If Abortion Were Illegal, These Pro-Lifers Want Women Who Obtain One to be Sent to Prison or Put to Death

Here’s a question that’s always fun to ask pro-lifers: If abortion were illegal, what should the punishment be for women who have one?

The Facebook group “Life Begins At Conception” asked its members and the responses were a big bowl of terrifying:

Prison.

Prison for life.

The death penalty for the mother.

The death penalty for the abortion provider.

A “full hysterectomy at the least.”

A “small injection of saline,” just to make the mother suffer.

I’m not suggesting that crowd is representative of pro-lifers as a whole, but it frightens me to see how many of them approve of death…

One Christian, at least, had the good sense to write, “Jesus would probably suggest ‘forgiveness.’ So maybe you should start there.” (I like her.)

It’s weird that the punishments they offer are so harsh, especially when you consider that if their churches kicked out women who had had abortions (or men who were party to them), those pews would start to empty out quickly. In 2008, the Guttmacher Institute reported that nearly two-thirds of all abortions were obtained by women who were Christian (PDF):

Maybe a little more leniency coming from that pro-life crowd wouldn’t be such a bad thing.

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.

  • Tainda

    That’s the one thing that always amazes me about these people. They bomb clinics and kill the people that work there. Yeah, you’re “pro-life”. More like pro-womenneedtodowhatwesayorelse

    • # zbowman

      They’re pro-livestock-status is what they are.

      • baal

        Livestock status for woman is very biblical.

      • Valde

        Women exist for male pleasure and profit.

        • Ella Warnock

          That sounds like one of the Ferengi Rules of Acquisition.

          • Valde

            I heard the phrase on a documentary about how the Taliban treats women.

            Women are to:

            1) work all day, free labour

            2) provide the man with children

            3) have sex with him whenever he demands

            If you look closely, fundie Christianity ain’t all that different!

            • Ella Warnock

              Ferengi women were also prohibited from wearing clothes, the point being that they didn’t need them since they were NEVER ALLOWED TO LEAVE THEIR HOMES.

              • Valde

                That may also explain why I see no dwarf women in Lord Of The Rings Online :P

                • Ella Warnock

                  Hmm, curiouser and curiouser . . .

                • Valde

                  The thing is, the only way the Taliban, and the anti-choicers, along with various warmongers can JUSTIFY and attempt to LEGITIMIZE their heinous acts is to claim the moral highground.

                  As long as your enslavement of people, your theft of resources is done ‘for God’ or ‘for liberty’, and as long as the people you are enslaving are ‘evil’ and ‘contemptible’ in some way, then that makes everything ok!

                  And when the actual victims dare to complain, you can fall back on your ‘morality’ and claim victimhood for yourself. I mean, those poor Taliban men HAD to shoot Malala – she was victimizing them by trying to get an education!

                • Ella Warnock

                  Yes, Malala with with her semi-automatic math textbooks and her essays of mass destruction. She was a one-woman wrecking crew. Of course, they’re right to be histrionic. All of their airy-fairy hocus pocus stories are nothing in the face of a confident, educated woman. And don’t think they don’t know it and aren’t peeing their pants with fear.

                • Tainda

                  No, it’s the beards lol

    • Albert

      Nice generalization there.
      Do you really believe that all pro-life people bomb abortion clinics or kill abortion doctors?

      • EvolutionKills

        Not at all, but the irony is still there. In a broader sense, who are most Pro-Lifer’s? Religious conservatives. Know what else religious conservative also support? They support wars and excessive military spending. They support repeal of universal healthcare, and elimination of government assisted housing, food stamps, and just about anything else that might help a single mother trying to make ends meet. They oppose comprehensive sex education, when it’s a fact that better sex education and easier access to contraception is the BEST way to lower abortion rates. So many of the Pro-Life hold positions that do anything but promote quality of life. So yeah, the irony is there…

        • Albert

          I guess the irony is still there in a very minimal sense. The number of killings or bombings in comparison to the number of pro-lifers almost makes it not so ironic, but rather unique.

          You said, “In a broader sense, who are most Pro-Lifer’s? Religious conservatives.”
          That is true. Why do you believe that is?

          You said, “They support wars and excessive military spending.”
          Again, isn’t this a generalization? And what does this have to do with being against abortions?

          You said, “They support repeal of universal healthcare, and elimination of government assisted housing, food stamps, and just about anything else that might help a single mother trying to make ends meet.”

          Another generalization.
          But even if this is true, what does this have to do with the subject at hand?

          You said, “They oppose comprehensive sex education, when it’s a fact that better sex education and easier access to contraception is the BEST way to lower abortion rates.”
          How do you come to that conclusion?

          You said, “So many of the Pro-Life hold positions that do anything but promote quality of life.”What do you mean quality of life? What does that have to do with their position on abortions?

          • EvolutionKills

            If you oppose abortion because of a religious mandate, tough shit, religious mandates have no place in secular law.

            If you oppose abortion because you want to save unborn babies? Great, except that many of the policies that go hand-in-hand with the majority of anti-abortion people are also anti-child care. So they support the birth of the child, then they don’t fucking care. This is stupid and hypocritical.

            If you oppose abortion because you think all life is sacred? Funny how those same people will support the death penalty and wars of aggression, things that leads to tons of needless killing. Once again, hypocritical and very stupid.

            My conclusion is supported by the findings of the World Health Organization. Simply put, making abortion illegal doesn’t stop abortions, it only causes more women to die getting them. The best way to prevent abortions is to prevent unwanted pregnancies. The best way to prevent unwanted pregnancies? Comprehensive sex education, easy access to contraception, and better social safety nets. This has been proven in western Europe, whose abortion rate is much lower than the rest of the world; including the United States. For example, in western Europe the abortion rate is 12 per 1000 woman, in eastern Europe it’s 43 per 1000.

            http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/12/world/12abortion.html?_r=0

            http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_IAW.html

            • Jonathan

              I’m pro-life and yes I support the death penalty. This is not hypocritical because there is a key difference between a convicted murderer sitting on death row and an unborn child. One has been found guilty and sentenced to death by a jury of his or her peers and thus under the law the penalty is death. What crime has the unborn child committed that is worthy of being sentenced to death..by it’s own mother no less? I personally oppose wars unless it is to defend the United States from aggression by another country which is what the military is for..to defend our country against those who would harm us.

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

                Oh, the list of crimes an unwanted fetus commits on a woman’s body is extensive.

                *Assault with a deadly weapon- infusing hormones that hurt her body and can kill her counts as poison
                *Sexual assault- use of her intimate parts against her will
                *Theft- stealing her blood and nutrients and organs
                *Kidnapping- she can’t leave it behind
                *Torture- even in the best pregnancy, women have to go through labor. This is such a painful and dangerous process that ancient peoples considered it a curse from God.
                *Some sort of domestic violence- the woman is forced to change or give up her medicines against her will
                *Attempted murder- labor again. Without modern medicine, each pregnancy carried 1% chance of death. Just because we can mitigate this risk a lot doesn’t mean the fetus isn’t still trying to kill the woman.

                So yeah. The use of deadly force in self defense seems totally justified to me.

