 333,964 abortions by year’s end which pushed Planned Parenthood’s three year total to 995,687 abortions according to its annual report.” [ http://www.examiner.com/article/planned-parenthood-reports-record-number-of-abortions-2012 ]

                  Now, perhaps my math isn’t the best but I would say that more deaths happen with supporting abortions than those that are against it, wouldn’t you?

                  You see, though pregnancy can be a health risk to the mother, this was done by her choice to have consensual sex. The unborn human didn’t have a choice in anything that related to them. The mother chose to have sex which created this unborn innocent human being and then she decided to take the life of another human just because she thought it wasn’t the right time for children or it was too much of an inconvenience to change her lifestyle.

                  14.5 for every 100,000 live births in seven years compared to 995,687 abortions in three years.

                  If you take that number of women that died from giving birth and break it down to three years, you get around 8-9 women died in 3 years because of giving birth compared to the 42857 women that survived giving birth for the same three years.

                  But in those same three years, 995,687 unborn human’s died because of abortion.

                  I’m thinking you are not looking at the numbers when you come to this conclusion of who are the terrorists.

                • DD

                  Albert wrote: “The mother chose to have sex which created this unborn innocent human
                  being and then she decided to take the life of another human just
                  because she thought it wasn’t the right time for children or it was too
                  much of an inconvenience to change her lifestyle.”

                  Minor inconvenience:

                  http://haikalfoundationsierraleone.org/wp-content/uploads/fistula.jpg

                • Ella Warnock

                  “Granted, once born, the mother can remove her obligation to them and allow some other woman to adopt the child/children.”

                  Doesn’t even have to be a woman adopting. Men can nurture children, too.

                • dance commander

                  And the only reason it is there is because of the mother’s actions.

                  And the father’s actions. But, because he doesn’t have a uterus, he has no physical obligation to keep the fetus alive. He can just let it die, even though he is 50% responsible for that situation.

                  hahahha
                  hahahahaha
                  hahahahahahaha

                  I am loving your double standard, asshole.

                • Albert

                  You said, “And the father’s actions.”

                  Yes, that is correct. But his action has not happened until she has accepted the consequences. Therefore a man’s part in all of this does not start until the woman decides to allow sexual intercourse to happen. If she didn’t, and it happens, then that is rape. This is why I state that it is because of the mother’s actions.

                  Steps:

                  1) Woman decides if the outcome of having sex is worth it.

                  2) She decides it is worth it.

                  3) Her and her male partner engage in sexual intercourse.

                  4) The outcome is she gets pregnant.

                  5) Her and the guy are both equally responsible for their actions.

                  If it went a different way such as:

                  1) Woman decides if the outcome of having sex is worth it.

                  2) She decides it isn’t worth it.

                  3) No step three. Nothing happens.

                  See how that works?

                • Niemand

                  Her and the guy are both equally responsible for their actions.

                  Cool. They’re both equally responsible. So let’s make the consequences equal in both and say that when a woman gets pregnant every physical effect that she experiences the man must experience too.

                  He can’t take any medication not indicated in pregnancy, no matter how much he needs it for his health as long as she’s pregnant. If she gets morning sickness, he is given a low dose of chemotherapy or ipecac to simulate the experience. If she gets fatigue, he is given, hmm…so many choices…but let’s keep it simple: he is phlebotomized to the point of fatigue due to anemia. That also allows him to experience normal anemia of pregnancy. If her blood sugar goes up, he takes steroids until his sugar matches. If her blood pressure goes up he gets pressors to match her BP. He wears a corset to simulate the loss of 20% of lung capacity. He wears a 10-15 pound weight on his lower abdomen. While she’s in labor, he wears a device that stimulates his stomach wall muscles to contract, simulating labor.

                  So much for the normal side effects of pregnancy. If she loses an organ due to pregnancy, he loses the same organ. If she gets a c-section, he gets a similar cut on the abdomen. If she dies, he dies. I’ll have to think about fistulas. They’re going to be hard to simulate…maybe just a rectovesicular fistula, though that’s not nearly as gory as a vaginorectal.

                  Up for it, Albert? I’m leaving a lot out in the interest of space, including some of the REALLY gory things that can happen during a pregnancy…

                • Albert

                  I’m up for it!

                  What cracks me up is you seem to forget that what you have just outlined are things to be considering before you have sex.
                  This is called weighing your options before you act.

                  The question is, are you up for it? Is this something you are willing to go through as a possible outcome from having sex?

                  Because when a woman decides to have consensual sex, this is what she is saying, “I have weighed my options and sexual intercourse is worth the change of having to go through all of that.”

                  And the funny part is, you want the ability to have a “take back”

                  The problem is, a human being is killed just so you don’t have to have high blood pressure or a sore back. Such an inconvenience right?

                  I guess a mother of a 3 year old that has suffered through all of that also has the right to kill her 3 year old child too, right? All so she doesn’t have to deal with the complication from pregnancy. No child, no extra weight to carry around. Sounds like your solution fixes everything, right?

                  The only problem is that someone has to lose their life in order for you to feel better about the side effects of your actions.

                • dance commander

                  The problem is, a human being is killed just so you don’t have to have
                  high blood pressure or a sore back. Such an inconvenience right?

                  I have shown you this list *multiple* times. Every time, you pretend it didn’t happen.

                  Normal, frequent
                  or expectable temporary side effects of pregnancy:

                  exhaustion (weariness
                  common from first weeks)

                  altered appetite
                  and senses of taste and smell

                  nausea and vomiting
                  (50% of women, first trimester)

                  heartburn and indigestion

                  constipation

                  weight gain

                  dizziness and light-headedness

                  bloating, swelling,
                  fluid retention

                  hemmorhoids

                  abdominal cramps

                  yeast infections

                  congested, bloody
                  nose

                  acne and mild skin
                  disorders

                  skin discoloration
                  (chloasma, face and abdomen)

                  mild to severe backache
                  and strain

                  increased headaches

                  difficulty sleeping,
                  and discomfort while sleeping

                  increased urination
                  and incontinence

                  bleeding gums

                  pica

                  breast pain and
                  discharge

                  swelling of joints,
                  leg cramps, joint pain

                  difficulty sitting,
                  standing in later pregnancy

                  inability to take
                  regular medications

                  shortness of breath

                  higher blood pressure

                  hair loss

                  tendency to anemia

                  curtailment of ability
                  to participate in some sports and activities

                  infection
                  including from serious and potentially fatal disease

                  (pregnant women are immune suppressed compared with
                  non-pregnant women, and
                  are more susceptible to fungal and certain other diseases)

                  extreme pain on
                  delivery

                  hormonal mood changes,
                  including normal post-partum depression

                  continued post-partum
                  exhaustion and recovery period (exacerbated if a c-section
                  – major surgery — is required, sometimes taking up to a full year to
                  fully recover)

                  Normal, expectable,
                  or frequent PERMANENT side effects of pregnancy:

                  stretch marks (worse
                  in younger women)

                  loose skin

                  permanent weight
                  gain or redistribution

                  abdominal and vaginal
                  muscle weakness

                  pelvic floor disorder
                  (occurring in as many as 35% of middle-aged former child-bearers
                  and 50% of elderly former child-bearers, associated with urinary and rectal
                  incontinence, discomfort and reduced quality of life — aka prolapsed utuerus,
                  the malady sometimes badly fixed by the transvaginal mesh)

                  changes to breasts

                  varicose veins

                  scarring from episiotomy
                  or c-section

                  other permanent
                  aesthetic changes to the body (all of these are downplayed
                  by women, because the culture values youth and beauty)

                  increased proclivity
                  for hemmorhoids

                  loss of dental and
                  bone calcium (cavities and osteoporosis)

                  higher lifetime risk of developing Altzheimer’s

                  newer research indicates
                  microchimeric cells, other bi-directional exchanges of DNA, chromosomes, and other bodily material between fetus and
                  mother (including with “unrelated” gestational surrogates)

                  Occasional complications
                  and side effects:

                  complications of episiotomy

                  spousal/partner
                  abuse

                  hyperemesis gravidarum

                  temporary and permanent
                  injury to back

                  severe
                  scarring
                  requiring later surgery
                  (especially after additional pregnancies)

                  dropped (prolapsed)
                  uterus (especially after additional pregnancies, and other
                  pelvic floor weaknesses — 11% of women, including cystocele, rectocele,
                  and enterocele)

                  pre-eclampsia
                  (edema and hypertension, the most common complication of pregnancy, associated
                  with eclampsia, and affecting 7 – 10% of pregnancies)

                  eclampsia (convulsions,
                  coma during pregnancy or labor, high risk of death)

                  gestational diabetes

                  placenta previa

                  anemia (which
                  can be life-threatening)

                  thrombocytopenic
                  purpura

                  severe cramping

                  embolism
                  (blood clots)

                  medical disability
                  requiring full bed rest (frequently ordered during part of
                  many pregnancies varying from days to months for health of either mother
                  or baby)

                  diastasis recti,
                  also torn abdominal muscles

                  mitral valve stenosis
                  (most common cardiac complication)

                  serious infection
                  and disease (e.g. increased risk of tuberculosis)

                  hormonal imbalance

                  ectopic pregnancy
                  (risk of death)

                  broken bones (ribcage,
                  “tail bone”)

                  hemorrhage
                  and

                  numerous other complications
                  of delivery

                  refractory gastroesophageal
                  reflux disease

                  aggravation of pre-pregnancy
                  diseases and conditions (e.g. epilepsy is present in .5%
                  of pregnant women, and the pregnancy alters drug metabolism and treatment
                  prospects all the while it increases the number and frequency of seizures)

                  severe post-partum
                  depression and psychosis

                  research now indicates
                  a possible link between ovarian cancer and female fertility treatments,
                  including “egg harvesting” from infertile women and donors

                  research also now
                  indicates correlations between lower breast cancer survival rates and proximity
                  in time to onset of cancer of last pregnancy

                  research also indicates
                  a correlation between having six or more pregnancies and a risk of coronary
                  and cardiovascular disease

                  Less common (but
                  serious) complications:

                  peripartum cardiomyopathy

                  cardiopulmonary
                  arrest

                  magnesium toxicity

                  severe hypoxemia/acidosis

                  massive embolism

                  increased intracranial
                  pressure, brainstem infarction

                  molar pregnancy,
                  gestational trophoblastic disease
                  (like a pregnancy-induced
                  cancer)

                  malignant arrhythmia

                  circulatory collapse

                  placental abruption

                  obstetric fistula

                  More
                  permanent side effects:

                  future infertility

                  permanent disability

                  death.

                • Ella Warnock

                  Have you ever noticed that “pro-life” men LALALALA this with fingers in their ears like nobody’s business? They wax on about what truly awesome support they were for their wives, but they STILL don’t want to be confronted with any evidence that reproduction is any more than an “inconvenience.”

                • dance commander

                  Yeah, and Albert is bragging about how he’d carry the pregnancy for his wife.

                  Empty words.

                  Until he thinks that men should have the same LEGAL obligations as women to donate blood/organs during a pregnancy, his words don’t count for shit.

                  He is giving himself a CHOICE, while denying women the same.

                • Ella Warnock

                  And it’s always so much easier to say you’re game for something like that when there’s absolutely no way it could ever actually happen. Safety makes one bold.

                • Albert

                  You said, “I have shown you this list *multiple* times. Every time, you pretend it didn’t happen.”

                  I’m not pretending anything. I responded to this list.

                  I said that what this list is, if anything, is a list of things a woman should consider before they think that consensual sex is worth going through with.

                  If a woman makes the decision to have sex because she will “just get an abortion” if she happens to get pregnant, then perhaps she needs another list to consider in regards to getting an abortion.

                  Issues such as infections, AIDS, complications from the procedure, chlamydia, postabortion endometritis, problems with later pregnancies when she wants to have a child, and even death.

                  Some sources:

                  “Acute complications from septic abortion include adult
                  respiratory distress syndrome, septic shock, death of woman, renal failure, abscess formation, and septic emboli.” [Infections and Abortion, Sebastian Faro and Mark Pearlman (New York: Elsevier, 1992) 42]

                  “Postabortion Infection, Bacteremia, and Septic Shock” [Infectious Diseases of the Female Genital Tract, 3rd Edition, Ed. Richard L Sweet and Ronald S Gibbs (Baltimore, Wilkins & Wilkins, 1995) 363-378]

                  “”Emergency physicians often encounter patients who have undergone abortions. Such patients are at risk for many infectious and thromboembolic complications.” [Fatal Myocardial Infarction Resulting From Coronary Artery Septic Embolism After Abortion: Unusual Cause and Complications of Endocarditis, Victor Caraballo, Annals of Emergency Medicine 29(1): 175, Jan 1997.]

                  “A Greek study found that anti-Ro/SSA-positive women with systemic lupus erythematosus reported a significantly higher rate (18%) of therapeutic abortions compared to anti- Ro/SSA-negative women (5.6%) and healthy controls (4.6%). [Pregnancy outcome and anti-Ro/SSA in autoimmune diseases. a retrospective cohort study," CP Mavragini et al, Br J Rhewmatol 37(7): 740-745, 1998.]

                  “The mechanism of beta-cell destruction leading to insulin
                  dependent diabetes is probably a cell mediated auto-immune process occurring in genetically susceptible individuals… Risk factors that may increase the peripheral need for insulin (infectious diseases, stressful life events, etc) may act as promoters of a beta-cell impairment and make the disease clinically overt.” [Etiological aspects of insulin dependent diabetes mellitus: an epidemiological perspective," G Dahlquist, Autoimmunity 15(1):61-65, 1993.]

                  “Auto-immunity may occur in all endocrine tissues, with a particular prevalence in thyroid and pancreatic islets… clinical observation registers frequent stressful life events just before the onset of these diseases… recent findings n the close relations between the immune system and central nervous system lead to conceive an actual psychoneuro- endrocine-immune axis.” [Stress and auto-immune endocrine diseases, J Leclere and G Weryha, Hom Res31(1-2): 90-93, 1989.]

                  “Four abortion-related deaths from 1975-78 are described which were attributed to myocarditis in the first trimester of pregnancy. The authors stated that, ” the potential influence of pregnancy or abortion on the development or severity of cases of myocarditis is speculative. Since mild cases are usually undetected, the incidence of this condition among women of childbearing age is unkown. Only 59 women in the U.S. of childbearing age (15-44) were reported to have died from acute or subacute myocarditis in 1975.” The authors noted that three of the four deaths were associated with conditions which have a presumed immunologic mechanism. Ed Note: myocarditis is inflammation of the muscular walls of the heart.” [Fatal myocarditis associated with abortion in early pregnancy, DA
                  Grimes, W Cates, Jr, Southern Medical Journal 73(2): 236-238, Feb 1980.]

                  “An Italian study of the medical records of patients with psoriatic arthritis and rheumatoid arthritis were reviewed. 9% of the patients with psoriatic arthritis had an acute disorder, which included abortion, immediately preceding the onset of the arthritis. In contrast, only 1% of the patients with rheumatoid arthritis recorded an acute event prior to the onset of their arthritis.” [Interplay between environmental factors, articular involvement, and
                  HLA-B-27 in patients with psoriatic arthritis," R Scarpa et al, Annals
                  of Rheumatic Diseases 51:78-79, 1992.]

                  “A Johns Hopkins University study found that 10% of chlamydia positive women who underwent a first or second trimester abortion developed endometritis compared to 3.5% for chlamydia negative women.” [Postabortal Endometritis and Isolation of Chlamydia trachomatis, MB Barbacci et al, Obstet Gynecol 68:686, 1986.]

                  “A Johns Hopkins University study found that teenagers age 17 or younger were more likely to develop postabortion endometritis (7.0%) compared to women age 20-29 (2.7%).” [Morbidity Risk Among Young Adolescents Undergoing Elective Abortion, RT Burkman et al, Contraception 30(2): 99, 1984.]

                  “A Swedish study found that chlamydia positive women age 13-19 were more likely to develop postabortion endometritis (28%) compared to chlamydia positive women age 20- 24 (22.7%) or chlamydia positive women age 25-29 (20%). The same study found that chlamydia negative women aged 13-19 were also more likely to develop postabortion endometritis (9.3%) compared to chlamydia negative women age 20-24 (4.8%) or chlamydia negative women age 25-29 (4.7%).”[Postabortal pelvic infection associated with Chlamydia trachomatis infection and the influence of humoral immunity, S Osser and K Persson, Am J Obstet Gynecol 150:699, 1984.]

                  “A study of 26,332 women undergoing abortion at five abortion facilities during 1975-1978, found that post-abortion infections as measured by an oral temperature of 38 degrees centigrade for two or more days were significantly lower (relative risk 0.54) among women with one or more previous births compared to women with no previous births.” [Preventing febrile complications of suction curettage abortion, T-K Park et al, Am J Obstet Gynecol 152:252-255, 1985.]

                  “Women with clue cells constitute a group at risk for postabortal endometritis.” [Postabortal Endometritis in Chlamydia-Negative Women- Association with Preoperative Clinical Signs of Infection, B Hamark and L Forssman, Gynecol Obstet Invest31:102-105, 1991.]

                  “Trichomoniasis is the most prevelent non-viral sexually transmitted disease. Worldwide, there are approximately 180 million cases and 2.5 to 3 million infections occurring annually in the United States. There is an association between postabortal infection and trichomonal colonization. Improved understanding of the natural history, pathobiology, diagnosis and treatment of this common protozoa is urgently needed. Practitioners should consider routinely screening and treating women for trichomoniasis before any reproductive tract surgery (chorionic villi sampling, hysterectomy, cesarean section, dilation and curettage and therapeutic abortion).” [Trichomonas Vaginalis: A Re-emerging Pathogen, P. Heine, J.A. McGregor, Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology 36(1): 137, March 1993.]

                  “A Centers for Disease Control study found that women who delayed care for pelvic inflammatory disease after onset of symptoms had nearly a threefold increase risk of fertility impairment. Among women who delayed seeking care were women who had a history of a recent induced abortion.” [Delayed Care of Pelvic Inflammatory Disease as a Risk Factor for Impaired Fertility, S.D. Hillis et. al.. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 168:1503-1509,1993.]

                  “Several epidemiologic studies have examined risk factors associated with postabortal pelvic infection. These include: patient less than 20, nulliparity, multiple sex partners, previous PID or gonorrhea, and untreated lower genital tract infections.” [A Randomized Trial of Prophylactic Doxycycline for Curettage in Incomplete Abortion, J.A. Preito et. al., Obstet. Gynecol. 85: 692-696,1995.]

                  “A British study of women undergoing first trimester suction abortion found that bacterial vaginosis was present in 29.3% of women. Treatment with metronidazole resulted in an incidence of 8.5% upper genital tract infection compared to 16% of women treated with a placebo.” [Antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent post-abortal upper genital tract infection with bacterial vagnosis: a randomized controlled trial, T Crowley et al, BJOG 108(4): 396-402, 2001]

                  “A self-collected vaginal swab FemExam test card result to Nugent Gram stain scoring of the same specimen was undertaken to test the hypothesis that bacterial vaginosis (BV) treatment begun on the day of an elective abortion would reduce postabortion endometritis. Of the women tested, 39% tested BV positive using the FemExam test card. Results of the study were incomplete.” [Can Fem Card use facilitate bacterial vaginosis diagnosis on day of abortion to prevent postabortion endometritis?, L Miller, Obstet Gynecol 97(4 Suppl 1): S58-S59, April 2001.]

                  “The rate of chlamydia infections was higher in the adolescents seeking an abortion (5.7% v 3.7%, P<0.001)than adults." and "Advanced duration of gestation (9-12, 13-16, and 17-20 weeks) was associated with an increased risk of infections after abortion. Additionally, being married or cohabiting compared with being single was associated with an increased risk of infection." [Comparison of rates of adverse events in adolescent and adult women undergoing medical abortion: population register based studyBMJ 2011; 342:d2111 : http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.d2111?sid=3231e3de-3641-4686-8bfc-218046a4b875

                  "The most frequent systemic complication of acute, untreated gonorrhea is disseminated infection which develops in 0.5-3% of the more than 700,000 Americans infected with gonorrhea each year. Up to 80% of disseminated gonococcal infection occur in women." [Disseminated Gonococcal Infection, K.K. Kerle et. al., American Family Physician45(1): 209, Jan., 1992.]

                  "Significantly higher prevalences of infection [HIV-1] were associated with induced abortion (0.49%) than with delivery (0.18%) (OR: .2.72; 95% CI: 2.29-3.22)." [Deliveries, abortion and HIV-1 infection in Rome, 1989-1994, Damiano D. Abeni et al., European Journal of Epidemiology, 13:373-378, 1997.]

                  "A French study in the Paris area and 3 surrounding districts with 46% of the reported AIDS cases in France found that HIV seroprevalence rate in women having a elective abortion was twice that of women who delivered (0.54% v. 0.28%), 2% of women with ectopic pregnancy and 4.8% of women having a therapeutic abortion were HIV seropositive." [HIV Infection at Outcome of Pregnancy in the Paris area, France, E. Couturier, Y. Brossard, C. Larsen, M. Larsen, Lancet 340:707-709,1992.]

                  "Stress responses were found in 55% of women six months following first trimester abortion. Posttraumatic stress was heightened by loss of partner and wishful thinking. Social support seeking and problem-focused coping was negatively associate with post- traumatic stress and grief. Women consistently showed death anxiety on the Grief Experience Inventory (GEI)." [Incidence of complicated grief and post-traumatic stress in a post-abortion population, Leslie M. Butterfield, Ph.D. Dissertation, Virginia Commonwealth University (1988), Dissertation Abstracts International 49(8): 3431-B, February 1989, Order No. DA 8813540.]

                  "Blood loss increases when abortions are performed with general anesthesia, particularly when agents that produce uterine relaxation such as halothane are used. Perforation and cervical laceration occur more frequently with general anesthesia than with local anesthesia. The risk of death from anesthesia-related and other causes is two to four times greater with general anesthesia than with local anesthesia." [Induced Abortion, A World Review, C. Tietze, (New York: The Population Council, 1983) 83.]

                • Ella Warnock

                  You left a step out:

                  6) She gets an abortion.

                  See? Easy peasy.

                • Albert

                  I did leave it out. Because that is what I’m fighting against.

                  Just because the law currently states that this is legal does not make it morally right.

                  We don’t just sit back and say, “Well that’s the law so I guess I can’t do anything about it.”

                  If that is the case, then women can’t fight to change laws that limit them in the workplace or anywhere else for that matter.

                  No, I’m fighting for what I believe is the morally right thing to do, and that is stop the killing of innocent human beings to the best of my abilities.

                • Ella Warnock

                  Carry on, then.

                • Niemand

                  A woman’s womb is an incubator.

                  An incubator, but not necessarily the only incubator. Ectopic pregnancies where the pregnancy implanted on the intestinal lining have been successfully brought to term. Men have intestinal linings. So how about this: If a woman becomes pregnant and doesn’t want to be but the man wants the embryo to continue to grow, he can get it transferred to his intestinal lining and act as the incubator for it. It might be best to start with “snowflake babies”, i.e. frozen embryos, as that simplifies the transfer. What about it, Albert? Ready to save some babies with your body?

                • Albert

                  You said, ” Ectopic pregnancies where the pregnancy implanted on the intestinal lining have been successfully brought to term.”

                  Is that true? I have never heard that before. Do you happen to have an cases that you can share with me? I would really be interested in reading up on that.

                  You said, “Men have intestinal linings. So how about this: If a woman becomes pregnant and doesn’t want to be but the man wants the embryo to continue to grow, he can get it transferred to his intestinal lining and act as the incubator for it.”

                  You know, if this would work, I would do this for my wife in a heart beat.

                • dance commander

                  You know, if this would work, I would do this for my wife in a heart beat.

                  That’s great. You would have a CHOICE and all that. But what if it was forced upon you? That’s the part you don’t seem to like. You seem to think women should be FORCED to donate their bodies and their health, and potentially, their lives, to a pregnancy, yet you truly believe men should just be able to walk away.

                • Ella Warnock

                  This is how the black market and out-of-state-or-country abortion systems crop up and do a booming business.

                • Albert

                  You said, “This is how the black market and out-of-state-or-country abortion systems crop up and do a booming business.”

                  Your point being?

                • Ella Warnock

                  You’re a clever boy, Albert. You probably get it.

                • Albert

                  I understand what your statement is saying.

                  What I don’t get is what is the point you were trying to make in regards to my comments I made above that.

                  Was this just a random statement that had nothing to do with what I stated before?

                  If it is just random, then okay, what’s your point?
                  Isn’t it you that is claiming the woman has the right to choose?
                  If abortion is illegal, then the only way any black market or out-of-state/country abortion systems crop up is based on the woman’s choice right? So again, what’s your point?

                  If not, how does your statement relate to my comment(s)?

                • Ella Warnock

                  It’s pretty self-explanatory, Albert. I have no idea what kind of answer you’re looking for here, sorry.

                • Albert

                  Well, is it in regards to my comment or a random statement? That would help for starters.

                  If it’s random, then I answered that.

                  If it’s in response to my comment, then if anything, can you point to what I said that would relate to your statement?

                • Ella Warnock

                  No, I really can’t, because I’m too tired for this today, Albert. Really, the more I do it, the more tedious it becomes. So on my part, I think more action and less talk is the remedy here.

                • Albert

                  Fair enough. I believe I have answered your statement to the best of my ability seeing as I’m not clear on what you are referencing.

                  But I thank you for continuing the discussion. And I appreciate your efforts thus far.

                • Ella Warnock

                  “Isn’t it you that is claiming the woman has the right to choose?
                  If abortion is illegal, then the only way any black market or out-of-state/country abortion systems crop up is based on the woman’s choice right?”

                  I think you’re answering your own question here. My “proclamation” that women have rights is not the reason they have rights. If abortion is illegal, that’s just not a good enough reason to not seek it, especially if one has the proper resources. Wealthy women, women who “know” people, are able to obtain what they want regardless of who’s holding the jailer key.

                  This demographic of women is the one that anti-choicers would very much like to have more control over because they’re usually the ones driving a more egalitarian social system. Eliminating a degree of confidence fueled by that egalitarianism is crucial for those who feel that women have gained too much power. These are women who when confronted by an array of alternate lifestyle and educational choices, may not necessarily choose marriage and/or motherhood or may postpone it longer than the PTB thinks is appropriate.

                  This is frightening to many conservatives, hence our current national discussion concerning abortion and birth control issues. For many conservatives, that the future of family and community may look quite different than it has in the past is enough of a threat to vociferously hinder that eventuality.

                  At any rate, our illustrious “war on drugs” has spawned an epic criminal underclass and a truly psychotic black market drug manufacture and distribution system. Doing the same with abortion – and expecting a different outcome – would be utter folly.

                  In the United States, at least, abortion is really about MORE than just abortion. If it weren’t, there wouldn’t be any added controversy about contraception. Many anti-choicers point to European countries with more secure 12-week bans for on-demand abortion. The difference, of course, is that their citizens have more or less come to this as an acceptable agreement and aren’t constantly, stridently agitating to whittle it down to zero weeks. Even if we could come to that sort of consensus here, there would still be a hue and cry to ban it altogether. That’s why anti-choicers’ eagerness to view the European model as more “civilized” is more than a little disingenuous.

                  I’ve mentioned this many times, and I’ll do so here again: The Law of Unintended Consequences is a fickle and arbitrary bitch. Part of me actually does hope that anti-choicers get everything they think they’re asking for. Once its done, however, I suspect the yoke will fit a bit more snugly on their own necks than they ever imagined possible. The comeuppance would almost be worth it, if the rest of us weren’t drug along for the ride.

                • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

                  The moment you can temporarily remove a woman’s uterus and use it as an incubator without impacting her life and health, then put it back again, you can call a uterus an incubator.

                  Until then, it’s an internal organ. And we don’t use people’s organs without their permission, ever. Not even when someone will die without the use of that organ.

                • Albert

                  Webster’s defines incubator as “: a device that is used to keep eggs warm before they hatch – medical : a piece of equipment in which very weak or sick babies are placed for special care and protection after their birth”

                  This functionality of a woman’s womb is the same as an incubator. It is not what I am calling her womb, but rather I’m describing the wombs function when the woman is pregnant.

                  If you don’t agree with this description of this function, I welcome you to let me know what you describe the function of a woman’s womb while she is pregnant.

                  You said, “Until then, it’s an internal organ. And we don’t use people’s organs without their permission, ever. Not even when someone will die without the use of that organ.”

                  And once again, she gave her “permission” to use it as an incubator for a newly created human being when she chose to have consensual sex. The fact that pregnancy is a possible outcome of sexual intercourse and is not 100% preventable, means that this was an outcome the woman understood could happen and she decided to have consensual sex anyway.

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                  Say it with me, now — CONSENT IS AN ONGOING PROCESS.

                • Albert

                  You said, “CONSENT IS AN ONGOING PROCESS.”

                  And consent is only given to those things you can control. You can control if you have consensual sex or not. At any time before the deed happens, you can say no. That is a example of on going consent. But once the deed is done, you can no longer give or take away consent. This “on going process” as you call it, is no more. You can not consent sex away as if it never happened.
                  Biological functions of your body are not something you can will or give/remove consent from. So if you consent to consensual sex and finish the deed, then your biological functions take over. And if you get pregnant, you get pregnant and there is nothing you can do to stop it. The most you can do is hope it doesn’t happen and also take all the precautions to reduce the changes of it happening. But you can not will or consent it away.

                  If you think you can will a pregnancy away then you have issues with your logic that you should look into.

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                  I can control pregnancy — it’s called an abortion.

                  Please go back to whichever anti-woman pit you crawled out of.

                • Albert

                  Sorry, That’s not controlling it. If you could really control it then it would never happen in the first place. You are only reacting once the pregnancy has already happened.

                  Abortion only ends a pregnancy that has already started. You are not in control of it.

                • dildo depot

                  Yeah, and you’re not in control of your cholesterol once it’s started to get high because you can change your fucking diet and exercise more to lower it

                  LOGIC FAIL

                • Kodie

                  I don’t think you know what the word ‘control’ means, and how this makes you a hypocrite about everything you do in your life. When have you ever willed something to happen with just your thoughts?

                • dildo depot

                  It does bring up another way of looking at what ‘consent’ means, however.

                  Women can’t really control if/when they get pregnant. Not really. It is an automatic process, and the body decides. Women who *want* to get pregnant will often not become pregnant, even though they are having lots and lots of sex in order to become pregnant. So clearly, having sex cannot be consent to pregnancy. Once the pregnancy happens, however, the consent occurs – the woman decides whether or not to let the zef use her body for 9 months.

                • Albert

                  Webster’s defines control as, ” to direct the behavior of (a person or animal) : to cause (a person or animal) to do what you want : to have power over (something) : to direct the actions or function of (something) : to cause (something) to act or function in a certain way”

                  You don’t direct a pregnancy to behave a certain way.

                  You don’t cause a pregnancy to happen or not happen regardless how much your try.

                  You can’t direct the actions of a pregnancy to cause it not to happen.

                  You can’t cause the pregnancy to function in a way to not happen.

                  The most you can do is stop a pregnancy by killing another human being. But you are not in control of a pregnancy.

                  It will happen whether you like it or not, just as any consequence happens, when a particular action or set of conditions occurs.

                  If you were really in control of a pregnancy, you could keep it from happening. You could have all the sex you want and know that pregnancy was no longer a possible outcome because you were in control of it. But you are not.

                  You said, “When have you ever willed something to happen with just your thoughts?”

                  I will things to happen all the time. I will myself out of bed in the morning. I will myself to get to work on time and so on. But I do know my limits.

                • dildo depot

                  You don’t cause a pregnancy to happen or not happen regardless how much your try.

                  Which is why consent to sex is clearly not consent to pregnancy since the body ‘decides’. Which is why if a woman desperately wants to get pregnant, and can’t, clearly she is not ‘consenting’ to pregnancy. Because if she was, she could just will it to happen. So she only ‘consents’ to the pregnancy once it happens – by deciding whether or not to allow the parasite to inhabit her uterus for 9 months.

                • Kodie

                  You like to have things both ways and not consider a point against you. You literally control everything you have to do, need to do, or want to do. When the phone rings, it could just ring, or do you answer it? You decide, but you have control.

                  When you get sick, do you just curl up in bed and wait to die? If you’ve ever taken antibiotics, you are a premeditated murderer.

                • Albert

                  You said, “When the phone rings, it could just ring, or do you answer it? You decide, but you have control.”

                  Yes, but the phone already rang. Your response is reactionary, you didn’t will the phone to ring.

                  You said, “When you get sick, do you just curl up in bed and wait to die? If you’ve ever taken antibiotics, you are a premeditated murderer.”

                  You don’t believe killing an unborn human is murder but killing an infection is?

                • Kodie

                  When you get sick, do you kill the infection or do you just let it live where it’s supposed to live? You didn’t mean to get sick, but you touched a door handle and now you can’t do anything about it.

                • Albert

                  You said, “When you get sick, do you kill the infection or do you just let it live where it’s supposed to live?”

                  You kill it. But I’m not equating a human life as the same as an infection. Two entirely different things. And the value of them is different as well.

                  You said, “You didn’t mean to get sick, but you touched a door handle and now you can’t do anything about it.”

                  That’s correct. You can’t control not getting sick any more than you can stop a pregnancy. There is a lot you can do to help to reduce yourself getting sick or pregnant, but you can’t stop them entirely.

                • Kodie

                  You have yet to establish a sensible difference between an embryo and any other kind of parasite, and yet you can just wave your hands and make exceptions for pregnancy that don’t apply to any other human behavior.

                • Albert

                  A significant and rather sensible difference is an embryo is a human being; where the others are not.

                  And as I stated, human life is valuable. To equate a virus or a infection to a human is not an equal comparison.

                • C.L. Honeycutt

                  Remind me, have you explained yet how an unfallen acorn, actually even the beginnings of one, is an oak tree, and how destroying a bag of them is like destroying a grove of grown oak trees?

                • Albert

                  An acorn is an early development of an oak. An acorn if left to grow without interruption will grow into an oak tree. If you remove it from the ground it will no longer grow. But an acorn is an oak throughout all of the stages of development. This is simple biology. An acorn would never be a pine tree no matter how long you allow it to develop.

                  A human, created at conception, will never be an oak or a pine.

                  This is an issue of “kind”.

                  Do you believe that a human embryo, if allowed to develop, would grow into something other than an adult human?

                • Quis ut Deus

                  And the difference between a forest of oak and a bag of acorns is?

                • Kodie

                  Ah, appeal to “just ‘cuz”.

                • Albert

                  What exactly do you mean by that?

                • Quis ut Deus

                  Except an embryo is not a human being. There is no proof that it is. It has human DNA, and it is alive. but that is not definitive proof that it is a PERSON.

                • C.L. Honeycutt

                  I love how the Catholic argument always comes down to “DNA makes it a person”, while the atheist/scientific argument is “A person is more than a couple of data points; it’s so complicated that it could be described as a ‘soul’.” And when robbed of their own stance, they have to fall back on asserting over and over again that “human” has magical powers, and that DNA somehow makes something human… despite the lack of any human features whatsoever.

                  I wonder if he’s aware that his “human” embryos have such features as gills, a tail, and a coat of fur…

                • Quis ut Deus

                  Yes. Albert keeps pointing out that ‘human life is valuable.’

                  But he never explains WHY

                  Oh, he hasn’t brought God into it, but he’s a believer :)

                • Albert

                  A human is valuable because they have what is called intrinsic worth.

                  They are not valuable because of something the do or accomplish, or because they are if a certain class level.

                  They have value because they are human.

                  My belief system is irrelevant to this discussion so I have no reason to introduce it. Is your lack of religion relevant to this discussion?

                • Kodie

                  They are, “just ‘cuz.”

                • Quis ut Deus

                  There is no such thing as “intrinsic value”. All valuations are associated with “desires” of one sort or another, and different sources of desire lead to different valuations. But an “intrinsic value” is something that would be recognized as such, and equally, by every different source of desire. As an example, a simple microbe might prefer to digest something organic, instead of something inorganic, and so, to the microbe, the organic thing is more valuable. If the inorganic thing had been a diamond, the microbe would still prefer the organic thing.

                  Meanwhile, unliving things like rocks have no desires at all, and most of the Universe appears to consist of unliving things (like stars). So, another reason there are no intrinsic valuations is simply that the Universe started out lifeless after the Big Bang, and therefore was desire-free. Therefore, just because humans arbitrarily declare that diamonds are valuable, or human life is valuable, for various specific human purposes, that doesn’t make it intrinsically true, not in the slightest. It is a statement of pure egotistical prejudice, nothing more.

                  As another example, a hungry man-eating tiger doesn’t care one whit what humans think about human life, or what deer think about deer life. Again, intrinsic value is something that should be intrinsically recognizable as such. Well, the only thing that tiger will recognize about a human is “fresh meat value”, insignificantly different from a deer, not “life value”….

                • Albert

                  I’m not Catholic. And I’m not using religion to state that a human being starts life at conception. I’m using science and quotes from professionals in the field.

                  You said, “I wonder if he’s aware that his “human” embryos have such features as gills, a tail, and a coat of fur…”

                  Are you suggesting that this human embryo could turn into something else other than a human being?

                • Quis ut Deus

                  Potentiality is not actuality.

                • Albert

                  Potentiality? Are you meaning that what is created at conception is not human?

                  You are the one that said, “It has human DNA, and it is alive.”, and now you are saying that it isn’t a human, but a potential human.

                  You are contradicting yourself.

                • Quis ut Deus

                  The fact that an embryo could potentially be a sentient human being one day does not mean it is that human being right now.

                  You will be a corpse one day. We all will. Yet we don’t treat people based on their POTENTIAL, we treat them based on what they ARE AT THIS MOMENT.

                • Albert

                  You said, “The fact that an embryo could potentially be a sentient human being one day does not mean it is that human being right now.”

                  What is the difference between a human and a human being?

                  You said, “You will be a corpse one day. We all will. Yet we don’t treat people based on their POTENTIAL, we treat them based on what they ARE AT THIS MOMENT.”

                  So what is a 1 year old ‘at this moment’ that says we can’t kill it?

                  What is the difference between a human being and a human?

                  What is the difference between a human being and a person?

                • Quis ut Deus

                  I’ve already explained.

                  Can’t you fucking read?

                • Quis ut Deus

                  So what is a 1 year old ‘at this moment’ that says we can’t kill it?

                  It means that we don’t give 1 year olds liquor or the car keys just because they have the *potential* to be old enough to drink and drive some day.

                  We don’t give a 5 year old the credit card even though the 5 year old has the potential to be a consumer some day.

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                  Asked and answered, stop JAQ-ing off.

                • Albert

                  You said, “Asked and answered, stop JAQ-ing off.”

                  Where was it answered?