                And before you get all pissy at me, these health risks and intimate things are fine if a woman wants to be pregnant. She chooses to accept the risks, which makes these not crimes (pretty much all crimes require unwilling victims, after all). The difference between sex and rape is consent. The difference between unwanted pregnancy with its list of crimes above and a wanted pregnancy is also consent.

          • Octoberfurst

            You keep saying it is a generalization. But the vast majority of “pro-lifers” I know are exactly like Evolutionkills says. They are very conservative, see nothing wrong with war, capital punishment or cutting the safety net yet they claim to be “pro-life.” That makes NO sense to me. (What they really are is pro-fetus.)

            And since you claim these are all generalizations please point out to me all the “pro-life” organizations that have denounced the welfare cuts, denounced war and are pro-sex ed. Show me some links. I’ll wait. >sound of crickets chirping<

            • Albert

              You said, “But the vast majority of “pro-lifers” I know are exactly like Evolutionkills says”

              But not all of them are; hence the generalization assertion.

              You said, “And since you claim these are all generalizations please point out to me all the “pro-life” organizations that have denounced the welfare cuts, denounced war and are pro-sex ed. Show me some links. I’ll wait. >sound of crickets chirping<"

              Generalization:
              1: the act or process of generalizing
              2: a general statement, law, principle, or proposition
              3: the act or process whereby a learned response is made to a stimulus similar to but not identical with the conditioned stimulus
              (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/generalization)

              My mother is against the death penalty as well as against funding war. She could care less about the Obama healthcare stuff as she is 82 years of age and believes she will be gone before it gets enacted. She sees no problem helping out families in need with food stamp and other subsudies and even helps her grand daughter get all the help she could get from the State. But, she is pro-life.

              This means that even one person that is pro-life does not hold to Evolutionkills or your assertions of what Pro-lifers say or do, then you are lumping in people that do not confirm to the same view. This is considered a generalization.

              Irregardless if all the organizations I find online or lobbying for abortion to be stopped do as you say, this is still a generalization.

              • Octoberfurst

                You state that if “even one person that is pro-life does not hold to Eveolutionkills or your assertion of what pro-lifers say or do then you are lumping people into a generalization.” Are you serious? So if 99% of a certain group believes in “XYZ” and 1% disagrees you are saying that because that 1% disagrees that you can’t generalize and say that as a whole the group believes “XYZ”. That is absurd.
                And I asked you to show me proof that any major “pro-life” group is against the safety net cuts, is anti-war or pro-sex ed. You have not done that because you can’t. Hence the generalization.

                • Albert

                  I don’t have proof that any major “pro-life” group is against any of those issues. But I don’t need to provide proof as I didn’t make the claim that those groups don’t believe as you said. In fact, I actually agree that most, if not all of the major Pro-life groups hold those positions that you are saying.

                  But not all Pro-lifers are apart of those organizations. I know I’m not a member of any of those organizations and I’m Pro-life.

                  Now, if you or Eveolutionkills wanted to restate your generalization to say, “The major Pro-life groups believe…” then at least you are pointing to a particular group of people and not making a generalization.
                  But as long as you say, “All Pro-lifers….”, you are making a generalization.

                • Goape

                  You introduced the “All pro-lifers” generalisation at the start of this thread. It seems that you did it to create something that you could argue against.

                • Albert

                  You’re right, and I have presented that argument in other threads here.

                • Albert

                  Actually, no I didn’t introduce it, I called it out.
                  I was replying to Tainda, who actually started this thread.

                  My saying it was a generalization was describing what Tainda was doing.

                  But this doesn’t reduce me to not being able to present valid or strong arguments for my points. This just happens to be one that was started because of a generalization. Which it is.

                • Octoberfurst

                  Ok so you admit that you have no proof that any major pro-life group has advocated against things like welfare cuts, war etc. Don’t you find that rather telling? I mean, they loudly proclaim they are “pro-life”.so why not be against such life destroying things as war and capital punishment? This is why I say they are just pro-fetus.

                  And I find it interesting how you are trying to side-step this by saying that “not all pro-lifers are a part of those organizations.” Nice little dodge there. But if there were many pro-lifers who disagree with the big pro-life organizations stands then why have we not heard about it? Why aren’t all those pro-safety net, anti-war, anti-capital punishment pro-lifers making a stink about it? I have heard of no controvery regarding this so I have to come to one conclusion: they are so few in number they don’t matter. The vast majority of pro-lifers are just pro-fetus and that’s it. They care nothing about quality of life or gray areas. Tell me how I am wrong coming to this conclusion.

          • ShoeUnited

            You said, “They oppose comprehensive sex education, when it’s a fact
            that better sex education and easier access to contraception is the BEST
            way to lower abortion rates.”
            How do you come to that conclusion?

            ^^^ Quoting

            Answer: Because all states with abstinence only programs have the highest unwed, teen pregnancy, and std rates.

            The fucking math is there. No contraception education, no proper sex education leads to unwanted pregnancies. You want to nearly stop abortions? Promote the pill, condoms, education.

            Once again, the one thing that’ll save us from ourselves is education. Try it sometime.

            • Albert

              Good answer, except you show no resources for your findings. I can’t do the math without the statistics. To take your claim as truth I would need the numbers to confirm.

              • ShoeUnited

                I must have been mistaken for a bot. Twice now I’ve tried to provide tons of links and twice they’ve been cut.

                Go to http://www.google.com Search for:

                states with abstinence only education pregnancy rates

                states with abstinence only education std rates

                And while harder to find, I’ll see if it lets me give one link.

                http://blog.secularprolife.org/2013/07/fewer-abortions-fewer-births-ca-teen.html

                • Albert

                  ShoeUnited, Thanks for the links and the suggested search criteria. I will see what I can find.

          • Em

            Pro-lifers vote conservative, almost uniformly. They are support all of those great evils with their vote.

            • Albert

              Almost is a key word here. Hence my argument that these are generalizations.

              • Em

                Discussing general trends within a group is valid. I don’t know why you feel you will have proven a point if you get people to agree that there is an occasional prolifer who cares about children. We have to deal with them as a political force, and as a political force they are conservative and prone to voting against any help for a child who is already born.

        • Octoberfurst

          Very well said Evolutionkills.

      • GCT

        Not all anti-choicers bomb clinics, but all clinic bombers are anti-choice. Anti-choicers are also much more likely to vote against measures that actually help the child once it is born. IOW, they are pro-fetus to the exclusion of the rights of the woman, and then they could care less. It’s really all about controlling the sex lives of women, which is why they aren’t pro-life by any stretch of the imagination.

        • Albert

          You said, “Not all anti-choicers bomb clinics, but all clinic bombers are
          anti-choice.”
          And pointing out the obvious does what?

          You said, “Anti-choicers are also much more likely to vote against
          measures that actually help the child once it is born.”

          How do you come to that conclusion?

          You said, “they are
          pro-fetus to the exclusion of the rights of the woman, and then they
          could care less.”

          You all like to speak in generalizations don’t you?

          Also, do you have any evidence to back up your claims?