                  Perhaps you were meaning that osiote answered them when osiote said, “Human beings are sentient and sapient. Human beings ie persons are capable of thoughts and feelings. Human beings can suffer.”

                  The problem is, isiote explained what Human beings are but didn’t indicate how they are different from humans. And this explanation also relates human beings to persons, which is what some of you are saying are not the same. So either isiote is incorrect or some of you are. Which do you think it is?

                  And if isiote is correct, and a human being is a person, that still doesn’t explain how a human being is different than a human.

                  If a human individual starts life at conception, then you need to show how a human is different from a human being and how a human does not deserve to have human rights, just like the rest of us humans.

                  They’re not human being rights, they are human rights. Which would then include any humans, beings person or other, don’t you think?

                  And even the word being in Webster’s means, “: a living thing : the state of existing : the most important or basic part of a person’s mind or self”

                  Sounds like to me you are wanting to use words incorrectly to support your idea that you can kill who ever you want.

                • Albert

                  What is the difference between a human being and a human?

                  What is the difference between a human being and a person?

                • Quis ut Deus

                  People aren’t non-sentient clumps of DNA for starters.

                • Albert

                  What scientific evidence do you use to back up this claim?

                  Plus that wasn’t what I asked you.

                  What is the difference between a human being and a human?

                  What is the difference between a human being and a person?

                • Quis ut Deus

                  Human beings are sentient and sapient. Human beings ie persons are capable of thoughts and feelings. Human beings can suffer.

                  An embryo is a human organism, it is non-sentient and non-sapient. It cannot suffer, it lacks the capacity for sentience, and it is incomplete and only partially formed, if it even makes it that far.

                • Albert

                  You said, “Human beings are sentient and sapient. Human beings ie persons are capable of thoughts and feelings. Human beings can suffer.”

                  What are you basing this on? Is there scientific evidence to back this up?

                  You said, “An embryo is a human organism, it is non-sentient and non-sapient. It cannot suffer, it lacks the capacity for sentience, and it is incomplete and only partially formed, if it even makes it that far.”

                  How does sapient describe a 1 year old? Are you suggesting because a 1 year old is not sapient we can kill them too?

                  In regards to partially formed, if someone is born without legs does that mean we can kill them because they are only partially formed?

                • Quis ut Deus

                  What are you basing this on? Is there scientific evidence to back this up?

                  Yeah, there is lots. And it was all given to you last week.

                  Kodie even pointed it out when she said:

                  “Albert, when you keep asking for refutation of your cite, why does jejune have to keep posting the same things over and over again and you don’t address the response?

                  It is one thing to ignore something, but to ask for it and then ignore it and then keep asking the same question indicates to me that you are uncomfortable with the truth. You are doubling down on what you think is a gotcha, but it’s stupid because you are getting knowledgeable, scientific responses that refute, address, or expand upon
                  the proper context of your claims. So the smart thing to do in a debate would be to address it or drop it altogether, not keep asking and ignoring the answer”

                  ————-

                  All of this information was provided to you, multiple times, 8 days ago. Why didn’t you read it?

                  How does sapient describe a 1 year old? Are you suggesting because a 1 year old is not sapient we can kill them too?

                  Stupid fucking question. Is this the best you can do? A 1 year old is sentient, sapient, and not infringing on anyone’s bodily autonomy. A 1 year old HAS A WORKING BRAIN.

                  In regards to partially formed, if someone is born without legs does that mean we can kill them because they are only partially formed?

                  If they have the capacity for sentience but are born without a body then they are people. If they are born with a body BUT HAVE NO FUCKING BRAIN THEN QUITE CLEARLY THEY ARE CORPSES AND NOT PEOPLE.

                • Quis ut Deus

                  You can stop a pregnancy by getting an abortion duhhhh

                • Albert

                  Yes; you do. But you don’t control it. You stop it from continuing. And in the process, you kill another human.

                • Kodie

                  Again, you are making an exception for pregnancy that does not apply to anything else in your life.

                  “Just ‘cuz”.

                • Albert

                  Where is the exception? You get an infection, you take stuff to stop it, but you didn’t stop the infection from happening in the first place.

                  You get pregnant, you do things to stop the pregnancy, but you didn’t stop the pregnancy from happening in the first place.

                  These are exactly the same. No exception.

                • Quis ut Deus

                  When you stomp on your brakes you are not ‘controlling’ your car, you are just ‘stopping’ it.

                  lulz

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                  Right. Then there’s no reason to oppose abortion — it’s exactly the same as curing an infection!

                • Albert

                  You said, “it’s exactly the same as curing an infection!”

                  You are asserting that a human being, created from it’s mother and father is an intruder. It is not. There is exactly where it is supposed to be. There is no other environment that this human at this stage in its life can grow.

                  An infection is an intruder and is foreign to the body and not where it is supposed to be there.

                  Webster’s defines a human being as, “a person”

                  Webster’s defines an infection as, “a disease caused by germs that enter the body”

                  These are not exactly the same.

                • Fred

                  Since you’re insisting on using the word human being incorrectly, I think wmdkitty gets a free pass on the usage of infection.

                • Albert

                  You said, “Since you’re insisting on using the word human being incorrectly, I think wmdkitty gets a free pass on the usage of infection.”

                  How am I using the word human being incorrectly?

                • Fred

                  By your own admission human beings are people.

                  Unthinking, insensate lumps of flesh are NOT people.

                • Albert

                  You said, “By your own admission human beings are people.”

                  Yes and no. Technically not my own admission, but that of Webster’s dictionary online. You have heard of Webster’s dictionaries, right? The definitions are theirs, not mine.

                  And if I’m using the word human being incorrectly, then your issue is with Webster’s definitions.

                  But yes, I agree with the definitions that Webster’s provides, as I see no reason to conclude that their definitions are incorrect. Scientifically, I see no difference between a human being and a person.

                  You said, “Unthinking, insensate lumps of flesh are NOT people.”

                  Any how did you come to this conclusion?
                  Where is your scientific data to back up that claim?

                  Are human beings unthinking, insensate lumps of flesh?

                  If you don’t agree with my statement that human beings and people are the same thing, then you must believe that they are not the same, correct?

                  So if your claim is true, and people are not unthinking, insensate lumps of flesh, then that must mean that human beings are unthinking, insensate lumps of flesh, correct?

                  Which means that you are not a human being, right?

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                  I was simply using his “reasoning”.

                • Kodie
                • Albert

                  I’m not sure what the images are there for. How does size matter in abortion?

                  Infections are not human in nature. The mother is not infected when she is pregnant. The human inside of her did not enter her, it was there all a long.

                  Is killing a 1 year old because you no longer want to care for the child ‘controlling a situation’?

                  An infection is not a human. They are not the same.

                  We don’t place the same value on infections that we do on humans. At least I don’t.
                  Perhaps you do equate the value of a human the same as an infection. If that is the case, why not allow people like Susan Smith to go free?

                • Quis ut Deus

                  That sounds like control to me.

                • dildo depot

                  But once the deed is done, you can no longer give or take away consent.

                  If you are in the process of donating blood you can stop it mid-donation.

                  You can rip the IV out of your arm and deny the person whose life may be saved from access to your blood.

                  Abortion is the same.

                • Kodie

                  No, you have to go get a procedure called an abortion.

                  IF the fetus is a person, then no, I don’t consent to them dwelling in my uterus. Consent is not given to them to continue to inhabit my space. I didn’t put them there, I didn’t ask them to come in. IF you consider it a person, then the harm they inflict is a serious choice whether to allow or to have them physically removed from the premises.

                  What part of that are you still being stupid about?

                  “But she’s its mottttther and it’s her chiiiii-ild. ” That’s been your main concept of her responsibility. And that she consented to this occupation the second she opened her legs. FALSE. That “person” is an unwanted occupant and can be shown the door. The man is her guest, but this “person” in her uterus is a squatter. Like all matters allowed by law, that “person” has no rights to stay.

                • Albert

                  You said, “I didn’t put them there, I didn’t ask them to come in. ”

                  Are you kidding me? If you had consensual sex, then you knew that pregnancy is a possible outcome of that action. Your body and the person you engage in sexual intercourse with are the reason that newly created human exists. You did put them there because of your actions. If you didn’t engage in sexual intercourse they would not be there. Them being there is a direct result of your actions. To ignore that is to not understand the biology of your own body.

                  You said, ” IF you consider it a person, then the harm they inflict is a serious choice whether to allow or to have them physically removed from the premises. What part of that are you still being stupid about?”

                  I have never said that there are health issues that come with pregnancies. The lists that you and others have been posting are all agreed upon. I never said that I disagreed that there are health issues in relation to pregnancy.

                  The abortion you so willingly would have can cause just as much harm, if not more than going through the pregnancy, something your body is build to deal with; where with the abortion you are introducing tools and such that are not mean to be there. The scraping could render you unable to have a child later on even if you wanted one later.

                  Abortion is not a natural function of your body. You risk so much more through abortion than you do in allowing your body to function as it is built to function.

                  You said, “”But she’s its mottttther and it’s her chiiiii-ild. ” That’s been your main concept of her responsibility.”

                  It is. Because it is the child of that mother. Who else’s child could it be? Do women just pass each other in the bathroom and they switch embryo’s? Is there some sort of magic that you know of that I’m not aware of? Because from what I understand about biology, the woman’s action to have sex brought about that innocent unborn human, her child. And just as a mother of a born child is responsible for caring for her children, so is a mother of her unborn child. The size or location does not make it any less a human or her child. The responsibility is the same.

                  You said, “That “person” is an unwanted occupant and can be shown the door. The man is her guest, but this “person” in her uterus is a squatter. Like all matters allowed by law, that “person” has no rights to stay.”

                  And the laws that currently state that is exactly what we are fighting because they are inconsistent.

                  It’s not a squatter that decided that this woman’s womb was the womb of choice to be in. This unborn human child was created by that woman. Unwanted or not, a mother’s responsibility to her children is to care for their well being. Those mothers that don’t do that, like Susan Smith, are charged with a crime of murder. The fact that her children were unwanted by her made no difference in her responsibility towards them.

                  You keep forgetting that because pregnancy is a consequence of the woman’s actions to chose to have consensual sex, she is knowingly accepting that outcome as a possibility when she decides to engage in sexual intercourse. Therefore she is accepting that as one of many outcomes.

                • dildo depot

                  Abortion is 14x safer than pregnancy.

                  And no, if women were perfectly built to ‘deal with’ pregnancy, there would not be so many deleterious side effects.

                  I believe I posted this ‘minor inconvenience’ earlier:

                  http://www.who.int/features/factfiles/obstetric_fistula/4_fistula_incontinence.jpg

                  Approximately 3-4% of women are affected by obstetric fistula’s. This is when urine and feces run uncontrollably down the woman’s leg. I realize that you consider this to be a minor inconvenience, and sound punishment for having consensual sex.

                  I doubt you’d be very happy if such an ‘inconvenience’ was foisted upon you because you chose to have sex. In fact, we don’t force anyone to put their health at risk to save another. We don’t force people to go into burning buildings or into other situations that could permanently disable them in order to save a life. Yet you think women should do this for an ‘it’. All because they chose to have sex. That’s pretty sick.

                • Ella Warnock

                  Again and again, an obstinate refusal to view reproduction as anything more than an inconvenience.

                • Kodie

                  IF you consider it a person, you have to consider the situation as you would any invader, and treat the squatter accordingly. No matter what you think, you think wrong.

                  A woman is not anyone’s mother unless she chooses to be – get that through your thick skull. You are making one single exception, when nothing in the world works that way. I do not consider it a person, so I don’t have a problem with abortion, and I can see trying to consider it a person for the sake of argument just gets you to repeating your terrible circular arguments. You’re a judgmental hypocritical asshole, that’s all that’s left to tell you.

                • dildo depot

                  Once you eat fatty foods with bad cholesterol, YOU CAN NEVER BE HEALTHY AGAIN, BECAUSE ALBERT SAYS THAT ONCE A BIOLOGICAL PROCESS HAS STARTED YOU CAN’T STOP IT

                  WEBMD DISAGREES:

                  The good news about cholesterol is that it can usually be lowered by
                  eating less LDL cholesterol-increasing foods and more LDL
                  cholesterol-lowering foods, and by adopting a healthy lifestyle.

                  The most important steps to following a healthy lifestyle are:

                  decreasing the amount of fat in your diet

                  paying special attention to the quality of fat that you eat

                  maintaining a healthy weight

                  quitting smoking

                  getting adequate exercise

                  reducing stress.

                  All of these factors, taken together, can
                  dramatically decrease your risk of heart disease and stroke by lowering your LDL cholesterol level and your blood pressure, and raising your HDL cholesterol.

                  Following a healthy, low-fat diet almost always lowers cholesterol levels. So does not smoking (smoking increases LDL cholesterol); maintaining a healthy weight (being overweight lowers your HDL cholesterol and increases your risk of heart disease and stroke); and
                  getting regular exercise (exercising regularly decreases cholesterol). Aim for about 30 to 60 minutes of moderate exercise each day. Regular physical activity can cut the risk of heart disease and stroke in half.

                  Finally, reducing your stress is also a key factor to
                  maintaining a healthy lifestyle and lowering your risk of heart disease and stroke. Researchers believe there may be a link between stress and increased blood cholesterol and higher blood pressure. There are many things you can do to manage your stress, such as going
                  out for a walk, doing some deep breathing exercises, talking to a friend, laughing at a funny book or movie and practicing time management.

                  If, after three to six months, following a healthy
                  diet and lifestyle does not significantly decrease your cholesterol, you may need to talk to your doctor about medication. There are several types of drugs available to lower your cholesterol and your doctor will help you choose the best one for you – but keep in mind
                  that these medications do not cure high cholesterol. And neither do they replace a healthy lifestyle.

                  —————-

                  OMG THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT STOPPING A BIOLOGICAL PROCESS, THAT ISN’T SUPPOSED TO BE POSSIBLE?????????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                • Albert

                  Just curious, if you do all of that stuff you just wrote about, and do it all your life, does it stop heart disease and stroke from ever happening?
                  No, it reduces the chances that it might happen, but it doesn’t stop the change that the could happen, does it?

                  You could get a tubal ligation, your partner could get a vasectomy and you could be on the pill and he could wear a condom and there is still a chance that you could get pregnant. It’s highly unlikely, but it could still happen.

                  This is not being in control of the biological function, but rather doing all you can to make that biological function not happen as regularly as it would without the preventative measures in place. Those are two different things. If you are in control of it, you are able to stop it completely at will; and turn it back on when you want it to happen.
                  That is being in control.

                • dildo depot

                  If your cholesterol is high because you eat fatty foods and don’t exercise you can lower it by improving your diet and getting exercise.

                  You can control your cholesterol levels.

                • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

                  Are fetuses eggs or babies after birth? Nope. So clearly, a uterus doesn’t fit the definition of incubator.

                  You’re also ignoring entirely that the uterus is inside of a woman. It is her uterus, her organ. The uterus is actually far more complex than an incubator- it provides a fairly cushioned home for a placenta/fetus, attaches with many blood vessels, and through the umbilicus the fetus wrests out nutrients while providing a conduit for a fetus to pass its wastes and harmful hormones into the woman’s bloodstream. Considering that a woman’s blood, nutrients, blood vessels, and uterus are all hers, she has every right to remove any being that is using them against her will.

                  Do recall that sex is not permission for pregnancy. Contraception is in fact a specific indication of no consent, and consent can always be revoked. I suggest you read my post here for a longer, fuller discussion of consent and the concepts of enthusiastic consent and revocability. Suffice it to say that if consent is not both enthusiastic (saying yes, rather than just not saying no) and revocable (you can always take it back), it isn’t consent at all.

                • tsara

                  You’re almost unbelievably patient and articulate and generally awesome. :)

                • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

                  *blush* Thank you.

                • dildo depot

                  Feminerd was incredibly patient with Bob.

                  I wanted to punch him through the screen.

                • tsara

                  Yeah, I had to just close my computer and walk away by the end of it. He refused to even try to articulate his position (and I was perfectly willing to be persuaded on the one vs. two entities) and refused to acknowledge my gender (or lack thereof) — apparently because I called him a bigot (despite the fact that I very carefully did not do that).
                  So. Fucking. Annoying.

                • tsara

                  I’m here representing the grammar police because I’m procrastinating and you’ve got a fucking annoying mistake in there.
                  “But me telling a woman that she is obligated to care for her own child is not reducing her to anything.”
                  The structure of your sentence is this: ‘But [this action] is not reducing her to anything.’ You don’t say ‘But me [action] is not reducing her to anything.’ You say ‘But my [action] is not reducing her to anything.’ Unless I’m totally forgetting the technical grammar words, the rule is that you need a possessive with a gerund.
                  So:
                  ‘But my telling [of] a woman that she is obligated to care for her own child is not reducing her to anything.’

                • Niemand

                  If you are wanting to equate them together then your “organ donation” of
                  your womb was done voluntary when you chose to have consensual sex

                  Suppose a person agrees to be part of the bone marrow donation registry. Xe voluntarily allows xer tissue to be typed. But when a person with the same tissue type needing a transplant comes along, xe refuses to donate, even those xe voluntarily agreed to be in the registry, knowing exactly what it entailed. Know what happens next? Nothing. The potential donor is not forced to go through with the donation. Is this wrong, in your opinion? Should people who VOLUNTARILY agree to be part of the bone marrow registry be forced to go through with the donation? (Also note that the act is much more clearly voluntary than having sex==volunteering to be pregnant. No one gets drunk and accidentally registers as a marrow donor. No one is given roofies and had a sample taken against their will. While I suppose it’s technically possible that someone somewhere has said, “If you really love me you’ll donate marrow to a stranger”, I doubt it’s a frequent occurrence.)

                • Albert

                  You said, “Know what happens next? Nothing. The potential donor is not forced to go through with the donation.”

                  That’s correct. That is part of the whole bodily autonomy you all defend so highly.

                  You said, ” Is this wrong, in your opinion?”

                  Not at all, no.

                  But here is the issue. If that person that put their name on the list, got selected and when into the surgery room and the organ was removed and placed in the other person, it is no longer theirs to request back.

                  That whole action right there that I just described, in the case of sexual intercourse, is the same as the woman going through with sexual intercourse. Once the act has happened, she can’t take it back. Before the act has happened, anything can happen. She doesn’t have to go through with it. That is her prerogative. But you can’t take back sexual intercourse; even if it’s bad sex.

                  If the man decides he is not going to let her up or get off of her, then what is now happening is called rape. This, in your scenario above, would be the same as the guy getting to the hospital and then deciding he didn’t want to donate anymore; but the doctors tie him to the bed and take the organ by force.

                  I’m not taking about rape, I’m talking about consensual sex.

                • Niemand

                  If that person that put their name on the list, got selected and when
                  into the surgery room and the organ was removed and placed in the other
                  person, it is no longer theirs to request back.

                  Exactly. Whatever happens to that organ next is no longer the donor’s concern: xe has given it away and further actions relating to it have no effect on xer bodily autonomy. Just like after birth, the baby is no longer impinging on the woman’s body and she has no further grounds to demand its eviction.

                  Unprotected sex is analogous, roughly, to agreeing to donate. Not to donating. The completion of the donation or the pregnancy are the times at which the violation of bodily integrity occurs. This violation must be voluntary.

                • Albert

                  You said, “Unprotected sex is analogous, roughly, to agreeing to donate. Not to
                  donating. The completion of the donation or the pregnancy are the times
                  at which the violation of bodily integrity occurs. This violation must
                  be voluntary.”