          You said, “It’s really all about controlling the sex lives of
          women, which is why they aren’t pro-life by any stretch of the
          imagination.”

          What laws are being changed to control a woman’s sex life?
          If they were trying to control a woman’s sex life, how does that make them not pro-life? I’m not seeing the connection there.

          • Carpinions

            Oh please, don’t play the naive shoulder-shrug game ignoring the 800lb animal in the room.

            The anti-choice crowd is also trying to ban contraceptives. If that’s not controlling sex lives, I don’t know what is.

            And do you seriously not know about bills that have been advanced in the south saying that if a woman miscarries naturally, she has to report it to the police? All the push back over Plan B and rape kits? Can it be any more obvious?

            Don’t play coy. The anti-choice crowd is doing everything it can to ensure the body of laws at the state and federal level is so explicit and voluminous to close every possible opportunity for abortion services, even crafting laws to prosecute doctors that advise for or perform abortive services. The effect is defacto sexual control of women first and foremost, and enforcement of sex only for procreation, which, if the anti-choice crowd gets its way, will be legally forced even when it is certain the woman will die.

            They don’t care about life AT ALL. They play an all-too-obvious moral shell game.

            • Willy Occam

              Don’t forget the transvaginal ultrasound bills and other legislation intended to shame and humiliate women. And then there is my state of Texas, bastion of conservatism, whose embarrassment of a governor extended the legislative session after Senator Wendy Davis’ (temporarily) successful filibuster, in order to ramrod his plan to block women’s access to reproductive services.

              Jesus, Albert… do a little research.

            • Albert

              You said, “The anti-choice crowd is also trying to ban contraceptives.”

              This is a generalization.

              I have no problem with contraceptives. In fact, I have used them several times. I think they are important for those that want to increase their chances of not getting pregnant. Those that are mainly against it, if I understand the views are those people that are Catholic in beliefs. I don’t hold to a Catholic belief.

              I am not here to speak for those that think differently than me but to only speak for my view. Though I understand why they are doing those things, I don’t agree with all of them.

              Science says that life starts at conception. That means that any contraceptive that can prevent the sperm and egg from joining are not terminating a life. Anything after that is a form of abortion.

              So condoms, spermicide jellies and the like and tubal ligation and vasectomies are all fair game in preventing pregnancies.
              But once a new human life is created, I believe it is the obligation of the father and mother to do what they can to help that life grow and be born.

              • GCT

                Science says that life starts at conception.

                Blatantly wrong. I can see why you prefer to JAQ off. When you venture out to make statements, you get them wrong.

                • Albert

                  If that is incorrect, then when does science say a new individual human life begins?

                • tsara

                  I’ve answered this question at least twice for you already. I get that you’re ignoring me, but continuing to ask questions that have already been answered for you just makes you look stupid.

                • Albert

                  Did you change your name from GCT?
                  Is it possible you were answering this for someone else?

                  Because I did a search through all of my comments and replies for this blog and I have found nothing from you in the way of explaining what science does say a new individual human life begins.

                  I even looked under the name GCT and found nothing of an explanation.

                  If you please, can you link to where you did answer this or just cut and paste is so we have it in context? That would be great.

                • tsara

                  No, I didn’t change my name from GCT. I’ve answered a lot of the questions that you’ve posed to various people because your conversations did not seem to be at all private.
                  “”If science says that a new human individual life starts at conception, then we need to make sure we protect those human lives.”

                  But science doesn’t say this. Science says that life is continuous, and often more of a stream than a chain; there is almost never a clear dividing line.”

                  http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/08/08/if-abortion-were-illegal-these-pro-lifers-want-women-who-obtain-one-to-be-sent-to-prison-or-put-to-death/#comment-994812445

                  “”Pro-life simply follows what science shows us, that life starts at conception.”Actually, science shows us that life is continuous, and that it’s often as much a stream as it is a chain.”

                  http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/08/08/if-abortion-were-illegal-these-pro-lifers-want-women-who-obtain-one-to-be-sent-to-prison-or-put-to-death/#comment-994730861

              • Em

                It is a generalization that is true and valid.

                • Albert

                  I would agree that it is a true and valid generalization for the people that it applies to, but only in part.

                  Carpinions said, “The anti-choice crowd is also trying to ban contraceptives. If that’s not controlling sex lives, I don’t know what is.”

                  If is true, as I said before, that there are many Pro-life groups that are trying to ban contraceptives. But that is as far as the truth goes for this generalization.
                  There are those Pro-life people, like myself, that agree with Carpinions that this should not happen.

                  I don’t see how this helps with the argument for or against abortions.

                  Let’s say those groups were successful in banning contraceptives. How does this help or hurt an argument about abortions?

                  And in all honestly do you really think that Carpinion is really convinced that if contraceptives are banned that this will stop people from having sex?

                  What Carpinion is really demonstrating with his comment is considered a slippery slope fallacy. The fact that contraceptives are or are not banned in no way gives control of peoples sex lives to the people that decided to ban them.

                • Em

                  You need to look up slippery slope. Banning contraceptives is indeed a form of control over sex lives.

                  Banning contraceptives leads to an increase in abortions. This means it is inherently hypocritical to be both against contraceptives and against abortion.

                • Albert

                  “You need to look up slippery slope.”
                  Why?

                  How is banning contraceptives controlling your sex life?

                • tsara

                  O.O
                  *boggles*

                • Jonathan

                  I have no desire to see contraception banned..as long as you can pay for it yourself then knock yourself out. I am also, as I’m sure many believe, as a pro-life person I’m not anti-choice..just disagree about when that choice should be made…short of a situation of rape it should be made before the women takes her panties off and has sex. No sex = no conception = no need for an abortion. Time to take responsibility people..if someone doesn’t want a child then don’t do the one human activity that is going to naturally lead to one being created or if someone doesn’t want children ever then get some form of sterilization..problem solved.

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

                  Time to pull out the giant long post again.

                  Let’s talk consent, then. Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. Consent to sex is just that: consent to sex. In the same way that consent to vaginal sex is not consent to anal sex, and if the guy forces anal it is rape, so too is sex not consent to pregnancy. If contraception of any kind is used, in fact, it becomes completely obvious that pregnancy is explicitly not consented to.

                  Also keep in mind that pregnancy is an ongoing process. Consent must be enthusiastic and revocable or it is no true consent at all. Enthusiastic consent means lack of “no” is not “yes”. Unprotected sex where the woman does not explicitly consent to be pregnant is therefore not consent to pregnancy, just as sex where a woman did not explicitly consent is still rape. Additionally, consent is revocable or it is not true consent. If a person is having sex and wants to stop, the person ze is having sex with must stop or it is rape. Similarly, pregnancy requires ongoing consent. If at any time, for any reason, the person hosting an embryo or fetus decides ze doesn’t want it inside hir, then it must leave. It isn’t capable of understanding lack of consent, though, so the person can have it removed.

                  A short analogy to better illustrate the point, since consent is something a lot of people don’t understand very well. Skiing is an activity many people like to do. One of the known consequences of skiing is a broken leg. People can ski recklessly or safely, and those who are reckless are more likely to break legs, but broken legs can happen to anyone who engages in skiing. Would you argue that people who ski consent to broken legs? Furthermore, would you argue that they should be legally prohibited from obtaining treatment for their broken legs, since they knew it was a possibility when they went skiing?