                  That is incorrect.
                  The woman can not donate organs from another human’s body. That is what she is doing when an abortion is being preformed. She is killing another human being that she volunteered to create. This other human did not have a say in the woman and the man creating him/her and did not give permissions to be killed.

                  You seem to look at what the man and the woman did in creating this new human as they are victims; calling this a violation of the bodily integrity of the woman. But you fail to realize that this new creation was an outcome of their actions, their choices, not it’s own. It did not trespass. It did not infiltrate her body, it was created exactly where it is supposed to be.
                  The creation of this new human being was voluntary once she decided to engage in sexual intercourse.

                • dance commander

                  This other human did not have a say in the woman and the man creating him/her and did not give permissions to be killed.

                  It did not give permission to be created either. Forcing life upon something is to impose suffering upon it. To create it, you are sentencing it to death.

                  The woman can not donate organs from another human’s body. That is what she is doing when an abortion is being preformed.

                  The ZEF isn’t the victim here. The woman is. The ZEF does all of the attacking. If zef’s are the victims, then why do they suppress the woman’s immune system? If zef’s are the victims, then why do hemochorial mammals menstruate to prepare their uterine lining for the extremely invasive implantation of the fetal placenta? If zef’s are victims, why is pregnancy the #2 leading cause of death for women worldwide? If zef’s are victims, why do they cause diabetes? And anemia. And cancer. And obstetric fistulas?

                • Ella Warnock

                  I think there’s something very basic you’re not understanding.

                  I’m. Not. Going. To. Have. A. Child.

                  Ever.

                  It’s a moot point now, but that’s been my stance all along. Something I do that affects no one else’s life as profoundly as it will mine will not ever be determined by those who have no skin in the game. It’s quite simple. Elegant, almost.

                • Albert

                  You said, “I’m. Not. Going. To. Have. A. Child.”

                  For you specifically, yes, it’s moot. But for many out there, it is not.

                  And this argument is not towards those that are of the wrong sex, or too old/young to produce offspring. This is not an argument for those that have been raped, but the argument is for those that chose to have consensual sex.

                  You said, “Something I do that affects no one else’s life as profoundly as it will mine will not ever be determined by those who have no skin in the game.”

                  I guess this would depend on if you believe that killing another human being is affecting their life as profoundly as it is yours to have to carry a unborn human being to term, wouldn’t it?

                  In my book, it is affecting the unborn human beings life so much more profoundly than it is your life

                  And that unborn human being has a skin in the game, therefore they have a part in determining what happens in that situation.

                • Ella Warnock

                  “I guess this would depend on if you believe that killing another human being is affecting their life as profoundly as it is yours to have to carry a unborn human being to term, wouldn’t it?”

                  Guess it would.

                  You and I are reading different books.

                • Albert

                  You said, “You and I are reading different books.”

                  Yes we are.
                  In my book, I believe all human live is valuable because they are human; and it seems, from your comments, that you don’t base the value of a human on the fact that they are human but on whether their presence is an inconvenience to you and your lifestyle. If they are, then they are expendable and they have no value.

                • Ella Warnock

                  Okay.

                • dildo depot

                  and it seems, from your comments, that you don’t base the value of a
                  human on the fact that they are human but on whether their presence is
                  an inconvenience to you and your lifestyle

                  Minor inconvenience:

                  http://www.fightfistula.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/What-is-Fistula.jpg

                • Carmelita Spats

                  Fertilized eggs are not people. Otherwise, I am certainly a vicious serial killer and have endangered children’s lives because I have used the IUD as birth control of choice for the past 10 years. According to your creepy cult, the IUD and the birth control pill are “abortifacients/abortifactants” because they affect the lining of the uterus and disallow implantation.

                  The Pill Kills…
                  http://thepillkills.com/

                  This means that when I go to the gynecologist, I have to consider birth control not only in light of MY OWN HEALTH but the HEALTH of “potential people”. Convenience? A nine-year-old’s abortion is NOT an act of “convenience”…ANYONE who would legally obligate a nine-year-old to squat and squirt out the spawn of her rapist is a twisted fuck:

                  Nine-Year-Old Rape Victim in Brazil:
                  http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1883598,00.html

                  No value? Tell that to the victims of sexual abuse in the Catholic Church who were used as lubricated sex toys by “celibate” maladjusted virgins…Sticking your penis into the mouth of a five-year-old, masturbating on children (Father Marcial Maciel) and then hiding in Rome is grotesque…I’d rather they masturbate right on the Eucharist or into the communion chalice and swallow a mouthful of sticky Jesus on sultry summer Sundays…Pedophilia is NOT “pro-life”…Pedophilia is NOT funny. Sexually molesting Cookie-Eucharist-Jesus is hilarious…They excommunicate women who have had abortions or people who desecrate the Eucharist but NOT bishops who hide the very MONSTERS that anally rape the post-born children they were entrusted to protect…These are the real incorrigible brutes:

                  http://www.bishop-accountability.org/

                • dildo depot

                  Albert wrote:

                  “”In the case of rape, I give the concession to the woman to abort if she is wanting to do so.I do this, not because I agree this should happen, as I don’t believe the child should ever be punished for the crimes of the father, but I give this concession because this was not consensual sex.”?

                • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

                  In my book, it is affecting the unborn human beings life so much more profoundly than it is your life

                  In my book, taking a fetus from nonsentient existence (unaware of own existence) to nonsentient nonexistence is a very small step indeed. The fetus never feels or thinks anything.

                  The woman, on the other hand? She feels things. Her life’s trajectory is permanently altered by having a baby (whether she keeps it or not). It has way more impact on her than on a fetus, which never knew it existed at all.

                • Ella Warnock

                  I will say this, though. It’s “specific” for a growing number of women who in another time and place would have had children they didn’t want because that was the price of admission to not be alone, or they would have been nuns or “spinsters.”

                  Unfortunately, the anti-abortion sentiment encompasses more than just abortion. It also carries the message that contraception really isn’t acceptable, either; nor is choosing to not be a mother. We’ve got the plumbing, so it doesn’t really matter what other abilities or passions we may have. We should mother because biology is destiny.

                  Creating a different sort of life was an often lonely and difficult road. I had hoped that my journey would have made it easier for the younger ones coming behind me. It has, somewhat, but the prejudice and judgment still exist. I fear that it always will, and that’s unbearably sad.

                • dance commander

                  Once the act has happened, she can’t take it back.

                  She can end the pregnancy. Easy. It’s called an abortion.

                  And if you are in the middle of the process of GIVING BLOOD and giving bone marrow, you can stop, even if the person will die.

                  Ending a pregnancy is no different. It is a disconnection from the use of your body by a parasite.

                • Ella Warnock

                  I’m not speaking of biological control. I’m saying that if there’s an unwanted pregnancy, ending that pregnancy is completely in my control – as is carrying it to term. Discussion with others nor legality is necessary to make those decisions.

                  A woman with 3 and 4 year old children has, obviously, rejected abortion. If the situation is so dire that she can no longer care for them, they can be relinquished to the care of others.

                  I might at some point in time be in the vicinity of an abandoned child, and thus would be in a position to assist. If I’m in the vicinity of a fetus residing in another’s body, not so much. I’ll never be “de facto guardian” of that entity. It already has one.

                • Albert

                  You said, ” I’m saying that if there’s an unwanted pregnancy, ending that pregnancy
                  is completely in my control – as is carrying it to term.”

                  Then if that is what you were meaning, legally, that is true. And that is exactly what we are fighting against when declaring that this unborn is a human being.

                  The fact that you currently have the law in your court does not remove the moral argument against it.

                  You said, “A woman with 3 and 4 year old children has, obviously, rejected abortion. If the situation is so dire that she can no longer care for them, they can be relinquished to the care of others.”

                  That isn’t what you said. If your statement was true, then there is no reason that the mother can’t just take their lives, right?

                  With no guarantee’s in this life who is to say she is wrong for killing them?

                  You said, “I might at some point in time be in the vicinity of an abandoned child, and thus would be in a position to assist. If I’m in the vicinity of a fetus residing in another’s body, not so much. I’ll never be “de facto guardian” of that entity. It already has one.”

                  That’s correct. I completely agree. That unborn human already does have a de facto guardian. And my claim is that de facto guardian has the same obligation that you would have if you came into the vicinity of an abandoned child. That woman who is pregnant is wanting to abandon their child. But until they can find another person to become the de facto guardian, she is obligated to care for that child.

                  There is no good justifiable reason to treat an unborn human differently than a born human just because we don’t want to, or because we are inconvenienced. That is a human being, at the earliest stages of life for sure, but never the less, it is a human being. They should have the same rights that every other human being does.

                • Ella Warnock

                  “The fact that you currently have the law in your court does not remove the moral argument against it.”

                  As I’ve mentioned before, no legality is required.

                  “With no guarantee’s in this life who is to say she is wrong for killing them?”

                  As we’ve seen in many tragic cases, no, children don’t get anymore guarantees than anyone else.

                  “There is no good justifiable reason to treat an unborn human differently than a born human just because we don’t want to, or because we are inconvenienced.”

                  There are good, justifiable reasons. You just don’t like them. Pregnancy, childbirth, parenthood and adoption are all much more than an “inconvenience.” Referring to all of it in that manner is derisive and dismissive.

                • Albert

                  You said, “As I’ve mentioned before, no legality is required.”

                  So if I understand you correctly, you are saying that a mother is able to take the life of their child regardless of what the law states now or forever, is that correct?

                  You said, “As we’ve seen in many tragic cases, no, children don’t get anymore guarantees than anyone else.”

                  What do you mean by tragic cases? What’s more tragic than a child losing it’s life?

                  You said, “There are good, justifiable reasons. You just don’t like them.”

                  So someone saying, “I’m not ready to have a child.” Is a good reason to murder a human being?

                  To say, “I just want to live my life and don’t want to be tied down by a child.”, is a good reason to murder a human being?

                  That’s interesting. Because that is basically what Susan Smith did when she rolls her car into a lake with her two kids in it. I guess that was justifiable in your view, right?

                  You said, “Pregnancy, childbirth, parenthood and adoption are all much more than an “inconvenience.”

                  I agree. But none of those being much more than an inconvenience gives anyone a right to murder another human being, does it?

                  You said, “Referring to all of it in that manner is derisive and dismissive.”

                  Not at all. I agree they are hard. I know, I have a wife that I stood by as she went through each pregnancy of our 3 beautiful kids. And I know first hand how hard parenthood is. But none of that is so hard as to justify murder of another human being.

                  To say that it does justify murder of another human being, is to say that human beings have no inherent value.

                • Ella Warnock

                  “So if I understand you correctly, you are saying that a mother is able to take the life of their child regardless of what the law states now or forever, is that correct?”

                  According to your understanding, yes, I suppose it’s murder. If I disagree, that’s because of my worldview and general lack of awareness of biology; and I’m just being obstinate in my resistance to the “truth.” Yeah, I’ve been to this rodeo before.

                  As I’ve mentioned before, you’re going to accuse me of being in favor of “murder” no matter what sort of good reasons are listed. I’ll just cut to the chase here: Yes, women can abort unwanted pregnancies for any reason. Albert says this is murder. I disagree. We’ll forever be at an impasse, just as I’ve been at that impasse with countless others. At some point (well, that would be right now) it becomes too exhausting and depressing to continue the futility.

                • dance commander

                  If it was under your control, then you could have not gotten pregnant in the first place, right?

                  Pregnancy is not something that people *choose*. If it was, infertile couples could simply say ‘we are going to get pregnant’ and it would happen. Pregnancy is something that just happens, it is an automatic biological process. But choosing to remain pregnant is a goddamn CHOICE and should remain so.

                • Spuddie

                  Nope still don’t understand it. You have no respect for the privacy of women to make decisions about their bodies.

                  Naturally Albee knows better than all of them on that subject.

                • Albert

                  You said, “Nope still don’t understand it. You have no respect for the privacy of women to make decisions about their bodies.”

                  Then explain it to me.

                  Who’s body is she aborting?

                  What privacy are you meaning?

                  What choices am I taking away from her?

                  You said, “Naturally Albee knows better than all of them on that subject.”

                  So far, I have been told nothing but opinions. So if I’m using facts to back up my argument and you are just saying, “Because I said so.”, then yeah, it would seem I do know better. Bring the fact to refute my claim and I’m more than open to a good discussion.

                • Ella Warnock

                  I think you may not like the reality that no one has to accept what you’re calling a reality. At any rate, you’re actually right about one thing: I have consented to the possible outcome of an unwanted pregnancy, the consequence of which would be a termination. Nine months of ongoing consent must be obtained, which I, of course, am not obligated to give.

                  Of course you’re going to call me a murderer. That means absolutely nothing, as I consider the source.

                • Albert

                  You said, “I think you may not like the reality that no one has to accept what you’re calling a reality.”

                  Ah…. Ella, I think you have something there. “Reality”, is a world view. And this is definitely a difference in our worldviews, is it not?

                  The fact that you and I have a different worldview is not so mush something that I do or don’t like; but rather more along the lines as I don’t understand how you hold your world view.

                  And you are correct, no one does have to accept my world view. But here is a question. Though they both can be a possibility to be what truly is reality, which is more probable? I believe this is the question that makes the most sense to be seeking, don’t you? If not, though I or you hold a certain world view, the one we hold could be the wrong one, right? Wouldn’t you want to hold a world view that is the best probability for what reality truly is?

                  You said, “I have consented to the possible outcome of an unwanted pregnancy, the consequence of which would be a termination.”

                  And in my world view, what you have done there is not just consented to end the biological function called pregnancy, but rather you have consented to end the life of another human being. I see this to be inconsistent with how we born humans; that is of course if you believe killing born humans is wrong.

                  All of your comments are based on the world view you hold. The question is, does it best fit reality?

                  And that question is posed to both of us. I believe my world view best holds to what reality truly is.

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                  Shut UP, already! We get it — you want women to be enslaved to the potential contents of our uteri, and don’t give a shit about our feelings, our wants, our needs, our dreams and plans.

                • Ella Warnock

                  “All of your comments are based on the world view you hold.”

                  Yes, rather.

                  “The question is, does it best fit reality?”

                  Of course.

                • Albert

                  Question for you. If you found out that your reality, your world view, was not as close to reality as you believed it was, would you be willing to change to a world view that was closer to reality?

                  If it is true that what is created at conception is really a human being would that change your mind about abortion and the taking of a human life?

                • Ella Warnock

                  “If it is true that what is created at conception is really a human being would that change your mind about abortion and the taking of a human life?”

                  As far as I’m aware, this is proven, correct? To your satisfaction, I mean. If it’s a proven truth at this time, then I’m already rejecting “reality” and overwhelming evidence, no?

                • Albert

                  You said, “As far as I’m aware, this is proven, correct? To your satisfaction, I
                  mean. If it’s a proven truth at this time, then I’m already rejecting
                  “reality” and overwhelming evidence, no?”

                  If I understand your answer correctly, you are stating that you are fine with murder.

                • Ella Warnock

                  You’re clearly not understanding my answer. As I think I’ve also mentioned before, if I believe abortion should be available, you’re going to call me a murderer. You’ve tortured and twisted the term just enough that it’s meaningless, so I’m untroubled by your accusation.

                • Albert

                  You said, ” You’ve tortured and twisted the term just enough that it’s meaningless”

                  What term are you saying that I’m twisting?

                • C.L. Honeycutt

                  Many of us, myself included, have done that very thing. I hold positions that make me personally uncomfortable, because they are right, and my emotions and desires do not change that. I’m certainly not the only one here who does, especially considering how many commenters here have described the existential dread and inculcated fear of damnation that accompanied their journey away from religion.

                  As I recall, there’s a thread where, after half a year, theists are STILL maligning Rachel Slick and claiming that her description of going through that very thing is fake. Understand that it’s rather hard to take questions like yours as being in good faith when there’s a demonstrable overabundance of these Christian faux psychics, people whose default assumption is that we’re lying about ourselves when our confessions don’t match what they’re already made up in their heads. (and who don’t absorb any information we give them that doesn’t align with their set-in-stone apologetics, hint hint.)

                  Apart from that, it’s a fairly irrelevant question. How a blastocyst or embryo is not a human being, and how a human being is not automatically a person, have been explained, over and over and over again. This makes the question akin to, “If I proved to you that the Matrix exists, then disappeared, leaving you with no way to escape or alter it, would you treat objects as if they were fake?”

                • Albert

                  You said, ” I hold positions that make me personally uncomfortable, because they are right, and my emotions and desires do not change that.”

                  I guess that depends on what you mean by ‘right’.

                  What I mean by that is there is something called the truth.

                  This truth does not change because someone believes differently.

                  The truth doesn’t care of you believe or not.

                  The truth is just that, the truth.

                  So in regards to abortion, you have all been expressing more philosophical answers than scientific ones.

                  “A person is a person when they have a brain”

                  But what is it before that?

                  How much brain is required before it becomes a person?

                  What is it before that?

                  “What is different about a human being from a person?”

                  Actually, I don’t think I ever got an answer for this one really.

                  “It is just a lump of cells at conception”

                  But how is that much different than we are as adults?

                  How does chemical response in a body part called the brain change what it was at conception?

                  Could it have turned into a dog or a cow?

                  These are all subjective philosophical answers, not scientific.

                  We know for a fact that if a woman and a man have consensual sex, she gets pregnant, and allows that pregnancy to continue to term, that she will birth a human baby. The logic does not fail there. There is no thinking that what is growing inside her is a human being.

                  The fact that it is smaller than you or me give us no right to treat it as of less value than us. If so then why stop at birth? Why not allow it to continue afterwards?

                  If you believe it’s not a person then you might take on Peter Singer’s view that even as late as 3 months we should be allowed to kill them. Or worse, but real extreme and remove murder laws altogether as it’s only a matter of the survival of the fittest, right?

                  Can’t defend yourself, then to bad; sucks to be you, right?

                  You said, “If I proved to you that the Matrix exists, then disappeared, leaving
                  you with no way to escape or alter it, would you treat objects as if
                  they were fake?”

                  I would hope so. Because if I didn’t, I would be living a lie. And I would rather admit that I’m wrong, change my view and no longer live a lie.

                  The problem is, people get emotional and want to do what they want to do. They want to live life as they have envisioned it. And because of that, they are willing to shut their eyes to the truth; turn their backs on it as long as they don’t have to be held accountable to it.

                  You are right that many have turned away from religion like Rachel Slick. But I don’t believe what she is going through is fake. I genuinely believe that she believes she has found her answers. My fear for her is that she is not correct.
                  Because just as I can see what she is saying. I feel she left a lot of things unanswered. At least in the article. I can’t speak to her directly, so I don’t know the whole story. But I have met many people like her that have done the same thing. And none of them left the faith because of facts or the like. They left because of emotional appeals. Because they wanted to live how they wanted to live and not how some “god” told them to live. But just as everything else in this world. If the God of the bible is who he says he is, and if Jesus was who he claimed to be, then Rachel will get her answers. But she might not like them when she finds them out. So I suggest that she do all she can and experience all she wants to right now. Because she might not have much going on afterwards.

                  Sorry. I’m running on. The point I think I would make about your Matrix question is, I seek out truth in everything. And I’m not reluctant to change once I see a better answer. Right now, I see that abortion takes the life o f a human being. And if we allow that to happen we remove value for humans and possibly will remove it from other stages of human development. We are no longer valuable because of what we are, but rather we will only be as valuable as what we can provide.

                  Sorry to rant.

                • Kodie

                  When you preform an abortion you are dictating other people’s choices.

                  How could something without a brain make a choice?

                  You seem to think it will choose to live. It doesn’t have the awareness to make an informed decision, so you are taking away its choices too, if it could make one. You are forcing it to live. Have you ever thought it might not be what it wants? Why or why not? Just presumin’? You presume to make the choices for the women and for the fetuses. Neither one actually gets to make a choice, as long as you know what’s best for both!

                • Albert

                  You said, “How could something without a brain make a choice?”

                  Does a persons right to life have to be a choice that is convey? Does that right to life get revoked if a person goes into a coma?

                  You said, “You seem to think it will choose to live.”

                  You choose to think it wants to die. The difference is view at least gives that human the option later on if I chose wrong; yours does not.

                  You said, “You presume to make the choices for the women and for the fetuses.”

                  I’m not making and choices for the woman, she is doing that. For the fetus it is because it can’t.

                  You said, “Neither one actually gets to make a choice, as long as you know what’s best for both!”

                  It’s not a matter of making a choice for them, it’s stating what is morally acceptable and expecting people to live within those boundaries. If murder is wrong and the right to life supersedes and discomfort I might feel in any situation where I believe that murder would relieve that discomfort, then it’s not making a choice for me, it’s setting a boundary. You just want to cross that line and be allowed to remove your discomfort for an action you willing took part in. That discomfort you feel is not as important as another human beings life.

                • Kodie

                  The state does not interfere in any case to encourage abortions or take someone off life-sustaining machines. If the person in a coma has not expressed their wishes in advance, it is up to a close family member. There have been cases where a coma patient’s spouse and parents are at odds with what the outcome shall be. The government considers them alive as long as they are kept alive.

                  So, bad analogy.

                  A brain-dead person is dead, even if their organs can be kept alive by artificial means. A person in a coma can awaken (edit: not definitely, depending on injuries, it may not happen at all or return your loved one in a deeply impaired state, but people wait on hope alone), but take a doctor’s advice whether that will be in the patient’s best interest,(edit: or the family’s interest to hope or give up and let go). Presumably, they’d been conscience and could have expressed a choice. Please let your family know that you want to be kept alive indefinitely at any cost, even if there is no chance to wake up. Once your brain is dead, you’re not there anymore, but you are superstitious. You wouldn’t know the difference if you were unplugged, but it matters greatly to you anyway.

                  Fetuses have no such experience. Just like in cases with coma patients and brain-dead patients, the choice can be made by proxy by its closest living relative – the mother. (Edit – they also do not know the difference – and if they know no difference, how can they be said to care, to care enough to make a choice, or at all?).

                • Albert

                  You said, “So, bad analogy.”

                  What analogy? I read over my post and I see no analogy given. Is this for a different comment perhaps?

                  You said, “A brain-dead person is dead, even if their organs can be kept alive by artificial means.”

                  Brain dead is when a born human has had an extensive amount of trauma and is an unnatural state.

                  An unborn human is not brain dead, but rather is exactly in the natural state it is supposed to be in. If left alone, it will continue to grow and develop. The brain dead human will not.

                  This comparison is a rather bad one.

                  You said, “Just like in cases with coma patients and brain-dead patients, the choice can be made by proxy by its closest living relative – the mother.”

                  The problem is that brain-dead person is in a state that will not change, hence the reason to ask a relative. But this is not the case for the unborn. They are not in a state, like a coma, where they may not get out of it, or in the case of a brain-dead born human where they will no longer develop. The unborn is growing and developing exponentially every day. If left alone, they will come to term.
                  Your analogy doesn’t work because you are pretending that the unborn is not in a condition that it should be in.
                  But this is incorrect, it is exactly where it should be and developing as it should be.

                  Science shows that the unborn is a human being. The fact that a woman didn’t want to be pregnant is not a reason to murder another human being.

                  Bad analogy. Sorry.

                • Kodie

                  You are just making inferences all over. You asked what about people in comas and stuff.

                  Does a persons right to life have to be a choice that is convey? Does
                  that right to life get revoked if a person goes into a coma?

                  I told you the answer to that question. It doesn’t matter what an embryo will become. It doesn’t have a brain yet. It is in an “unperson” state. Who gets to say what the outcome is? The person whose body its inside of.

                  It is never left alone. There is another person with it at all times that you’re forgetting about. It is her decision.

                • Albert

                  You said, “You are just making inferences all over.”

                  What specifically am I inferring? I’m not seeing anything in the posts above about me mentioning comas, unless I’m commenting in response to something someone else said.

                  You said, “It doesn’t matter what an embryo will become. It doesn’t have a brain yet. It is in an “unperson” state. Who gets to say what the outcome is? The person whose body its inside of. ”

                  How does mental capacity make someone a person?

                  Can a person still be a person even if they lack a certain degree of measurable brain activity?

                  How much activity is required before one attains personhood?

                  Am I less a “person” if I don’t have the mental capacity of someone who is smarter?

                  What if I am in an induced coma?

                  What if my diminished metal condition is temporary?

                  You said, “It is never left alone. There is another person with it at all times that you’re forgetting about. It is her decision.”

                  And the same is for a born child of 1 month old. Does this give the mother the right to take that life as well?

                • Cake

                  Women are not invisible.
                  Women are people.
                  Women don’t stop being people just because they are pregnant.

                • Albert

                  You said, “Women are not invisible. Women are people. Women don’t stop being people just because they are pregnant.”

                  I agree.

                  What’s your point?

                • Carmelita Spats

                  Telling a woman that birth control pills and the IUD are abortifacients/abortifactants and that she is a serial killer for having an IUD in her uterus is ERASING the woman and treating her body as a sloppy jizz rag for the fertility cult known as the Roman Criminal Church.

                  The Roman Criminal Church ONLY accepts the disgusting Rhythm/Billings/Cretyon method which involves sticking your fingers into your vagina, pulling out vaginal mucus, playing with the mucus and abstaining from sex during ovulation. Since women’s bodies are ALL DIFFERENT, fuckwit, some women have to have cushion days before and after ovulation. By the time you calculate the cushion days before ovulation, after ovulation and the entire menstrual cycle, you are left with about a week of sexual activity every month. In my “Pre Cana” class, the Catholic sicko giving advice on “conjugal relations” suggested that women have sex during their MENSTRUAL CYCLE because, “blood acts as a lubricant”. EWWWW! Take a whiff of menstrual blood, sniff your fingers…it smells like rotting asparagus and who the hell cleans the sheets? The woman? Some women bleed like a stuck pig, bloated and cramped, and the LAST thing they want is a fuck while they’re in pain. The Pre-Cana sicko only responded with “blood acts as a lubricant” because I cornered him; because of my incessant questions regarding abstinence in marriage after I calculated the number of days that you would have to abstain if you do NOT want a pregnancy.

                  When a woman has to consider birth control options with her gynecologist in light of POTENTIAL people lodging in her uterus, you are treating her like an animal…a dumbass piece of meat fit for caging and breeding to the point of fashioning her exhausted uterus with a hydraulic pump and a revolving door. We could speculate all day about the Virgin Mary’s capacious vaginal dimensions and her sticky insemination by her Son since Father and Son are One… but we just don’t have enough wine on hand for that. Gross.

                  The Pill Kills:
                  http://thepillkills.com/

                • Albert

                  I’m not part of the Roman Church. I have not made any religious claims or held those positions. I have not stated that I’m against contraceptives. So most of your comment will be ignored as I don’t believe it applies to my argument.

                  I have stated that science has shown that a human being is created at conception.

                  This means there are now two lives in the balance here, not just one. And the new life is there because of the choices of the mother.

                  All human beings have a right to life.

                  Once a woman is pregnant, she already has a child.

                  People will say that a pregnancy is life threatening. I agree. The fact that a woman is pregnant is a health threat already. Last I seen it was around 15 deaths per 100,000 births. In the case of abortion it is 100,000 deaths per 100,000 abortions.

                  You might say that I’m being cavalier about a life, but in my option, a woman going to term is a 0.015% chance of the loss of life; where in the case of abortion, it is a 100% chance of loss of life.

                  So who really is the one that is being cavalier about life?

                  Most mother’s would be willing to put their lives between their child and harm. Mothers have a responsibility to their children, regardless if they are unborn or born.

                • osiote

                  I have stated that science has shown that a human being is created at conception.

                  Science has stated that a human organism is created at conception. It says nothing about human BEING ie person being created at conception.

                  Stop lying.

                  All human beings have a right to life.

                  The right to life does not trump the right to bodily autonomy.

                  Once a woman is pregnant, she already has a child.

                  No, once she is pregnant she has a potential child. Children are born entities.

                  You might say that I’m being cavalier about a life, but in my option, a woman going to term is a 0.015% chance of the loss of life; where in the case of abortion, it is a 100% chance of loss of life.

                  Well, you’re certainly cavalier about disability resulting from pregnancy. You don’t think fathers should be legally forced to donate blood organs or bone marrow to born children that they created in order to ‘save a life’ but you would expect a woman to go blind, incontinent, develop diabetes, or a host of any other disabilities during pregnancy all because she chose to have sex.

                  You believe that a pregnancy should be punishment for a woman refusing to remain virginal. You ARE a slut-shamer, whether you admit it or not.

                  Oh, and you’re a dumb fuck too.

                • Albert

                  You said, “Science has stated that a human organism is created at conception. It
                  says nothing about human BEING ie person being created at conception.”

                  What is a human organism?

                  What is a human being?

                  What makes them different?

                  “Human development begins at fertilization when a sperm fuses with an oocyte to form a single cell, a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.[Chapter 2 p.14 – First Week of Human Development - The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology : Authors - Keith Lean Moore, Trivedi V. N. Persaud, Mark G. Torchia : Edition 9, illustrated, reprint : Publisher Elsevier/Saunders, 2013 ISBN 1437720021, 9781437720020]”

                  This indicates that a unique individual starts at conception.

                  You said, “The right to life does not trump the right to bodily autonomy.”

                  What do you base this claim on?

                  You said, “No, once she is pregnant she has a potential child. Children are born entities.”

                  Webster’s defines potentially as, “capable of becoming real”

                  Are you saying that what is growing inside the mother isn’t real?

                  You either potentially create a life or you create a life with potential. You never create a potential life. This is bad logic and clever rhetorical on your part.

                  You said, ” You don’t think fathers should be legally forced to donate blood organs or bone marrow to born children that they created in order to ‘save a life’…”

                  Doesn’t this go against your whole bodily autonomy argument? Are you formulating contradictions in order to justify murdering a unborn human being?

                  Do you believe a father should be legally forced to donate blood, organs or bone marrow?

                  You said, “…but you would expect a woman to go blind, incontinent, develop diabetes, or a host of any other disabilities during pregnancy all because she chose to have sex.”

                  You seemed to miss the paragraph before the one you quoted where I agreed that pregnancy is a health threat to the woman.

                  But certainly you would agree that if a woman is taking responsibility to control her own body that she would weigh the risks involved with getting pregnant before she has sexual intercourse, wouldn’t you?

                  Seems to me what you are giving her with the right hand, complete say and control of her own body, you are taking away with your left hand by trying to blame other people for the choices she has made.

                  Sorry, but if she chose to have consensual sex, and what is inside of her when she gets pregnant is another living human being, then she is now responsible for the care and well being of that other human being at least until it comes to term and is birthed. This is part of the consequence of getting pregnant.

                  You said, “You believe that a pregnancy should be punishment for a woman refusing to remain virginal.”

                  I never said pregnancy is a punishment. I said it’s a possible outcome from having consensual sex. I’m not applying any punishment or guilt to this situation.

                  Any punishment or guilt for having consensual sex would have to be a determination from the pregnant woman’s point of view.

                  You said, ” You ARE a slut-shamer, whether you admit it or not.”

                  Am I reading that right, you are saying that a woman that has consensual sex is a slut?

                  And I’m shaming her because I’m telling her to be responsible and deal with the consequences of her actions?

                  I’m not sure woman that chose to have consensual sex would appreciate you calling them a slut.

                  As far as me shaming them, how am I doing that?

                  Webster’s defines shame as, “a feeling of guilt, regret, or sadness that you have because you know you have done something wrong”

                  That means you are saying that the woman choosing to have consensual sex believes what she did was wrong.

                  If anyone is shaming a woman who chose to have consensual sex, it’s you by calling her a slut.

                  I’m not shaming anyone.
                  I’m simply stating that if a woman gets pregnant, she is now responsible for the health and well being of the human being she was a party in creating.
                  There is no shame in taking responsibility for our actions, is there?

                • dance commander

                  Sentience.

                  And yes, you are slut-shaming and have been all along. Hence the rape exemption. No matter how much you try to deny it.

                  There is no shame in taking responsibility for our actions, is there?

                  Yeah. That’s what the recent Nobel Prize winners were told. That they had better ‘take responsibility’ for their ‘actions’ and accept the Prize. Accept the *consequences* of their behaviour.

                  You have just proved my point. That you see pregnancy as punishment for a woman DARING to exercise the same sexual freedom as men.

                  Women should be able to pursue sex without wanting to become mothers. Consent to sex doesn’t equal consent to pregnancy. The claim that a woman should only have sex if she wants to become a mother – that’s simply a variant of motherhood being the only natural or proper role for women.

                  You believe that fetuses are human beings, right? So you believe that one human being has the right to, by force of law, require that another human being give up her liberty and use her very body to provide without compensation and against her will resources purely for their own benefit, at the cost of permanent changes to the woman’s body and risk to her physical health, mental health, and future fertility.

                  All for the ‘crime’ of having sex.

                  How do you define slavery?

                • Kodie

                  Abortion is a responsible reaction to an unexpected pregnancy. You are shaming them into their “consequences”. You are labeling them. Own up to it, since that is what you’re doing. If you can’t read English properly, just say so, we’ll find a translation that you can understand.

                • dance commander

                  What is a human organism?

                  What is a human being?

                  What makes them different?

                  Already explained this to you numerous times. Human beings are sentient creatures, they are not undifferentiated clumps of tissue.

                  This indicates that a unique individual starts at conception.

                  I guess that means it’s ok to kill twins and clones. And chimaras.

                  You said, “The right to life does not trump the right to bodily autonomy.”

                  What do you base this claim on?

                  If Ariel Castro’s victims had killed him in order to escape would they have been in the wrong? Does the kidnapper’s right to life override the victim’s rights to their own freedom and bodies? Well?

                  You either potentially create a life or you create a life with potential. You never create a potential life. This is bad logic and clever rhetorical on your part.

                  It’s alive, but so is every cell in your body. And the sperm and egg. But a zygote isn’t a child. As I have repeatedly explained to you. It is only a potential child. It is incomplete and unformed. A zygote is merely a blueprint. You can’t say that a blueprint is a skyscraper, now can you?

                  That means you are saying that the woman choosing to have consensual sex believes what she did was wrong.

                  No, that is what YOU believe. Hence the initial exemption for victims of rape. You said they didn’t CHOOSE to have sex.

                  We are all wise to you. As Kodie pointed out 10+ hours ago, and wmdkitty the other day, you are all about controlling female sexuality.

                • glebealyth

                  I have stated that science has shown that a human being is created at conception.

                  Tell us, Albert, just how many unicellular human beings you know.
                  One is the full complement of cells in existence at conception.

                • Albert

                  You said, “Tell us, Albert, just how many unicellular human beings you know.”

                  If I don’t know of any, does that mean they don’t exist?

                  I don’t personally know any because they continue to grow if not interfered with. What’s your point?

                  You said, “One is the full complement of cells in existence at conception.”

                  I’m not sure what you are saying here. Can you elaborate?

                • glebealyth

                  One cell does not a human make.

                • Albert

                  You said, “One cell does not a human make.”

                  Are you saying that at conception a woman could be pregnant with a dog or a horse or a tree?

                • dance commander

                  That one cell is a genetic blueprint containing human DNA.

                  This has been explained to you.

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                  Repeatedly, even.

                • dance commander

                  He is like myintx with the word games, only more verbose.

                  I was talking to my mom today, and I explained the ‘pregnancy is analogous to a broken leg healing’ argument. I asked her to explain HOW exactly pregnancy could be analagous to the broken leg healing ,and she couldn’t figure it out. Finally I had to explain it to her. She said the idea was so ‘out there’ and so ‘fucking stupid’ that she couldn’t see how gestation and a violent birth were at all similar to breaking your leg, getting it set, and getting the cast removed in two months.

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                  I know, and now he’s pulling the “I was just asking questions” line.

                  What a JAQ-ass…

                • glebealyth

                  No, Albert, YOU are saying that, not I.

                  I will thank you not to put words in my mouth.

                  You know exactly what I am saying.

                  You are merely being obtuse as a means of evading the issue, as you usually do.

                • Albert

                  You said, “No, Albert, YOU are saying that, not I. I will thank you not to put words in my mouth.”

                  I didn’t put words into your mouth. Did you notice the question mark at the end of the sentence? It was for clarification.

                  You said, “You know exactly what I am saying.”

                  Actually I don’t. The reason being is because the quote I keep posting says that a human is a individual unique human at conception.

                  If you don’t believe that, then what is a human being?
                  You said, “You are merely being obtuse as a means of evading the issue, as you usually do.”

                  And what issue am I evading? Please let me know. I would be glad to address it.

                • glebealyth

                  A single fertilized ovum is NOT an individual human being, in the same way that a winder or an hour hand is not a watch.
                  Until that egg has developed into something which can, within the limits and constraints of infancy, sustain itself as an individual, it is not a human being.

                  To use your ridiculous reductio ad absurdum approach, it might be argued that an unfertilized ovum is a potential human being, requiring only the ministrations of a sperm to complete its potential, making the almighty a murderer on a monthly basis for every fertile woman.

                  BTW, can you clear up for me the source of the science on which you base your claim that “science informs us that a human being is formed at conception”? When we know the source of your claim, it will be possible properly to address it.

                • Albert

                  You said, “A single fertilized ovum is NOT an individual human being, in the same way that a winder or an hour hand is not a watch.”

                  This quote says differently:
                  “Human development begins at fertilization when a sperm fuses with an oocyte to form a single cell, a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.[Chapter 2 p.14 – First Week of Human Development - The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology : Authors - Keith Lean Moore, Trivedi V. N. Persaud, Mark G. Torchia : Edition 9, illustrated, reprint : Publisher Elsevier/Saunders, 2013 ISBN 1437720021, 9781437720020]”

                  If you would like to provide evidence that refutes this, I’m all open to hearing what you have to say.

                  In regards to your “winder or an hour hand is not a watch” portion of your comment, what you are doing is describing parts of a watch, not the watch as a whole. The winder doesn’t grow into a watch, it is always a winder; the hour hand is always an hour hand. This is equating body parts to the whole.

                  Of course an arm is not a human being, it is part of a human being. But at conception, that single totipotent cell marks the beginning of a human being. If that totipotent cell is not a unique individual human being, then it has to be a part of it, right? So which part is it?

                  The reality is it’s the whole of the human being at the earliest stages of development.

                  That totipotent cell doesn’t change into a arm, or a brain or whatever else. It is the human being at the start. The brain and the other organs come from that totipotent cell and grow as their own parts. But the totipotent cell, or zygote is not a part, it is the human being as a whole.

                  You said, “To use your ridiculous reductio ad absurdum approach, it might be argued that an unfertilized ovum is a potential human being, requiring only the ministrations of a sperm to complete its potential, making the almighty a murderer on a monthly basis for every fertile woman.”

                  You’re right, it could be argued that way. But that isn’t how I’m arguing it. You have to refute my argument, not your argument of choice.