                  P.S. This argument also shows that it’s not about life to you, but about punishing women for sex. You think abortion in the case of rape is acceptable, since the woman didn’t consent in that case. However, a fetus is a fetus. It doesn’t change based on how it was conceived. If you truly cared about fetal life instead of punishing women for sex, you wouldn’t have this rape exception, but you know that it’s cruel to force a woman who was violated once to be violated again by a pregnancy she doesn’t want. What makes it acceptable in your mind to violate non-raped women with pregnancies they don’t want?

                • 3lemenope

                  There is a reason that sex is generally listed among the most basic of human drives; alongside such items as eating and breathing, on a higher tier of compulsion than such quintessentially human motives as curiosity, material accumulation, and yes, even permanent relationships with other human beings.

                  It’s that powerful. Telling someone to refrain from boinking when they are moved to is about as pointless as screaming at the tide to retreat. The most one could possibly hope to control is the context under which the act eventually occurs. Take two sets of teenage couples. Take one set and lecture at them for an hour a week about the evils of sex. Take the other and buy them a box of condoms. If you like, we can place real money on which of the two ends up pregnant. The only reason to do the first and eschew the second is if you care more about what ought to work than about what does work.

                  Elsewhere on the thread the “you consent to pregnancy when you pull down your panties” argument has been pretty brutally dissected. Does a person consent to the possibility of being creamed by a car every time they cross a road? Or of choking every time they eat? (No Heimlich for that one. He forgot to chew his food, and deserves what he gets.) If a person goes out of their way to minimize the possibility of a certain consequence that may be associated with an activity (looking both ways before crossing a street, cutting and thoroughly chewing food, using birth control), it’s usually a pretty big clue that they don’t “consent” in any meaningful way to that consequence.

          • talkingsnake

            Albert – you are being an obtuse jack-wagon.
            Like most god-botherers, when presented with evidence that you don’t like, you simply keep on talking, recycling the same hackneyed points. It’s extremely tiresome, and intellectually vapid.

            Try arguing on the merits of your points (if possible).

            • Albert

              Talkingsnake,
              What evidence are you suggesting I don’t like?

              I have been arguing on the merits of my points. I have presented that women, if they are wanting to be in control of their bodies should have the right to get their tubes tied if they want to. This should not be rejected by a doctor, wouldn’t you agree?

              Also, I presented that as an option in conjunction with contraceptives, not as a replacement for contraceptives. This is because we all know that contraceptives on their own is not 100% full proof and neither is tubal ligation.

              I presented that if we people that choose to engage in sexual intercourse are going to be truly responsible, they should do all they can to prevent unwanted pregnancies before they happen. But it is also my contention to say that after conception, they are no longer responsible for preventing pregnancy, but are not obligated to do all they can to care for and protect the new life they created.

              If they do all they can to reduce the changes of pregnancy and then still accept the know risks involved with sexual intercourse, then they should be responsible enough to deal with the consequences of their actions.

              If not, then we are absolving them of any responsibility and letting them get away with murder.

              Is this better?

              • talkingsnake

                Yes, that’s better.

                You’ve made fairly clear and concise statements here without arguing about the fact that 99.9% of the time (my statistic!) someone who is anti-choice and hates big government unless they are trying to impose their ideology on the rest of society is…wait for it…a xian. Yes it is a generalization, and it it happens to be true.

                Now though, we can try to have a conversation.

                I agree with you that people should do all they can to prevent unwanted pregnancies – in fact every reasonable person agrees with that – but as it happens, unwanted pregnancies still occur. People are still having sex, and nothing seems to stop them ™.

                I don’t agree however that the “penalty” for not protecting oneself should be an unwanted pregnancy!

                Here’s where we part ways – “aborting” a 4-celled blastocyst of undifferentiated cells is not murder, so you can’t just lob that turd out there at the end of your post as if it’s a given – it’s not.

                Most abortions (88%) are obtained in the first trimester of pregnancy. In fact, over half of all abortions are obtained within the first 8 weeks. Fewer than 2% occur at 21 weeks or later.
                Elam-Evans LD, Strauss LT, Herndon J, Parker WY, Whitehead S, Berg CJ. Abortion surveillance-United States, 1999. Morbidity Mortality Weekly Report 2002; 51 (SS09): 1-28. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5109a1.htm)

                So thank you for clearly stating your position that “life beings at conception”. All too often abortion opponents don’t like to admit that – it doesn’t get the troops riled up like “stabbing babies in the face with knives” does.

                Most people do not agree with your assertion. And before you go down obtuse lane again, can we agree that life does not mean “cells undergoing mitosis” or something equally inane. In fact there isn’t general agreement on that point.

                Should you be able to have an abortion in the first 8 weeks? Yes. Week 30? Most certainly not. But where do we draw the line in between? I don’t know – there’s a debate to be had there.
                But saying it’s all over at conception – you’ll never win that argument here (and we likely won’t change your mind either). I suppose (sadly) that’s what courts are for.

                But here’s the insidious part. Your belief stems from your religion, even though it doesn’t say anything about it in the magic book, and you have likely gotten this biology lesson from a pulpit somewhere. I don’t expect you to admit this (hence your science argument in the post above). Trying to impose your religious beliefs on others is flat out wrong, would you agree with that?

                Furthermore, it leads to the kind of stultified thinking that prevents stem cell research (extra embryo’s harvested for in vitro fertilization that were going to be discarded anyway(!) were not allowed to be used for stem cell research, presumably to preserve the dignity of said embryos. Nice, eh?

              • Em

                You have not argued the merits of any points. Your arguments are nitpicky and do not involve any logic.

                • Albert

                  Actually, the argument that something is a generalization is based specifically on logic.

                  For example: If everyone in the group believes and acts the same then a generalization can be used because the group specified fits that mold, so to speak.

                  But, if some people in the group don’t fit the mold, your generalization is false and is lumping in people that don’t belong thus making your statement incorrect and possibly false as well.

                  Logically that is completely correct.
                  As far as the arguments go, for a woman to take complete control of her body and what is done with it, she needs to be preventive in allowing herself to get pregnant in the first place.
                  To do that, they need options available to them to do that. One such option is to get her tubes tied. Another option, which I have not once argued against is contraceptives that prevent the sperm from ever fertilizing the egg. The third option open to the woman is to not have sex.

                  Since you have admittedly stated that women can’t help but have sex as it is in their DNA, that option is probably not the best solution for them if the goal is to not get pregnant.

                  The logic is that the woman, using these options, is taking control of her body.

                  The contention though is that you seem to believe that a newly created human being produced from sexual intercourse is a part of her body and not a separate individual human being.

                  Since you believe that to be the case, I would more them welcome an explanation from you as to how you figure a part of the woman’s body grows into it’s own human being at birth.

                  When you removed your appendix did it become it’s own human being?
                  The logic involved with all of this is that 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.

                  If the unborn is a human person then voting against abortion is a vote for humanity, not against it as you presume is being done.

                  I am all for a woman having explicit control over her own body, even in being able to decide to get her tubes tied, but it has to be her own body. She can not be in charge of another persons body unless it is to nurture and help heal that body, no different than deciding that a surgical procedure on her 3 year old is necessary.

                  And I agree that women are alive and valuable. But I don’t put one persons value over another. I put them at the same level. Which means we do all we can to save and protect every life that is out there, whether mother, child, father or other. We don’t pit one life against another and say one should die so that the other can be absolved of their obligations and responsibilities.

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

                  If the unborn is a human person then voting against abortion is a vote for humanity, not against it as you presume is being done.

                  No, numbnuts.

                  If the unborn is a human person, then it does not have the right to inhabit and cannibalize a woman’s body.

              • Plutosdad

                Except people can do everything right and still get pregnant. Some drugs interact with birth control pills in odd ways that the pharmacists and drug companies don’t even know about. Many women get raped by their friends, boyfriends, or relatives. Many women live in states that limit access to birth control.

                You say you are not against it, but the big fight to limit the # of abortions is actually the fight to increase the use of birth control and sex education. THAT , more than anything, and more than any law banning abortion, will lower the number of abortions.

                So really, if we want to lower the # of abortions, then forget, absolutely forget, about laws banning them or punishing women, and instead fight fight fight for expanding birth control access, giving away free birth control, and making schools give actual, real, sex education to students. Doing that will protect people and educate them and lower the number of abortions all at once. Nothing else will.

          • Em

            They vote against women and humanity every chance they get. Is that not enough?

          • Em

            Because women are alive too.

          • Hanna Wenk

            Like talking to a wall. Seriously, you can’t see how these laws based on feelings rooted in religion (thus irrelevant for a lot of people) are controlling women’s life (not just sex life)? It’s probably that you don’t want to see it, but if you truly don’t, you’re not qualified to even comment on these topic, due to lack of foresight and imagination, let alone empathy. Also, you can’t have it both ways, the forced birth movement is perceived in this unflattering way because of their own conduct and hypocrisy (a lot of their tactics and attitudes have been detailed in other comments above). If you are one of them, own it, don’t try to present it as something pure and good, ’cause it’s not. It’s offensive and oppressive and ignorant. And by the way, a simple majority is nothing but one body more than 50%, so your standard of generalization is really exaggerated. If you don’t want to acknowledge how the others see the forced birth movement, fine, but just “responding” with nonsense and self-confessed ignorance to some quotes from other comments is not convincing or even worth taking seriously.

            • Albert

              You said, “Seriously, you can’t see how these laws based on feelings rooted in religion (thus irrelevant for a lot of people) are controlling women’s life (not just sex life)?”

              Why does it matter what laws are rooted in or based on?

              Aren’t laws based on how atheists believe are still laws?

              And exactly how are these laws controlling women’s lives?

              You said, “…you’re not qualified to even comment on these topic, due to lack of foresight and imagination, let alone empathy.”

              And what are you basing that on, your feelings?
              If the unborn is an innocent human being, then who is the one being without empathy?

              You said, “Also, you can’t have it both ways, the forced birth movement is perceived in this unflattering way because of their own conduct and hypocrisy…”

              How are the comments above expressing hypocrisy?

              You said, “If you are one of them, own it, don’t try to present it as something pure and good, ’cause it’s not.”

              I’m not sure what you are meaning here. What am I not owing up to?

              You said, “And by the way, a simple majority is nothing but one body more than 50%, so your standard of generalization is really exaggerated.”

              Really exaggerated? Really? How do you come to that conclusion?

              You said, “…just “responding” with nonsense and self-confessed ignorance to some quotes from other comments is not convincing or even worth taking seriously.”

              First of all, asking questions is not showing ignorance; it is asking for clarification so the person being asked the question is not misunderstood.

              Secondly, I didn’t make any claims in this thread from Tainda, that I should be trying to convince anyone of.

              The claim was made by Tainda when she said, “They bomb clinics and kill the people that work there.”

              Whether she was meaning all the people in the comments above int he article or all pro-lifers, to use the word “They” makes the statement a generalization.

              Using the word “They” does not convey that she was referring to 49 percent of the people either, it was referring to 100percent of the people.

              For it not to be a generalization, she would have to be specific in who she was talking about. She does not do that, thus it is a generalization.

              • Spuddie

                Avoidance troll is avoiding. You are actively avoiding directly addressing any point made.

                “How are the comments above expressing hypocrisy?”

                “I’m not sure what you are meaning here. What am I not owing up to?”

                “Using the word “They” does not convey that she was referring to 49 percent of the people either,”

                “For it not to be a generalization, she would have to be specific in who she was talking about. She does not do that, thus it is a generalization.”

                These are all the things people would say if they don’t want to actually address a topic.

                Feel free to fuck off now. You obviously show no interest in a good faith discussion. Nobody should waste their time discussing anything with you. You are just going to throw up bullshit responses for days and then ignore everything said and start all over again.

                PS by all means show your indignation at the colorful language I am using. After all, it is far more important than anything you have every said before.

                • Albert

                  Spuddie,

                  You said, “Avoidance troll is avoiding. You are actively avoiding directly addressing any point made.”

                  What point am I avoiding? I’m more then happy to address any point you believe is being made. Please, tell me the point you believe I’m avoiding?

                  You said, “Using the word “They” does not convey that she was referring to 49 percent of the people either,”

                  You are correct. It means ALL of the people. “THEY” as in them over there, if she was referring to 49 percent, she would be making a specific point to pick out those people instead of making a generalization.

                  You said, “These are all the things people would say if they don’t want to actually address a topic.”

                  What topic am I not addressing?

                  You said, “You obviously show no interest in a good faith discussion.”

                  What is the topic you are wanting to discuss. If it is the generalization discussion, then I believe I have been rather open and in good faith discussing what is and what isn’t a generalization.

                  If it is the abortion issue, You are welcome to read through my many other posts on here to see that I’m very open to discuss that issue as well. Or, ask me a question about that and lets move on from there.

                  To simply say that I’m avoiding the subject, without specifying what subject you are meaning means nothing.

                  From what I can tell, this whole thread was about me stating that Tainda made a generalization. If that is true, then that is the subject of this thread, is it not?

                • Spuddie

                  So in response to my characterizing your posts as long winded avoidance of direct points, you make a long winded response avoiding direct points made.

                  I am surprised anyone’s irony meters work around here.

                • Albert

                  Spuddie, did you even bother to read what I posted?

                  I’m NOT avoiding anything. What direct points did you make that I did not address?

                • Spuddie

                  Not anymore.

                  You haven’t had anything worthwhile to say in literally weeks. Its just been you trying to recap arguments which you avoided dealing with directly.

                • Albert

                  “Not anymore.”
                  And you complain that I’m not taking these discussions seriously?

                  Twice I have asked you what argument am I avoiding. Please, just say what the argument is and I will gladly put my argument, for or against, it out there. So then we can discuss it seriously.

                • Albert

                  Spuddie, What argument am I avoiding?