                  No, my contention is that of a basic biological fact that human embryos are actual human beings in the earliest stages of their natural development. Human embryos(or fetuses, or infants) do not differ in kind from mature human beings. A fetus is not like a carrot that differs from a human being. Rather the difference between human embryos (fetuses, infants) and adults is a difference merely in stage or degree of development of precisely the same kind of being.

                  A fertilized egg is not like the gametes that came together to create the new human being. Gametes are not human beings.

                  Somatic cells have not only all of the organizational information needed but also the active disposition to use that information to develop themselves to the stage of a mature human being. This is what we call the unique human being from conception. Before = Gametes, after the union = a human being.

                  This is not a potential human being, but there is a human being with potential. Totally different argument that what you are suggesting.

                  You said, “BTW, can you clear up for me the source of the science on which you base your claim that “science informs us that a human being is formed at conception”? When we know the source of your claim, it will be possible properly to address”

                  I am basing this science claim on this quote from a textbook that is used to train new and incoming embryologists/developmental biologists.

                  “Human development begins at fertilization when a sperm fuses with an oocyte to form a single cell, a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.[Chapter 2 p.14 – First Week of Human Development - The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology : Authors - Keith Lean Moore, Trivedi V. N. Persaud, Mark G. Torchia : Edition 9, illustrated, reprint : Publisher Elsevier/Saunders, 2013 ISBN 1437720021, 9781437720020]”

                  If you disagree with this quote What scientific evidence do you have to show this is incorrect?

                  What is a human being?

                  What is a person?

                  What are the differences between a human being and a person?

                  “Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.” [article 2 : http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml ]

                  See that ‘birth or other status’ portion in there? That covers the unborn.

                  What evidence to you have to show that this unborn human being does not have the same rights as you and me?

                • glebealyth

                  You’re right, it could be argued that way. But that isn’t how I’m arguing it. You have to refute my argument, not your argument of choice.

                  Which is precisely why I complained about your reference to a women being “pregnant with a horse, dog or tree”.

                  The book you quote says: “Human development begins at fertilization when a sperm fuses with an oocyte to form a single cell, a zygote.” It does not say that at fertilization a human being is formed. A case could conceivably be made for human development beginning at ejaculation or ovulation, as both are prerequisites for the later act of fertilization and thus start the process of “human development”

                  I do not believe either you, or the book, have made the case for a human being having come about at fertilization, but only that the process of human development can be said, somewhat arbitrarily, to have begun then.

                  I think your interpretation of “birth or other status” is wrong. It is clearly not attempting to say that those who have been born and those who have not been born are included, but is referring to local considerations of class or caste. To read it the way you are reading it requires far too big a stretch, which even UN lawyers, not best known for their perspicacity, would never have attempted to make.

                  What evidence to you have to show that this unborn human being does not have the same rights as you and me(sic)?

                  You are now beginning to “evade” by insisting that I answer a question which is convenient to you, but which is not the issue under discussion. We are at odds over the point at which a human being is created and whether or not a created human being has or does not have rights is a) moot and b) outside the scope of our discussion. Please desist and play by the rules you insist that I adhere to.

                • Kodie
                • dance commander

                  lulz

                  wlad is ignoring me – again, along with Albert here

                  I can’t count how many times a pro-lifer has ignored me because I was ‘rude’ and ‘disrespectful’.

                  They think that outright lying and intellectual dishonesty should get a free pass. That treating us like broodmares should be inoffensive. But call them on it, and you’re a mean, hateful bitch.

                  They actively look for excuses to ignore points that discredit their positions. Hence the obsession with tone trolling.

                • Fred

                  OMG! That’s like a thousand carrots right there!
                  You should be ashamed for wasting so much food.

                • baal

                  Tool (the band) on listening to the cries of the carrots. I don’t have a point with it but provide the link for another perspective.

                • dance commander

                  Rather the difference between human embryos (fetuses, infants) and
                  adults is a difference merely in stage or degree of development of
                  precisely the same kind of being.

                  I’ve proven you wrong. I’ll keep doing it until you acknowledge that you are wrong.

                  1) Biologist Scott Gilbert writes:

                  Genetics

                  This view states that a genetically unique person begins at conception – a fertilized egg now hosts a complete genome, making it distinct from the sex cells that came before it. This definition has the advantage of saying that a new individual has been created that can be distinct from its parents, but is still limited by the fact that
                  this embryo is still in an early stage of development and far from viable as an individual.

                  This view also causes a funny paradox in the case of monozygotic (identical) twins: each twin does not exist as an individual when “its life begins” – that is, when it is conceived as the embryo doesn’t split into two parts until later. This paradox could possibly be resolved by considering the pre-twinning embryo as a disparate entity
                  from either of the resulting embryos. This is why viewing the formation of life as a continuous process rather than a single event is beneficial.

                  Instructions for Development and Heredity are NOT all in the Fertilised egg. The view that we are genetically determined by the combination of parental DNA has been shown to fall far short of the complete story. How
                  the DNA is interpreted can vary greatly affected by things such as the maternal diet. Similarly some development requires certain bacteria to be present. Thirdly, and most surprisingly, the level of maternal care can determine which areas of DNA are ‘methylated’ which radically alters
                  how they are interpreted. As such the view that we are ‘complete but unformed’ at conception is far from accurate.

                  The Embryo is NOT Safe Within the Womb. Modern research shows that 30% or fewer fertilised eggs will go on to become foetuses. Many of these early miscarriages
                  are because of abnormal numbers of chromosomes. The view that every fertilised egg is a potential human being is wrong in around 70% of cases.

                  There is NOT a Moment of Fertilisation when the passive egg receives the active sperm.Again recent research has shown that the previous commonly held view that the fastest sperm races towards the egg and, bingo, we’re up and running is wrong on many levels. Fertilisation is a process taking up to four days. As such there is no magic moment, rather there is a process.

                  There is NO consensus amongst scientists that life begins at conception.There isn’t even consensus amongst scientists as to whether there’s consensus. However, Scott Gilbert’s paper lists embryologists who support each of the major view points belying the common and oft
                  repeated assertion that there is consensus amongst embryologists, let alone scientists.

                  Neurology

                  Just as death is usually defined by the cessation of brain activity, so the start of life can be defined as the start of a recognisable Electroencephalography[wp] (EEG) pattern from the fetus. This is usually twenty four to twenty seven weeks after conception.[1]

                  The point of using neurological factors rather than other signs such as a heartbeat is that this is a much more useful indicator from the point of view of science. A heart beats using mostly involuntary muscle movements so is really little different from any other spontaneous motion or metabolic processes. A heartbeat means relatively
                  little in real terms, although it is more dramatic from an emotive point of view.

                  When discussing the philosophical and/or ethical
                  issues, surrounding the start of life the desire for science to provide a clear cut human/non human boundary is very understandable. We need to be able to define this because it is important in our laws and our understandings. However, even from the brief descriptions given above, it is clear that there is no simple answer that science can give. It may well be that reality doesn’t have an answer for us, and that “when does
                  life begin?” is, in fact, a meaningless question.

                  The entity created by fertilization is indeed a human embryo, and it has the potential to be human adult. Whether these facts are enough to accord it personhood is a question influenced by opinion, philosophy and theology, rather than by science.

                  Indeed, the potential for human life can begin very early, but it is personhood that is the sticking point. The question is very much whether the two are equal and therefore happen at the same point. Leaving the answer in the hands of philosophy and opinion however makes
                  the distinction between “life” and “non-life” purely subjective and the answer will be different for everyone. This is the most important fact to bear in mind, particularly when discussing legalities – subjective thoughts cannot and should not be forced upon everyone fairly.

                  2) Biologist John Sullivan MD PhD writes:

                  You and I contain much, much more information, both genetic and otherwise, than a blastocyst. That’s why I can write this column and you can read it, whereas a blastocyst just.. .sits there. Indeed, that is the exactly the point of stem cell research: the stem cells in the blastocyst have not yet acquired the molecular programming required for differentiation, and so they remain pluripotent, awaiting the necessary molecular signals (the information) that will tell them whether to become nerve or muscle, skin or bone.

                  Yes, once upon a time we were blastocysts, too. Nothing more than a little clump of cells, each of them a snippet of DNA surrounded by cytoplasm. But that DNA was later transcribed into RNA, and that RNA was translated into proteins. And some of those proteins were transcription factors that told other cells in the blastocyst what to do, when to divide, where to migrate. Transcription factors regulated the expression of still other transcription factors. Genes were turned on and off with clockwork precision. Some genes were methylated, so they could never be turned on again.

                  In other words, the genome and the proteome of the blastocyst were changed as the embryo accumulated molecular information that the blastocyst did not have.

                  The embryo became a fetus, with complex orientations of tissues–loaded with spatial, genetic, biochemical and mechanical information that simply did not exist in the embryo.

                  The fetus became a child with a nervous system, and that nervous system sucked up information about the world, hard-wiring pathways for vision and movement, learning to make subtle distinctions between this and that, accumulating information that simply did not exist in the fetus.

                  In other words, the blastocyst launched a genetic program that both extracted and acquired information. It didn’t start out as a human being. It became a human being, with a personality, feelings, attitudes and memories, by accumulating information that was not there before.

                  Equating a blastocyst with a human being is like equating a brand new copy of an inexpensive spreadsheet program with the priceless databases that you’ll eventually build up with that program. It’s no less ridiculous than saying that a blueprint has the same value as a skyscraper–that it is the skycraper.

                  No. They are not the same.

                • dance commander

                  he is ignoring all of the science that I present him with too

                  it’s too inconvenient for him to acknowledge that he might be wrong

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                  Of course! How could a manly-man like Al here ever possibly be wrong? After all, our fluffy pink lady-brains are just too fragile to understand what abortion really does!

                  *spits*

                • dance commander
                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                  *snorfle* Wonderful!

                • Kodie

                  Are you saying that your toenail is a person?

                • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

                  Is my appendix a person? It has lots of human cells.

                • Fred

                  No, but your mother could.

                • dance commander

                  Ignoring me is the easy way out, isn’t it? That way you can ignore arguments that show the folly and ignorance of the shit that spews out of your keyboard:

                  Biologist Johnathan M Sullivan MD PHD writes:

                  “You and I contain much, much more information, both
                  genetic and otherwise, than a blastocyst. That’s why I can write this column and you can read it, whereas a blastocyst just.. .sits there. Indeed, that is the exactly the point of stem cell research:the stem cells in the blastocyst have not yet acquired the molecular programming required for differentiation, and so they remain pluripotent, awaiting the necessary molecular
                  signals (the information) that will tell them whether
                  to become nerve or muscle, skin or bone.

                  Nothing more than a little clump of cells, each of them a snippet of DNA surrounded by cytoplasm. But that DNA was later transcribed into RNA, and that RNA was translated into proteins. And some of those proteins
                  were transcription factors that told other cells in the blastocyst what to do, when to divide, where to migrate. Transcription factors regulated the expression of still other transcription factors. Genes were turned on and off with clockwork precision. Some genes were methylated, so they could never be turned on again.

                  In other words, the genome and the proteome of the blastocyst were changed as the embryo accumulated molecular information that the blastocyst did not have.

                  The embryo became a fetus, with complex orientations of
                  tissues–loaded with spatial, genetic, biochemical and mechanical information that simply did not exist in the embryo.

                  The fetus became a child with a nervous system, and that nervous system sucked up information about the world, hard-wiring pathways for vision and movement, learning to make subtle distinctions between this and that, accumulating information that simply did not exist in the fetus.

                  In other words, the blastocyst launched a genetic program that both
                  extracted and acquired information. It didn’t start out
                  as a human being. It became a human being, with a
                  personality, feelings, attitudes and memories, by accumulating
                  information that was not there before.

                  Equating a blastocyst with a human being is like equating a brand new copy of an inexpensive spreadsheet program with the priceless databases that you’ll eventually build up with that program. It’s no
                  less ridiculous than saying that a blueprint has the same value as a skyscraper–that it is the skycraper.

                  No. They are not the same”

                  ————

                  It is impossible for a genetic blueprint to be a human being, you ignorant slut-shaming fuckwit.

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                  She’s saying that, at conception, there is only ONE SINGLE SOLITARY CELL, and you are wrong to call that ONE SINGLE SOLITARY CELL a person.

                  It’s like calling an amoeba a “person”.

                • Albert

                  You said, “She’s saying that, at conception, there is only ONE SINGLE SOLITARY
                  CELL, and you are wrong to call that ONE SINGLE SOLITARY CELL a person.”

                  I didn’t say it, scientists, experts in their field said it. I merely posted this quote:

                  “Human development begins at fertilization when a sperm fuses with an oocyte to form a single cell, a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.[Chapter 2 p.14 – First Week of Human Development - The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology : Authors - Keith Lean Moore, Trivedi V. N. Persaud, Mark G. Torchia : Edition 9, illustrated, reprint : Publisher Elsevier/Saunders, 2013 ISBN 1437720021, 9781437720020]”

                  What science do you have to show this is incorrect?

                  What is a human being?

                  What is a person?

                  What are the differences between a human being and a person?

                • C.L. Honeycutt

                  The fact that a woman is pregnant is a health threat already. Last I seen it was around 15 deaths per 100,000 births

                  Good thing that mortal scientists and health professionals have worked so hard to help bring about that low number. It used to be quite high because God doesn’t give a rat’s ass if a woman dies after three days of screaming agony because something went wrong. Thank God for doctors willing to excise a miscarriage and mature and rational enough to put decisions in the hands of the people they affect after their Creator couldn’t be fucking bothered to even express sympathy for the shit He started, or even to tell the people screaming in His name to stop making things up.

                  The remainder of your post relies entirely on misrepresentation, false equivalency, demands that your assumptions be treated as facts, and your deliberately ignoring information that you’ve been given repeatedly. Congratulations.

                • Discordia

                  I think that you and people like you need to stay out of the entire abortion argument completely unless you are willing to act as that child’s father and provide all of the financial and emotional support but it and it’s mother will need for the next eighteen+ years. You will be free to protest the abortion of each and every child you are willing to step up to the plate for. Pro-birthers act like the mother not only pushes out a baby but apparently a bag of about ten million dollars so she won’t have to worry about any financial problems until that child is grown.

                  You are arguing from a pro-birth stance wherein all you care about is another human being added to the seven billion that are here already. You don’t care if the mother has the financial independence required to raise that child by herself or even if she has a decent enough education to get a job that will support both of them. You don’t care if there is adequate health coverage for both of them, you don’t care if there is a good school for that child to go to. You don’t care if she is able to care for that child or not. You don’t care about their housing or their transportation or childcare or anything. You just want someones sloppy dickwork to be pushed out after nine months and after that, you don’t give a tinker’s damn because you will not be held accountable for anything involving the raising of that child. You want to while about “abortion killing unborn children” while completely ignoring the fact that neglect, poor nutrition, gangs, disease, SIDS, ignorance, car wrecks, poverty, homelessness, molestation, the sex trade, asbestos infested houses, abuse or hundreds of other things that ALSO kills kids.

                  Until we don’t have the millions of American children living in poverty and being at-risk, I think you should find something a bit more important to worry about than the few pregnancies that are being aborted. If you don’t care about the kids we have now, why should you care about the ones that are aborted?

                • dance commander

                  In case you missed it, he’s a slut-shamer.

                  He told me that he would allow rape victims to have abortions because they didn’t CHOOSE to have sex.

                • Discordia

                  Wow and here I was, thinking that he would INSTEAD be insisting that rape victims should be marrying their rapists to make a whole and complete family. Guess he has moved up a level in my estimation since most of those “fertilized egg = adult human being” mindsetters also think abortion in any case is evil evil evil (while they just fine with cutting WIC and other social programs along with education).

                  Yes, I did miss that slut-shaming bit, but no, I am not surprised. And odd, isn’t it, how they all are so very eager to shame and blame us evil, whoring women like we all get pregnant all by ourselves?

                • dance commander

                  You should read through his shit. It is alternately amusing and infuriating.

                  He clearly hates female sexuality, but doesn’t want us to know it. So he is contorting himself to prove that consent to sex is consent to pregnancy, and that pregnancy is just as wonderfully healthy as letting a broken leg heal.

                  Oh, and the best part? When he was presented with a list of the SEVERE health effects of pregnancy (blindness, diabetes, cancer, bone loss etc) he said that when a woman has sex, she also accepts these health risks. So basically, if your unwanted pregnancy causes you to go blind, it’s your fault for being such a slut.

                  Isn’t he cute?

                  And he is ignoring me now because I dogged him on his slut-shaming. He thought it was rude;( his fee fees are hurt.

                • Discordia

                  I have read some of his prattle. It isn’t much different from any of the other “True Believer” blathering. It’s still the same blame-the-woman crap they have been spewing since some goathearder woke up with some species-jumping STD and blamed it on his mother for not letting him crawl in her bed the night before and decided to write a book about it.

                  *bats eyes innocently*

                  Do you think Albert would have been more of a man if that dog had been a little quicker and beaten his father over that fence?

                • Discordia

                  PS
                  I suspect you are nothing like your moniker….

                • dance commander

                  Joseph O Polanco was the inspiration behind my ‘nym.

                  He came here, spouting latin phrases taken from google translate, and accused those who disagreed with him of being ‘jejune’

                  The man is inspirational!

                • Discordia

                  Yeah, I made a few comments here when I saw what a couple of people I follow had to say to him and what inspired the comments. He then made an appearance on the site I frequent and quickly wore out his already tenuous welcome.
                  He is one of those who validate my reasons for leaving Christianity behind. He is the sort of heavenbound that continue to make hell look better and better.

                • Cake

                  I cannot take blood or organs from a person without consent, even if I were dying.
                  I cannot take blood or organs from a Dead Person without their consent even if I were dying.

                  Why does a pregnant person have less rights than a Dead one?

                • osiote

                  Because, she was a slut who chose to have sex and put it there. So the slut should be obligated to carry the fetus to term.

                  Sorry, couldn’t resist. This is the crux of Albert’s argument, and he gets mad at me when I point it out.

                • Albert

                  You said, “I cannot take blood or organs from a person without consent, even if I were dying.”

                  I agree.

                  You said, “I cannot take blood or organs from a person without consent, even if I were dying.”

                  Again, I agree.

                  You said, “Why does a pregnant person have less rights than a Dead one?”

                  I never said that a pregnant person has less rights than a dead one.

                  I said that ALL human beings have equal rights. I have never swayed from this stance in anything I have said.
                  I said that ALL human beings have a say(are in control) in what happens to their own body. I have not swayed from this stance in anything I have said.

                • Kodie

                  IF you grant person status to the embryo, then you also have to honor the rights of the hostage to be rid of her captor.

                • Albert

                  You said, “IF you grant person status to the embryo, then you also have to honor the rights of the hostage to be rid of her captor.”

                  Webster’s defines captor as, “someone who has captured a person and is keeping that person as a prisoner”
                  And they define prisoner as, “a person deprived of liberty and kept under involuntary restraint, confinement, or custody”
                  And the define involuntary as, “not done or made consciously: not done by choice”

                  And that is my complete argument. The woman chose this as a possible outcome when she decided to have consensual sex. This was not involuntary as you would like to think, but a possible outcome that the woman accepted once she decided to engage in sexual intercourse.
                  Therefore, she is not a hostage, as you presume, but a willing party to this situation.
                  Was it the outcome she was hoping for? Not if she didn’t want to get pregnant, no. But this did not remove it as a possible outcome. She knew that before having sex, right? She understood, as you do, that no amount of contraceptives or protection is 100% guaranteed to keep her from this particular outcome.