            • Spuddie

              Worse, you are talking to a troll who just wants to avoid direct conversation on the subject. There is no point in treating him like an intelligent person interested in any view but his own.

      • Tainda

        YEP ALL OF THEM! EVERY FUCKING SINGLE ONE OF THEM.

        Fucking morons. Idiotic argument. Try again.

        • Tainda

          Phew, sorry everyone. I think my blood pressure just spiked a bit lol

        • Albert

          What argument are you indicating is idiotic?

      • Goape

        There was no generalisation. People who are “pro-life” really do kill people. All of them don’t have to be guilty for this to be true.

        • Albert

          You said, “People who are “pro-life” really do kill people.”

          Isn’t it just as true that people that are “pro-choice” really do kill people as well?

          I’m not sure how your statement removes the generalization that Tainda made.

          You said, “All of them don’t have to be guilty for this to be true.”
          What do you mean by this?

          • Tainda

            I didn’t make any fraking generalizations in MY comment. I was replying to the article posted above! Notice the title? “THESE PRO-LIFERS” THESE being the key word. That’s what I was referring to, THOSE pro-lifers in the article that said they would recommend the death penalty.

            That is the idiotic argument I referred to in my previous post. Putting words into people’s mouths.

            I do believe EVERY pro-life person is ignorant though. Happy now?

            • Albert

              Well, you said, “That’s the one thing that always amazes me about these people. They bomb clinics and kill the people that work there. Yeah, you’re “pro-life”. More like pro-womenneedtodowhatwesayorelse”

              Where in the article did these people kill abortionists or bomb abortion clinics?

              To say it is one thing, to do it is another.

              You saying “They bomb clinics and kill the people” is implying that they actually did these things.

              Which is why I said it was a generalization.

              If that is not how you meant it, then that’s fine; we got your clarification on it.

              You said, “I do believe EVERY pro-life person is ignorant though.”
              And you base this claim on what evidence?

              • Em

                The people in this article want to kill and torture others, by their own report.

          • Crazy Russian

            When was the last time someone murdered in the name of choice? I’d really like your source. Citing unrelated murders by people who just happen to be pro-choice doesn’t count.

            • Albert

              “Citing unrelated murders by people who just happen to be pro-choice doesn’t count.”

              Really? Why wouldn’t they count?

              • Crazy Russian

                Because think about it: we are talking about hypocrisy of murdering people in the name of “life,” not simply what category of people criminals belong to. I’m not sure if you are trying to derail the conversation or just get under everyone’s skin here. In either case, that’s trolling. (You never answered my question, either.)

                • Albert

                  No, I am not trying to derail the conversation. I’m just trying to understand your statement without assuming or putting my own spin on your words.

                  Does this answer your question:

                  Just so you know though, Jim Pouillon, anti-abortion activist, was also murdered in front of school back in 2009. So though I agree that there are some that are Pro-life and will kill to support their view, it does go both ways.

                  I guess you could argue that the person that killed Jim Pouillon wasn’t being hypocritical but in reality, he was because if he fought for a persons right to do with their body as they choose, he took that choice away from Jim in a manor no different than a mother does to her unborn child.

                • Em

                  But his murderer was not connected to any pro-choice movement. This is not an example of a pro-choice person murdering in the name of choice. The murderer shot another person, unrelated to abortion in any way, on the same day. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/12/us/12slay.html?em&_r=0

                • Crazy Russian

                  Okay, that’s fair enough. Thanks for that reference, though it seems that we’re dealing with two mentally ill, or at the very least unstable people (if you read the accounts, that becomes pretty clear). Mind you, harassing high school students with this bullshit slut-shaming isn’t exactly praiseworthy,either, albeit surely not deserving death. As far as your last point, is it in-utero when the fetus makes a choice about their sexual orientation, by any chance? I kid, I kid.

          • Goape

            I’ll address your four responses in order for you:

            1, yes, I did say that.

            2, what do you mean? Are you conflating the abortion of fetuses with murder?

            3, to quote the very first sentence that you’re purporting to respond to: “there was no generalisation”.

            4, I was explaining in simple terms why you were incorrect to claim a generalisation was made. When you asked “Do you really believe that all pro-life people bomb abortion clinics or kill abortion doctors?” you were introducing a fallacious element to the argument. You created your own easy-to-attack version of the argument (a strawman) so that you could make a point.

            • Albert

              1. Glad you agree you said it.

              2 “Are you conflating the abortion of fetuses with murder?”

              What do you consider it when a human life is ended by a means not of their own will, if not murder?

              3. to quote the very first sentence that you’re purporting to respond to: “there was no generalisation”.

              Perhaps what we have he is a different understanding of what the word generalization means. Can you tell me what it means to you to make a generalization?

              You said, “All of them don’t have to be guilty for this to be true.”
              What do you mean by this?

              4. “you were introducing a fallacious element to the argument. You created your own easy-to-attack version of the argument (a strawman) so that you could make a point.”

              All Tainda had to do then was say, “No, I didn’t mean all Pro-lifers.”, right? And my so called “fallacious element” would have been done, right?

              What what does she say? She said, “I didn’t make any fraking generalizations in MY comment. I was replying
              to the article posted above! Notice the title? “THESE PRO-LIFERS”
              THESE being the key word. That’s what I was referring to, THOSE
              pro-lifers in the article that said they would recommend the death
              penalty.”

              Which is incorrect for even “these” people in the article that have not, that I know of, killed anyone, let alone any Pro-choicer or bombed clinics.

              That lumps people that have not done the specific thing(bomb or kill) in with those that have. This, by definition, is a generalizing as I understand the word to mean.

              So there again, you have a chance to explain to me what you understand the word generalization to mean.

              I am curious how you see this argument of Taind’s statement as a strawman; are you explain that as well?

              • Goape

                “What do you consider it when a human life is ended by a means not of their own will, if not murder?” Yes, Albert, killing someone is murder, but a fetus is not yet a person. Also, do you think that a fetus has its own will? I’m pretty sure that your nugatory definition of murder is impossible to apply to a fetus.

                “Can you tell me what it means to you to make a generalization?” This is a disparaging argumentative tactic. Feel free to engage me in this argument, but don’t waste my time and passively imply that the issue is arising from the misuse of a simple word.

                Every pro-lifer doesn’t have to be a terrorist in order to state that it is hypocritical that some (identified in this thread as “these” so as not to generalise) are. That is what I meant when I said that all of them [pro-lifers] don’t have to be guilty for this [hypocrisy of the moniker] to be true.

                “All Tainda had to do”—is irrelevant. That she, in your opinion, failed to dismiss your argument as efficiently as possible doesn’t somehow validate your position.

                Tainda has categorized and, quite correctly in my opinion, criticised any pro-lifer that openly supports or commits acts of murderous violence in the name of life. You employed a strawman by calling that a generalisation, then attacked the generalisation instead of the substance of the accusation—probably because to accurately argue with Tainda’s statement would require you to support murderous and zealotic terrorism in the name of life.

                • Albert

                  Goape,

                  I don’t believe understanding people’s understanding of certain words as a disparaging argument. I look at it as fact finding for better understanding. Your definition of what you understand generalization to mean would help me to understand this whole issue from your point of view.

                  I also consider the definition of generalization as one issue, not one that the article is about, but it’s an issue none the less. So I see no reason why we can’t discuss both, do you?

                  You said, “a fetus is not yet a person”

                  I didn’t say it was a person, I said it was a separate individual human being(or human life in my comment back to you).

                  But let’s go with your definition that a fetus is not a person for now.

                  What is a person? According to Webster’s, a person is: “human, individual —sometimes used in combination especially by those who prefer to avoid man in compounds applicable to both sexes”

                  By that definition, if a fetus is a human being, then it is a person, at least by Webster’s definition.

                  You could take a picture of me at four, and twelve, and fifteen, and twenty-sex, and then at forty-seven(am I really that old?!? Wow!); Am I somehow a different being? Not at all, I’m still the same being. Have I changed physically? Sure, that is part of growth and development.

                  But I’m still the same human being throughout all of that growth. And even if you took a picture of me when I was still a fetus, I am still the same human I am today, albeit a little older and without as much energy, I’m guessing.

                  Are you saying that it is okay to kill another human being that is at a lesser development stage then you or I are at? That would be considered murder.

                  By the way, Webster’s definition of murder is: “the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought”

                  Seems Webster’s says a person is a human, an individual. Which does mean that murder does apply to a fetus no different than it does to a 3 year old.

                  Is this another misuse or misunderstanding of terms like with generalization?

                  You said, “Tainda has categorized and, quite correctly in my opinion, criticised any pro-lifer that openly supports or commits acts of murderous violence in the name of life.”

                  If Tainda said “any pro-lifer that openly supports or commits acts of murderous violence in the name of life”, then that would have been pointing out a specific group of Pro-life people; but she didn’t say that.

                  Is this argument of generalizations over semantics? Yes, but if we can’t have people write what the mean, then they have to be prepared to be called on what they did write.

                  Let’s do a test. Choose all of the sentences that are generalizations.
                  1) ALL Pro-choice people are ignorant.
                  2) SOME Pro-choice people are ignorant.

                  And by the way, the substance of my accusation was her use of a generalization. I was not disagreeing that there have been and are Pro-life people that have killed doctors or bombed clinics. The contention I had was the generalization, not the killing. No strawman; sorry.

      • Valde

        You all tactily approve of it.

        I’ve heard your kind say that you are ‘happy the clinic was bombed and Dr. Tiller was killed – many lives were saved today’.

        The only thing you don’t like from the killings is the bad PR it brings.

        • Albert

          I don’t tacitly approve of it. I have never said or felt it was right that a clinic was bombed. I think the people that do that are idiots.

          Your kind? Again, this is lumping people into a group they might not belong with. Am I pro-life? Yes, I am. But I am not in a group that is happy the clinics got bombed or that any Dr.’s were killed. This, is a prime example of a generalization.

          • Valde

            They are part of your movement, you own them.

            And if you do indeed vote for pro-life politicians – the same ones who rile up the psychos – then yes, you are part of the problem.

  • Thomas

    So, how would they answer “Parents refuse to consent for blood transfusion due to religious reasons. The child dies. What punishment should the parents receive?”

    • Lee Miller

      Silly Thomas, you’re missing the point. If they do what I say God says, it’s perfectly fine. It’s only when they do what I say God says they shouldn’t do that they should be killed. Did you follow that?

      • Mackinz

        Since Yahweh or Yeshua never even talked about abortion, and instead talked about how only children that are at least one month old are worth something and even offered an abortion potion for infidelity, they aren’t even following their damn book.

        They’re starting with an assumption and stretching the words of their book to support it.

        • Valde

          In Numbers 5 a woman suspected of adultery is given a ‘bitter water’ potion to drink which will induce a miscarriage if she is guilty of adultery.

          The bitter water was composed of rotting grain from the temple floor – and that rotting grain contains a chemical that acts as an abortifacient.

    • Spuddie

      When Child Protective Services can take a fetus away from a woman, you can have your analogy back.

      • http://www.secularview.com/ Dirty_Nerdy

        That’s funny because so many states have laws that protect parents if they refuse medical treatment for religious reasons. Try again.

        • Spuddie

          You missed the point Sparky. A fetus is not a child. The unborn is not treated the same way as the born.

          When custody of a fetus can be taken away by force of law, the analogy would work. Since he can’t. Its crap.

        • Em

          None of them have laws regarding women who refuse medical treatment for a fetus. Funny how that works!

  • The Other Weirdo

    I’m not suggesting that crowd is representative of pro-lifers as a
    whole…

    Why do you say this?

    • wabney

      I’m assuming to make sure that’s clear leading into the rest of the statement he makes (which gives at least some context).

      “I’m not suggesting that crowd is representative of pro-lifers as a whole, but it frightens me to see how many of them approve of death…”

    • Gus Snarp

      This is an interesting question. A pretty big swath of Americans (though not the majority, as far as I recall seeing) thinks abortion ought to be illegal. The majority of those people probably don’t think there ought to be harsh penalties for abortion. But does the term “pro-lifers” refer to that broad swath, or does it refer to people active in the pro-life movement, of which these comments may well be very representative? Still, it’s not like we have a well conducted survey of what people think the penalty should be.

      • Em

        That big swathe votes Republican. Which means they vote anti-sex education, anti-contraception, anti-assistance for children once they are born.

    • wombat

      Probably because there isn’t enough data to support a wider claim due to not really having a representative sample.

  • http://www.devitaylor.com/ Devi Taylor

    Considering Christianity is really one big death cult, this doesn’t surprise me.

    • dawkwin

      Wow,… that’s relatively ignorant. I hope there is a better way to represent a non-belief in God without being void of humanity.

      • C Peterson

        The belief that Christianity it essentially a death cult is not representative of atheism at all. Atheism takes no position on Christianity, or anything else.

        The belief that Christianity is a death cult is rationally and arguably based on an analysis of Christian dogma, and may be reasonably held by religious people as well as atheists.

        • dawkwin

          “Atheism takes no position on Christianity, or anything else.”
          Is that your position?

          • EvolutionKills

            Atheism is not defined by a position on Christian dogma, it’s defined by it’s lack of belief in gods. Mormons, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindu, and Atheists can all look at the dogma of Christianity and judge whether or not it’s a death cult.

            Also, while we’re at it, Christianity is a cult of human sacrifice. Good luck with that.

            • dawkwin

              “Also, while we’re at it, Christianity is a cult of human sacrifice.”
              Interesting position to take.
              Self-sacrifice is different than murder. Taking the hand of a blind person to help them is not always understood by the blind person.

              • Whirlwitch

                Do you actually realize that a blind person has the right to decide whether or not you “take their hand…to help them”? Because it doesn’t sound like you do.

                Also, that is not relevant to whether Christianity is a cult of human sacrifice. On that topic:

                A cultus is the focus of a religion. The cultus of Christianity is the death and resurrection of Jesus. And since that death is considered a sacrifice, the cultus of Christianity is human sacrifice.