                  So when she decided to have consensual sex, she accepted pregnancy as a possible outcome. Therefore, she is not a hostage, as you presume.

                  You still have not told me the difference between a human being and a person. Are you able to do that?

                • dance commander

                  Are you willfully ignorant or are you just that uneducated about fetal development ? Either way, you need to educate yourself before you take the liberty to make decisions for others based on false, or just flat out misleading statements.

                  Your glib and unsupported statements clearly will not hold up to any sort of scrutiny from an unbiased and educated mind.I will give you the benefit of the doubt and presume that you are just plain uneducated so I will spell out reality of fetal development and the development of sentience and awareness to you.

                  A brain-dead person with a functioning heart/lungs/brain stem will still show electrical activity in the brain, but they won’t show the particular “brainwaves” that are characteristic of the higher cortical functions of cognition. So the whole EEG isn’t “flat”, just the part of the EEG profile that shows a thinking person is using that brain tissue.

                  (A better description would be the more scientific exactitude of “clinical significant electrical brain activity” to avoid confusion.)

                  At this point no “person” with sentience or awareness is present in the body, and it is legal to discontinue life support, and harvest organs for transplant, as without a functioning brain the body is just a collection of tissue.

                  People who are diagnosed as clinically brain dead are routinely disconnected from life support and used to provide the organs for transplantations (no murder charges have ever been filled for this and none ever will be) A fetus does not have the bilaterally synchronous electroencephalographic patterns in the cortical area of the brain to be considered alive until 26-30 weeks of gestation, exactly like those who are diagnosed as clinically brain dead by physicians.

                  People who are considered clinically brain-dead, have brainwaves (and sometimes even a beating heart), just not in the part of the brain that means that they are still alive.At this point doctors can start organ harvesting or turn off life support, no murder charges have ever, or will ever be been filed.

                  A fetus younger then 26-30 weeks does not have all the brain structure (cortex) or the synapse, neurons etc in place to show more brain activity then a person who is clinically brain dead, as measured with the same machine (EEG) The heart might beat, but nobody is home.

                  No embryo or fetus has ever been found to have “brain
                  waves,” before 26-30 weeks gestation, although extensive EEG studies have been done on premature babies.

                  In fact a fetus does not have a functional cortex before
                  20-24 weeks gestation, no neurons, dendrites, and axons, with synapses between them are physically present. (Pretty hard to show activity in a structure that is not even present yet)

                  Since these requirements are not present in the human cortex before 20-24 weeks of gestation, it is not possible to record the clinical significant electrical brain activity indicative of any form sentience and awareness prior to 20-24 weeks. (at that point the cerebral cortex can display some small intermittent non synchronous activity (“stutter”) This is not surprising since it is pretty hard to show activity in a brain structure that is not even present yet.

                  Functional maturity of the cerebral cortex is suggested by fetal and neonatal electroencephalographic patterns, bilaterally synchronous electroencephalograpic are ONLY seen at a minimum of 26 to 29 weeks gestation.

                  Studies used are;
                  -Hamlin,H. (1964), “Life or Death by EEG,”Journal of the American Medical Association, October 12,113
                  -J. Goldenring, “Development of the Fetal Brain,” New England Jour. of Med., Aug. 26, 1982, p. 564
                  -K.J.S. Anand, a leading researcher on pain in newborns, and P.R. Hickey, published in NEJM

                  So until the fetus has the same level of clinical brain activity (first seen at 26-29 weeks gestation, well after abortion becomes unavailable) as the woman in question, it is very dishonest (to say the least) to award the fetus more human rights then the woman.

                  ·
                  “human beings at any stage of development are persons”
                  This clearly illustrates that you consider a single cell organism as just as much a person as the woman.
                  That whole concept is incredibly ludicrous to anyone who has ever taken the time to look at a woman and at a fertilized egg!

                  So up to the 26 week point the only actual person involved is the woman, the fetus just has the potential to eventually become equally a person like the mother already is.

                  You do not have the right to mandate that another woman should have her body used for the benefit of a third person. What makes you believe it is alright to violate her human and civil rights to the sanctity of her own body for a potential life that has not even manifested yet?!

                • Kodie

                  Webster’s defines captor as, “someone who has captured a person and is keeping that person as a prisoner”
                  And they define prisoner as, “a person deprived of liberty and kept under involuntary restraint, confinement, or custody”
                  And the define involuntary as, “not done or made consciously: not done by choice”

                  It is hard to see the part where you are arguing against me. IF an embryo is a person, this is exactly the situation that pregnancy is.

                  It is not done by choice. Choice is picking what to eat for dinner, you have a choice. Go to the trouble of cooking spaghetti, or heat up fish sticks again. You put it in your mouth, chew it up, it goes down to the stomach. You have NO CHOICE what happens next. You have no choice to digest that food or get sick from it, or whatever happens. You have no choice when it’s on the other end. Poop is what happens when you eat. You can try to affect your diet to avoid diarrhea, but if that’s what happens, there is not a lot of choice. No amount of dietary planning can avoid diarrhea 100%.

                  Are you a hostage to diarrhea? Chained to your home, somewhere near the toilet? Or take an imodium and get on with your day, pick up some gatorade at the corner store.

                  Sex is not pregnancy, eating is not diarrhea. You dig?

                • dance commander

                  Just you wait, he’s going to show you the dictionary definition of diarrhea and teach you a thing or two!!!!!

                • dance commander

                  Well, in your view, a rape embryo shouldn’t have ‘equal rights’ because it wasn’t created through consensual sex.

                  Asshole.

                • Albert

                  You said, Well, in your view, a rape embryo shouldn’t have ‘equal rights’ because it wasn’t created through consensual sex.”

                  How do you come to that conclusion? Is it because of the concession I laid out before? If so, did you happen to read the whole concession and why I would allow it to be in place?

                  I’m guessing you didn’t read it, but read what you wanted to read, right?

                • dance commander

                  Because your concession is nothing more than backtracking and flat out LYING.

                  If the concession was what you meant from the start, you’d have said so. You DID NOT. All you said was that sluts should pay for the sluttiness with a forced pregnancy and that rape victims were off the hook because they didn’t choose to have sex.

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                  Then you ought to agree, as it follows quite logically, that the fetus cannot take blood or organs from a woman without her explicit and ongoing consent, even if it were dying.

                • Albert

                  You said, “Then you ought to agree, as it follows quite logically, that the fetus cannot take blood or organs from a woman without her explicit and ongoing consent, even if it were dying.”

                  I would agree. And if the fetus crawled up inside of the woman and attached itself to her unknown to her and against her will, I would agree with you 100%.

                  The problem is, it didn’t do that, did it? No, it came into existence because the woman chose to have consensual sex. This was an accepted possible outcome from the actions of the woman.

                  - The woman KNEW that pregnancy is a possible outcome.
                  - The woman KNEW that if she engaged in consensual sex she could get pregnant.
                  - The woman KNOW that pregnancy is not a 100% preventable outcome and she still CHOSE to engage in sexual intercourse.
                  - Once a new human being is created at conception, she is not longer able to take away consent as not she is dealing with a human beings body that is not her own.

                  - This new unique human being has the same human rights to life as every other human being, no more and no less.
                  - And just like if a woman finds a baby dumped next to the trash cans and it is whimpering, she is now the de facto guardian for that innocent helpless human being until she can either find it’s original guardian’s or turn the child over to the authorities, The woman that is pregnant is the de facto guardian for that new unique human being until such time she can turn it over to the authorities to find another guardian.
                  - Abortion is murder. It takes the life of a human being against their own choice to do so.

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                  “The problem is, it didn’t do that, did it? No, it came into existence because the woman chose to have consensual sex.”

                  Slut-shaming.

                  Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy.

                  And once again, YOU DON’T GET TO TELL ME, OR ANY OTHER WOMAN, WHAT TO DO WITH THE CONTENTS OF OUR UTERI.

                • dance commander

                  If you choose to drive a car and you injure someone in an accident, you should be legally obligated to biologically support them if they need blood/organs/bone marrow.

                  You put them in that situation, and that is YOUR responsibility to fix it.

                  Right?

                • C.L. Honeycutt

                  Don’t forget that by his argument, a man who impregnates a woman is required to give up his bodily tissues for both her and the “human being”… and anyone else whose continued well-being is important to that of the fetus, like the parent who helps with errands and the physician whom the mother-to-be is most comfortable with.

                  And since he’ll claim that “life begins at conception” in order to avoid any messy “arbitrary lines”, there is no good argument for him to not continue to be obligated to all these people after the birth, so long as they are directly or indirectly of high importance to mother or child.

                • dance commander

                  I asked him this very question, about fathers, and I believe he said that fathers should not be obligated to donate tissue to the child they created because once the child is born it doesn’t biologically NEED it’s dad’s tissues. Whereas the uterus was MADE FOR THE BAYBEEEEE.

                • dance commander

                  This new unique human being has the same human rights to life as every other human being, no more and no less.

                  You lose your right to life when you infringe on another person’s bodily autonomy.

                  You would agree that you would have the right to kill your kidnapper/rapist in order to escape, no?

                  And you will argue ‘but intent!?’ And I will say, intent is immaterial. The kidnapper/rapist could be mentally disabled and not in control of xir’s actions. Just like a fetus is not in control of it’s actions. But it’s still HURTING you. And birth is a lot more violent and painful than a rape in many cases.

                  And the fetus DOES attack the woman. There is scientific research that proves this. Ariel and Feminerd have already explained it to you multiple times, but I will, again:

                  Biologist PZ Myers writes:

                  A new paper by Emera, Romero, and Wagner suggests an interesting new idea. They turn the question around: menstruation isn’t the phenomenon to be explained, decidualization, the production of a thickened endometrial lining, is the key process.

                  All mammals prepare a specialized membrane for embryo implantation, the difference is that most mammals exhibit triggered decidualization, where the fertilized embryo itself instigates the thickening, while most primates have spontaneous decidualization (SD), which occurs even in the absence of a fertilized embryo. You can, for instance, induce menstruation in mice. By scratching the mouse endometrium, they will go through a pseudopregnancy
                  and build up a thickened endometrial lining that will be shed when progesterone levels drop. So the reason mice don’t menstruate isn’t thatthey lack a mechanism for shedding the endometrial lining…it’s that they don’t build it up in the first place unless they’re actually going
                  to use it.

                  So the question is, why do humans have spontaneous decidualization?

                  The answer that Emera suggests is entirely evolutionary, and involves maternal-fetal conflict. The mother and fetus have an adversarial relationship: mom’s best interest is to survive pregnancy to bearchildren again, and so her body tries to conserve resources for the long haul. The fetus, on the other hand, benefits from wresting as much
                  from mom as it can, sometimes to the mother’s detriment. The fetus, for instance, manipulates the mother’s hormones to weaken the insulin response, so less sugar is taken up by mom’s cells, making more available for the fetus.

                  Within the mammals, there is variation in how deeply the fetus sinks its placental teeth into the uterus. Some species are epithelochorial; the connection is entirely superficial. Others are endotheliochorial, in
                  which the placenta pierces the uterine epithelium. And others, the most invasive, are hemochorial, and actually breach maternal blood vessels.
                  Humans are hemochorial. All of the mammalian species that menstruate arealso hemochorial.

                  That’s a hint. Menstruation is a consequence of self-defense. Femalesbuild up that thickened uterine lining to protect and insulate themselves from the greedy embryo and its selfish placenta. In species
                  with especially invasive embryos, it’s too late to wait for the moment of implantation — instead, they build up the wall pre-emptively, before and in case of fertilization. Then, if fertilization doesn’t occur, the universal process of responding to declining progesterone levels by sloughing off the lining occurs.

                  P.S. The maternal-fetal conflict is also a conflict between males and
                  females: it is in the man’s reproductive interests to have his genes
                  propagated in any one pregnancy, while it is in the woman’s reproductive
                  interests to bail out and try again if conditions aren’t optimal for
                  any one pregnancy

                • Cake

                  Since it’s already been legally established that consent for anything can be withdrawn at any time no matter if there’s a life at stake.
                  Then there’s no problem with abortion.
                  The fetus has even if we were willing to call it a person (its not) no rights to use a woman’s blood or tissue without her consent.

                • Albert

                  You said, “Since it’s already been legally established that consent for anything can be withdrawn at any time no matter if there’s a life at stake. ”

                  What do you mean legally established?

                  Do you have an resources for this claim?

                  Consent can only be with drawn from things that you can withdraw consent from. Consequences are not such a thing.

                  Consequences are something that happens as a result of a particular action or set of conditions, they are not beholden to you based on your desire to what or not want them to happen.

                  If that was the case every woman that wanted to get pregnant would be and every woman that didn’t want to get pregnant wouldn’t be and we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

                  You get pregnant because the right conditions of the bodies involved in the action of sexual intercourse are in such a way as to produce a fertilized egg.

                  The only consenting power you have is if you choose to engage in consensual sex or not. After that, biology has to take it’s course. Sometimes you get pregnant and other times you don’t. But it’s not something you can revoke consent from.

                  Can you stop a pregnancy? Sure, but the pregnancy first has to happen. Which shows that you can’t revoke consent to it. It happens and then you respond accordingly.

                  You can even do everything in your power to take every precaution before having sexual intercourse to prevent a pregnancy from happening, but you are not revoking consent, you are still hoping it doesn’t happen.

                  Any consent that is given, or revoked, has to lie with things that can respond to such a desire. Consequences are not this sort of thing. Sorry.

                  You said, “Then there’s no problem with abortion.”

                  Isn’t that what this whole discussion is about? You say it’s no problem, I say it is a problem. So now both sides present their arguments and see which one best fits the truth.

                  So far, I have presented scientific evidence that a human being starts life at conception. I have presented that because it is a human being it has the same rights as every other human being including the right to life. I have shown that the consequences of the women and her partner have brought this new unique human being into existence and it is now they obligation to do all they can to care for that human being, no different than they would be obligated to care for any other human being in their care.

                  You might not agree with this view, and that’s fine. But it’s up to you then to refute my evidence. Show me I’m wrong. If you can do that, then I have no choice but to agree with you. Follow the truth where it leads, right?

                  You said, “The fetus has even if we were willing to call it a person (its not) no rights to use a woman’s blood or tissue without her consent.”

                  The fact that the woman has chosen to have consensual sex and knowingly understands that she can not prevent a pregnancy from happening to 100% accuracy, she has accepted pregnancy as a possible outcome of her actions. Therefore, because of her actions, if she gets pregnant, then she is now obligated to this new human being who has the same right to life as every other human being. Outside of the womb, a mother provides nourishment and care in the form of milk, changing diapers and keeping them warm. Inside the womb, the unborn human is cared for by the mother in sharing her nutrients and passing oxygen to the unborn human through the blood in the umbilical cord. The mother has accepted that the unborn human would be sharing her fluids and nutrients once she decided to engage in consensual sex. These nutrients are not being stolen, but are given freely. Both in and out of the womb are caring for the human being but in different environments. The unborn human being is not there by it’s own choice but because of the actions of the mother. She chose this as a possible outcome from her actions. Now she has to deal with those consequences.
                  The fact that the woman might be having second thoughts is of no consequence. I could break my leg skiing and now will be having second thoughts about doing that last run. It does not remove the broken leg. I still have to have it cared for and go through the weeks of wearing a cast and using crutches. I don’t escape out of the consequence just because I’m regretting my choice to ski. This is the same when a woman gets pregnant. The fact that she is not second guessing that decision to engage in consensual sex does not allow her to escape the consequences of her actions.

                  “Human development begins at fertilization when a sperm fuses with an oocyte to form a single cell, a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.[Chapter 2 p.14 – First Week of Human Development - The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology : Authors - Keith Lean Moore, Trivedi V. N. Persaud, Mark G. Torchia : Edition 9, illustrated, reprint : Publisher Elsevier/Saunders, 2013 ISBN 1437720021, 9781437720020]”

                  If you disagree with this quote What scientific evidence do you have to show this is incorrect?

                  What is a human being?

                  What is a person?

                  What are the differences between a human being and a person?

                  “Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.” [article 2 : http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml ]

                  See that ‘birth or other status’ portion in there? That covers the unborn.

                  What evidence to you have to show that this unborn human being does not have the same rights as you and me?

                • dance commander

                  Consequences are something that happens as a result of a particular
                  action or set of conditions, they are not beholden to you based on your
                  desire to what or not want them to happen.

                  Which is why you can’t take a pill to kill the parasite you ingested when you drank the bad water. Which is why you can’t take antibiotics to kill the STD’s you collected as a *consequence* of sex. Because that would be absolving yourself of taking responsibility for your actions.

                  Therefore, because of her actions, if she gets pregnant, then she is now obligated to this new human being who has the same right to life as every other human being

                  Just like you are obligated to care for that STD, right?

                  These nutrients are not being stolen, but are given freely.

                  Which is why when you consent to give blood, you can’t ever withdraw consent. You must give it indefinitely. Because consent now means indefinite obligation.

                  I still have to have it cared for and go through the weeks of wearing a cast and using crutches.

                  As has already been explained to you, multiple times, it is asinine to compare a leg that is healing to a pregnancy. The leg gets better. Getting your cast removed and being able to walk freely at the end of 2 months is a fuck of a lot safer than a 9 month pregnancy and a violent and painful birth. Getting the cast removed does not involve up to 72 hours of horrific cramping, along with bleeding *sometimes to death*, genital tearing, and having knives stuck into your flesh in order to cut something out.

                  If you disagree with this quote What scientific evidence do you have to show this is incorrect?

                  I have already shown that it is incorrect. Multiple times.

                • Cake

                  There was a legal case where a Family member was found to be a match for the necessary bone marrow to keep a family member alive. They initially consented to the donation and then backed out. The potential donor was taken to court to compel them to complete the donation. The court established that consent could be withdrawn.

                  A donation of bone marrow is much less invasive than the whole body donation required by pregnancy. When you donate blood to the red cross you can say stop at any time
                  during the procedure. They don’t say, “well you consented to donate a pint and now you have to face the consequences, and a pint is what we’re going to get.”

                  I don’t have time to get to the rest of your enslavement crap maybe after I get done with other things…..

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                  McFall v. Shimp establishes that one may not be compelled to donate their body, in part or in whole, to another person, even if that refusal results in death.

                  “The common law has consistently held to a rule which provides that one human being is under no legal compulsion to give aid or to take action to save another human being or to rescue.”

                  Wiki article
                  Here’s the decision

                • dance commander

                  Albert has been informed of this case. Multiple times.

                  He says that pregnancy is different because:

                  1) the slut chose to have sex, she put the ‘baby’ in the position where it needed her body to survive

                  2) the fetus is INSIDE the woman, therefore, it is exempt from rules that apply to born people. and to remove it = murder. perhaps if patients needing blood donations were transplanted inside their donors it might be considered ‘murder’ to remove them

                • osiote

                  If left alone, it will continue to grow and develop

                  Except it isn’t left alone. It actively suppresses the pregnant person’s immune system, hijacks sugar and nutrients from her bloodstream, takes calcium from her bones, and drills into an artery.

                • Ariel

                  If a woman has consensual sex and does not want to be pregnant, she is consenting to a small possibility that she will have to take a day off work, walk past a group of shouting protesters out to make her life as traumatic as possible, have a desired medical procedure done, pay several hundred dollars, walk out, and get on with her life. Given the current level of technology, and given that there are doctors out there that are willing to volunteer to perform abortions, the actual consequence of having sex without wanting children, imposed by the universe, is that a woman has a slight possibility of having to get an abortion and deal with the attendant problems. Criminalizing abortion does not force women to “deal with the natural consequences of their actions”. Criminalizing abortions is, in fact, the state saying, “We are going to exert our power to make the consequences of this action much worse for you than the natural consequences”.

                • Albert

                  You said, “If a woman has consensual sex and does not want to be pregnant, she is consenting to a small possibility that she will have to take a day off work,… walk past a group of shouting protesters out to make her life as traumatic as possible, have a desired medical procedure done, pay several hundred dollars, walk out, and get on with her life.”

                  Did you just read what you wrote? You are equating protesters shouting at a woman as traumatic and yet murdering another human being is natural to you. In fact, you just have to plop down several hundred dollars and walk away after it’s done. But it’s traumatic that protesters are shouting at the woman.

                  Those protesters are shouting because of what is being done. They are objecting to what the woman is about to do, murder her unborn child.
                  The objection hinges on whether or not abortion takes the life of an innocent human being or not.
                  And science has shown us that what is in the woman’s womb is a human being from conception.
                  Perhaps this is traumatic for you to walk through protesters and hear them shout things at you. But that is nothing in comparison to the trauma that unborn human being will be feeling once you plop down your free hundred dollars.

                  They are protesting you having the right to murder another human being. Seems to me that is a cause worth protesting.

                  You said, “Given the current level of technology, and given that there are doctors out there that are willing to volunteer to perform abortions, the actual consequence of having sex without wanting children, imposed by the universe, is that a woman has a slight possibility of having to get an abortion and deal with the attendant problems.”

                  No one imposed this pregnancy on the woman except herself. She has no one to blame but herself and the choice that she made. Blaming something as nebulous as the universe is rather juvenile.

                  And with the type of technology that we do have today, perhaps she should have gotten a tubal ligation if she was really wanting to reduce her chances of getting pregnant.

                  The fact that there are doctors out there willing to preform these procedures does not make it morally right. They are after the amount of money that comes from these procedures. They are fast and provide quick cash. And with the number of abortions being done today, doctors are getting rich from being an accomplice to murder.

                  You said, “Criminalizing abortion does not force women to “deal with the natural consequences of their actions”. Criminalizing abortions is, in fact, the state saying, “We are going to exert our power to make the consequences of this action much worse for you than the natural consequences”.”

                  Criminalizing abortions is because of what they actually are, the action of murdering a human being. And it is criminal to allow one human being to murder another human being.

                • osiote

                  Those protesters are shouting because of what is being done. They are
                  objecting to what the woman is about to do, murder her unborn child.

                  If they truly believed that REAL BABIES with the same moral value as newborns were being murdered, they’d be doing a lot more than just protesting. Even if it was legal to commit infanticide, people wouldn’t just sit by and complain. They’d go to the infanticide clinic and put an end to the baby killing as soon as possible.

                • Albert

                  You said, “If they truly believed that REAL BABIES with the same moral value as newborns were being murdered, they’d be doing a lot more than just protesting. You said, “Even if it was legal to commit infanticide, people wouldn’t just sit by and complain. They’d go to the infanticide clinic and put an end to the baby killing as soon as possible.”

                  Well for one, you are presuming to know the minds of those protesting. Unless you are them, the most you can say is, “If I was them, I would….” fill in the blank. But you just don’t know what they would do, do you?

                  But let me see if I can at least answer your statement with how I see it.

                  There is this thing called ‘the law’. You know those people that have gone to abortion clinic and killed the doctors? They are either in prison now. Because we have laws, we are to abide by them. It would make no sense to be demanding that the laws that legalize abortion are changed if we ourselves will not abide by the law.

                  Does that answer your question?

                • osiote

                  So if it was suddenly legal to start murdering any child who isn’t yet a teen at specified clinics I assume that you and your compatriots might do a bit of protesting, beg parents not to kill their 5 year old, and write your congressman?

                  People like you would let the holocaust just happen. Wave a few signs around… if you can be bothered. Go online, cry about it on the internet. But not really do anything but some useless feel-good crap.

                  The people who truly believe that embryos are babies are the ones who are now in prison.

                  You’re just in it for the slut-shaming.

                • Albert

                  You said, “So if it was suddenly legal to start murdering any child who isn’t yet a teen at specified clinics I assume that you and your compatriots might do a bit of protesting, beg parents not to kill their 5 year old, and write your congressman?”

                  I can only speak for myself.

                  What I find interesting is that you are so concerns more that I might not respond as you pretend you would. And yet, you are the one that is already okay with murdering them.

                  Why the concern of how I would respond and not how you are responding?

                  You said, “People like you would let the holocaust just happen. Wave a few signs around… if you can be bothered.”

                  And by using your analogy, you would join the Nazi’s and be an active member in the holocaust, right?

                  I fail to understand how this helps your case when you are the one that already agrees to allow the murdering of innocent human beings?

                  Could I possibly do more? Sure, I could stand at the entrance of an abortion clinic and shoot anyone that tries to get it. But how would that make me any better than you?
                  What you are doing is hoping that if you can go off on this tangent then perhaps you don’t have to face the real fact that what is happening is that hundred of thousands of human beings are being murdered at the hands of people like you that do it out of convenience so your life can be just as it was before getting pregnant. Life be dammed. And as long as it isn’t your life, right?

                  You said, “The people who truly believe that embryos are babies are the ones who are now in prison.”

                  After reading this quote:

                  “Human development begins at fertilization when a sperm fuses with an oocyte to form a single cell, a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.[Chapter 2 p.14 – First Week of Human Development - The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology : Authors - Keith Lean Moore, Trivedi V. N. Persaud, Mark G. Torchia : Edition 9, illustrated, reprint : Publisher Elsevier/Saunders, 2013 ISBN 1437720021, 9781437720020]”

                  Do you agree or disagree with this quote?

                • osiote

                  No one imposed this pregnancy on the woman except herself. She has no
                  one to blame but herself and the choice that she made. Blaming something
                  as nebulous as the universe is rather juvenile.

                  And yet you don’t blame the rape victim, because she didn’t *choose* to have sex.

                  Your slut-shaming is so fucking transparent.

                  Criminalizing abortions is because of what they actually are, the action of murdering a human being

                  Except it’s murder that we can ‘tolerate’ because the rape victim didn’t CHOOSE to have sex

                  lulz

                • Albert

                  You said, “And yet you don’t blame the rape victim, because she didn’t *choose* to have sex.”

                  I’m not blaming anyone.

                  I’m simply stating a fact. If a woman chooses to have consensual sex, gets pregnant then SHE can’t blame anyone else for it.

                  In the case of a rape situation, the woman can blame her attacker, would you agree?

                  You said, “Except it’s murder that we can ‘tolerate’ because the rape victim didn’t CHOOSE to have sex”

                  You keep inferring rape situations to comments I make in reference to consensual sex situations. This is out of context.

                  If you want, I can take the stand that all abortions should be made illegal including in the case of rape, but still leave out medical ones in situations for ectopic pregnancies.

                  If I do that, you can’t start claiming that I’m heartless or uncaring to the concerns of the rape victims. If you start doing that you are just arguing for the sake of arguing. I do not argue just to argue, I will stop answering your comments.

                  I have already stated a concession to account for rape cases.

                  This concession shows a empathy towards them, not because I agree that they should abort their child (as they are a human being and I don’t believe the child should every be punished for the crimes of the father), but because if allowing abortions in the case of rape would open the door to making all other abortions illegal, it is a grudgingly offered in order to save those lives from situations that are not rape cases.

                  If you want me to continue with this concession in place, then you can no longer bring up rape situations in your comments in reply to my comments on consensual sex situations. If you start doing that you are just arguing for the sake of arguing. I
                  do not argue just to argue, I will stop answering your comments.

                  Do you want to leave in the concession or take it out?

                • Ariel

                  So you want people to take responsibility for the consequences of their actions.

                  I have a question for you, Albert: Do you support the Affordable Care Act?

                  You say that if a woman gets pregnant from consensual sex, she should be willing to carry it to term. As a logical consequence, this means that if a woman, for whatever reason, feels that she cannot carry a pregnancy to term, she should not have consensual sex. For example, a woman who has no health insurance and cannot afford proper prenatal medical care should not have sex at all, according to you.

                  You can say that, but the fact remains that a certain number of women will take the risk and have sex even when they have no way to pay for prenatal or pediatric medical care. And if you pass an effective anti-abortion law, then as a direct consequence of that law a number of children will be born to women who can’t afford to care for them properly. My question to you, Albert, is: if you are the one who forced these women to carry their pregnancies to term, if you took an action which you knew would cause more such children to be born, what is your responsibility to these children?

                • Albert

                  You said, “Do you support the Affordable Care Act?”

                  I don’t support the Affordable Care Act. But not for the reasons you stated. I do, however, believe we should help those that are in need to the best of our abilities.

                  You said, ” As a logical consequence, this means that if a woman, for whatever reason, feels that she cannot carry a pregnancy to term, she should not have consensual sex.”

                  I believe what you just said that makes good sense, don’t you?

                  Doesn’t that show that a woman is being concerned about her situation and weighing the cost of her actions, in other words, taking charge of her life and what happens to her body?

                  Isn’t it wise judgement on her part to understand now is not the best time for her to risk getting pregnant if she knowingly understands she can’t care for a child right now?

                  To me, I see that as a woman that has her head on straight, don’t you?

                  You said, “For example, a woman who has no health insurance and cannot afford proper prenatal medical care should not have sex at all, according to you.”

                  When did I say that? I believe you are inferring things on me that I never said.

                  Don’t you think that if she feels that not having medical assistance or health care is a good reason to not take the chance in getting pregnant, that she is making a good choice?

                  You said, “if you are the one who forced these women to carry their pregnancies to term, if you took an action which you knew would cause more such children to be born, what is your responsibility to these children?”

                  It sort of sounds to me like what you’re saying is that if I object to the unborn being murdered then I should be willing to care for those unborn children, is that correct?

                • Ariel

                  Yes, I am willing to attach the qualifier “according to you” to statements you did not state explicitly but that follow as a logical necessity from statements that you have made. Can you suggest a better qualifier?

                  It’s hard to speculate on how I’d feel if I thought a first-trimester zygote/embryo/fetus was a person in the sense that their death was a tragedy; I do not think a z/e/f is a person before it can think and so I believe that first- and second-trimester abortions are morally neutral.

                  I suppose that if I lived in a place like El Salvador, where the fetus’s right not to be killed outweighs everything up to and including the mother’s right to live, then yes, I would say that abstaining from sex entirely is a good idea. However, I also think that El Salvador’s laws are wrong and that the men who sentenced Beatriz to die in order to “save” her doomed fetus are cruel and evil.

                  I should mention that I also accept the bodily integrity argument; that is, I feel that banning abortion does not grant fetuses the same rights as children but in fact grants them more rights than anyone else. I can expand on this if you like.

                  It sort of sounds to me like what you’re saying is that if I object to the unborn being murdered then I should be willing to care for those unborn children, is that correct?

                  Almost, but with a bit more sense of proportion. I am not quite willing to say that you aren’t allowed to post pro-life comments to blog posts unless you’ve adopted a special needs child. You can object to the unborn being denied life support all you want; I do believe in freedom of speech. But being a member of the pro-life movement is more than simply arguing that someone else’s actions are immoral. You want the government to say, in effect, “Keeping this fetus alive is my responsibility, and in fulfilling that responsibility, I have the right to force a woman to go through pregnancy and labor”. If the government is intervening in a woman’s decision to get an abortion, then the government is saying that her fetus is its responsibility! And if the fetus’s life is the government’s responsibility, then surely providing it with medical care is also the government’s responsibility.

                  (I would argue that even if the pregnant woman, by having sex on the Pill, consented to a 1% chance of conception, a government that is the only thing forcing her to remain pregnant still has an obligation to see that her life is not ruined by their actions. But I don’t expect you to accept that argument, which is why I am mostly arguing about the government’s responsibility to the fetus.)

                • Albert

                  You said, “Can you suggest a better qualifier?”

                  I would not suggest a different qualifier, but suggest that perhaps you place the scenario into a question. Then at least I could say if I agree with your statement or not.

                  For example, instead of saying, “a situation where a woman who has no health insurance and cannot afford proper prenatal medical care should not have sex at all, according to you.” You could say, “a situation where a woman who has no health insurance and cannot afford proper prenatal medical care, would you say this is a situation where she should not have sex at all?”

                  You remove your presumption and don’t put words into my mouth. Is that fair?

                  You said, “I do not think a z/e/f is a person before it can think and so I believe that first- and second-trimester abortions are morally neutral.””

                  What is your definition of a person?

                  What is your definition of a human being?

                  You said, “However, I also think that El Salvador’s laws are wrong and that the men who sentenced Beatriz to die in order to “save” her doomed fetus are cruel and evil.”

                  In a situation where we know the mother will die, it only makes sense to terminate the pregnancy if that will allow the mother to survive. This is not putting one life over the other, but rather a case where we need to save as many lives as possible. If the z/e/f is too young to remove, as in the case of a ectopic pregnancy, then the mother is spared and the child is terminated. Again, not because on life is more important than the other but because if we didn’t do something, both lives would have been lost.

                  What is interesting in the Beatriz case, she didn’t die and her son is not 19 months old. I’m not saying there wasn’t a lot of difficulties in that situation and that her son is completely healthy, but these types of situations are not the ones I’m talking about.

                  I’m taking about that situations where women say:

                  “I’m not ready for a baby. The timing is wrong for me.”

                  “I can’t afford a baby now.”

                  “I already have finished having the children I planned on having. I have other people depending on me; my children are grown.”

                  “I don’t want to be a single mother. I am having relationship problems.”

                  “I don’t feel mature enough to raise a child. I feel too young.”

                  “This child would interfere with my education or career plans.”

                  “My husband (or partner) wants me to have an abortion.”

                  “My parents want me to have an abortion.”

                  “I don’t want people to know I had sex or got pregnant.”

                  None of these situations are the same as the one you presented. And we can’t pretend that the majority of abortions are because of the situation you mentioned. They are actually more because of the ones I just stated above. These are the ones I’m trying to stop above all others.

                  Would you agree that these are not good reasons to murder another human being?

                  You said, “I should mention that I also accept the bodily integrity argument; that is, I feel that banning abortion does not grant fetuses the same rights as children but in fact grants them more rights than anyone else. I can expand on this if you like.”

                  Please do.

                  And would your view on that change if the z/e/f is it’s own body?

                  You said,”You want the government to say, in effect, “Keeping this fetus alive is my responsibility, and in fulfilling that responsibility, I have the right to force a woman to go through pregnancy and labor”.”

                  That isn’t exactly right.
                  What I’m stating is that I want our laws on murder to be consistent. Right now, they are not consistent.

                  Let me ask you something, if a pregnant woman was driving down the road and was hit by another car, thus causing her baby to die, would you say that it is lawful for that the person that hit her to be changed with vehicular homicide for the unborn baby?

                • Kodie
                • Albert

                  The question was more directed at Arial personally, but I’m fine if you chime in.

                  What is your personal view on this Kodie? What should happen to the person that hit the pregnant woman and killed her baby?

                • osiote

                  You want laws on murder to be consistent, except in the case of rape, right? Then that is ‘murder’ that you can make a concession for?

                  Albert wrote:

                  In the case of rape, I give the concession to the woman to abort if she is wanting to do so.I do this, not because I agree this should happen, as I don’t believe the child should ever be punished for the crimes of the father, but I give this concession because this was not consensual sex.

                  Funny how, when you made this particular concession, you didn’t ALSO talk about the need to allow abortion in the case of rape because not doing so would not be politically expedient. Interesting how the political expedience angle was ONLY brought up by you after your slut-shaming was brought front and center.

                • Albert

                  You keep inferring rape situations to comments I make in reference to consensual sex situations. This is out of context.

                  If you want, I can take the stand that all abortions should be made illegal including in the case of rape, but still leave out medical ones in situations for ectopic pregnancies.

                  If I do that, you can’t start claiming that I’m heartless or uncaring to the concerns of the rape victims. If you start doing that you are just arguing for the sake of arguing. I do not argue just to argue, I will stop answering your comments.

                  I have already stated a concession to account for rape cases.

                  This concession shows a empathy towards them, not because I agree that they should abort their child (as they are a human being and I don’t believe the child should every be punished for the crimes of the father), but because if allowing abortions in the case of rape would open the door to making all other abortions illegal, it is a grudgingly offered in order to save those lives from situations that are not rape cases.

                  If you want me to continue with this concession in place, then you can no longer bring up rape situations in your comments in reply to my comments on consensual sex situations. If you start doing that you are just arguing for the sake of arguing. I
                  do not argue just to argue, I will stop answering your comments.

                  Do you want to leave in the concession or take it out?

                • osiote

                  You keep inferring rape situations to comments I make in reference to consensual sex situations. This is out of context.

                  Damn right I do. Because you are opposed to abortion based on the fact that you think sex is dirty. Specifically, female sexuality.

                  I keep pointing it out. Your latest ‘concession’ means nothing, because that’s not what you said when I first asked you. Your ORIGINAL answer, need I remind you, was THIS:

                  In the case of rape, I give the concession to the woman to abort if she is wanting to do so.I do this, not because I agree this should happen, as I don’t believe the child should ever be punished for the crimes of the father, but I give this concession because this was not consensual sex.

                  If the concession really was about politics and saving the 99% of ‘unborn babies’ created through consensual sex you’d have said so then. You didn’t. You specifically said you’d permit abortion in the case of rape because rape victims aren’t sluts! :)

                  Cheers!

                • Ariel

                  What is your definition of a person?

                  What is your definition of a human being?

                  For the purposes of the abortion debate, my definition of “person” is any entity that should have the same right not to be destroyed as I do. I think that this is a useful definition because it means that you can use “Is the z/e/f a person?” as shorthand for “should the z/e/f have the same right not to be killed as a child or an adult?”

                  My criterion for deciding whether an entity is a person or not is whether it is capable of thinking. Thus, plants and stones are not people and can morally be used or destroyed as is convenient for people. Adult humans and children are people and have a right not to be killed. Animals are not quite people, but are closer to being people than plants are; they do not have the right not to be killed, but I do feel that raising animals in factory farms (e.g., in tiny cages) is wrong, because it is cruel to the animals. Zygotes have literally no ability to think (nothing to think with) and so they are not people. The best scientific evidence to date indicates that fetuses cannot think at all before about 25 weeks, and so until that point they are not persons.

                  I don’t generally use the term “human being” in these debates, so I don’t have a particular definition of it. If you have a definition we can use that.

                  Would you agree that these are not good reasons to murder another human being?

                  Your long list of “bad” reasons looks like a perfectly reasonable list of reasons why someone might not to have a baby in a few months, and since I don’t think that an early-term z/e/f is a person, I think that they all sound like perfectly good reasons for an early-term abortion.

                  Here is the short version of the bodily integrity argument: (1) prior to viability, abortion is morally equivalent to refusing to donate bone marrow or a kidney; (2) it is legal to refuse to donate bone marrow; (3) therefore, previability abortions should be legal.

                  Regarding (2): The most direct legal precedent is McHall vs. Shimp. In this case, McHall had cancer and needed a bone marrow transplant; the only person who could safely donate to McHall was his cousin, Shimp; Shimp decided that he did not want to donate; McHall tried to legally force Shimp to donate–and failed. It was ruled that Shimp was not obligated to donate the use of his body to McHall, even though McHall would die without it. Another precedent is cadavers and organ donation. Ther