                • dawkwin

                  “Do you actually realize that a blind person has the right to decide whether or not you “take their hand…to help them”?”
                  Sounds like you get the premise…
                  …you have a very similar choice.
                  Except most blind people, as talented and strong and smart as they are…know the areas they are blind in.
                  I realized that when I saw that God judges the intent of my heart. Do you see yourself above God? Then you are blind in the reality of that as we all are before we admit what we already know.

                • Michael Harrison

                  “Do you see yourself above God?” You’re asking people who lack belief in God whether they see themselves above God. It depends; do you think beings who you believe exist have more authority in your life than beings who you do not believe exist? Seriously, the rhetoric you’re using was developed for conditions which don’t hold here.

              • EvolutionKills

                “Christianity is a cult of human sacrifice. Christianity is not a religion that repudiates human sacrifice, it’s a religion that celebrates a single human sacrifice as though it were effective. ‘God so loved the world he gave his only son’ John 3:16. The idea is that Jesus suffered the crucifixion so that none need suffer Hell, except for those billions in India; and billions like them throughout history.”

                -Sam Harris in his debate with William Lane Craig at Notre Dame.

              • Em

                Most people consider it good manners to offer a bind person your arm, not to grab them by the hand.

                /nitpicking

              • rtanen

                http://www.autistichoya.com/2013/08/a-guide-to-sighted-allyhood.html

                A blind person is just as capable of and permitted to say, “No, let go of me this very instant!” as a sighted person is. If you think there is a good reason you should hold their hand, then tell them so they can respond as they choose, don’t just yank.

          • C Peterson

            Yes, but it isn’t my position as an atheist.

            • dawkwin

              atheism is a position…don’t be wishy washy.

              • C Peterson

                To call atheism a position pretty much removes all meaning from the word “position”.

                Atheists, of course, have all sorts of positions. But atheism isn’t one of them. Atheism itself is the lack of one particular position: a belief in deities.

              • unclemike

                Atheism is a position only if “Off” is a TV channel.

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

                  Right, or if “Stop” is a speed setting….

                • dawkwin

                  So having a record number of comments for 1 post…(and the only point to this whole website is arguing about “Off”)
                  http://www.proofthatGodexists.org
                  checkheart

                • unclemike

                  You’re the one arguing. And you haven’t addressed my comment. This your first time at the rodeo, Sparky?

                • GCT

                  That website is one fallacy after another. Yes, I’ve checked it out. It’s horrible.

      • blasphemous_kansan

        This article is about people wishing suffering and death on other people.

        Devi stated that those people belong in a group that is obsessed with death.

        Perhaps Devi’s statement is a bit broad, but if you scroll up on this very page you can see where one wishes to inject a woman with saline ‘just to make her suffer’. Read that statement. Then read Devi’s statement and tell me who is more ‘void of humanity’. Maybe you should direct your ire toward those who want to see people SUFFER AND DIE.

        • dawkwin

          saline solutions to abort a child should make you upset as well. Unsure why not. Science has observed the neurological pain many who have received this or other injectiosn can scientifically feel pain.

          • Michael Harrison

            It’s a dangerous game to infer experiential details from physiological reactions.

          • C Peterson

            Responding to a painful stimulus isn’t the same thing as experiencing pain. Worms respond to painful stimuli, but it’s quite certain that worms lack the neural capacity to feel anything in a conscious way. Adults with no high level brain function respond to painful stimuli, but there’s no reason to think they “feel” anything or suffer in any way.

            The use of saline to induce abortion only bothers me to the extent that it is rarely medically appropriate for the patient (which is why it is seldom used anymore). In terms of the fetus, I’m not bothered at all, because there is nothing to suggest that a fetus less than 24 weeks gestation has any consciousness or self-awareness to speak of, and could therefore experience pain as anything other than a reflex.

            • Valde

              Anencephalic fetii also react to noxious stimuli – yet they can’t feel a thing because the braincase is empty

          • blasphemous_kansan

            “saline solutions to abort a child should make you upset as well.Unsure why not”

            The answer is simple: Children are not aborted at all; a fetus is. Please try to keep up.

            Nice job dodging the point of my comment. Perhaps it made you uncomfortable, so I’ll put it here again in case you feel like ever addressing it:

            “Read that statement (saline injections to make people suffer). Then read Devi’s statement and tell me who is more ‘void of humanity’.”

            • dawkwin

              So, if you are involved in a car wreck and have the mental capabilites and physical capacity of a “fetus” you would qualify for one of these saline solutions?
              whether or not you could be nursed back to health in say…4 months?
              stay consistant…

              • TurelieTelcontar

                Do I need another person to provide food for me by them eating food and me getting it through their blood? Would all my bodily waste be filtered through their kidneys? Would I get all the oxygen I needed be taken out of her bloodstream? And would I seriously impact her immune system, so I can actually do this?
                And finally – if only one certain person can do this – are they then forced to do it?

                • rtanen

                  Nobody took a kidney, a lung, blood, or bone marrow from me without my consent and regard for whether it could kill me, even though I may have been the only match for a sick person and therefore could be the only way to save that person’s life. That would have been illegal, and nobody suggests that being a living donor is mandatory. Remind me why a fetus or embryo deserves far more access to my body’s resources than a person does?

              • JSC_ltd

                The simple distinction between a fetus and anyone commenting here is that the fetus is not born. Do try to keep up.

              • RobMcCune

                If I were living in someones womb, yes. That’s my position regardless of age, so it’s perfectly consistent.

              • blasphemous_kansan

                Again, for the benefit of the reading-comprehension impaired, I present to you, The Original Point

                “Read that statement (saline injections to make people suffer). Then read Devi’s statement and tell me who is more ‘void of humanity’.”

                Feel like dodging again?

                Your hypothetical scenario has no bearing on reality whatsoever, and obfuscation will not work. My interest in this conversation is the point quoted above. Care to address it? Please answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’ and save some time for us both.

              • Valde

                if you are clinically braindead as a result of a car wreck, then yes

                and a fetus, when most abortions take place, has the same EEG readings as that of a clinicaly braindead patient

              • Em

                Does a person who has been in a car wreck need someone else’s kidneys and lungs to survive? I would say that donor has the right to withhold either at will, even if it means the human vegetable dies.

          • ragarth

            @dawkwin
            So since you’re leaning on science to support your claim, I’m sure you can point to a peer reviewed article in a scientific journal that you’ve actually read to support your view, right?

            • dawkwin

              the Bible is peer reviewed journal.
              scrutinized …hammered…hated…discounted…
              but stands.

              • ragarth

                @dawkwin
                lol! You’re joking right?

                Because either you’re joking or you just gave the goose away and admitted that this:

                “Science has observed the neurological pain many who have received this or other injectiosn can scientifically feel pain.”

                was a lie.

          • Em

            Funny, because every modern study shows 28 weeks of gestation as the general time when fetuses MIGHT have the ability to feel pain. Before that point, their nervous system is not capable. And even then, it is questionable. Regardless, birth itself has to be a terrifying and painful experience for an infant. There are only two painless ways out of the uterus–a c-section, and an early abortion.

            • dawkwin

              So it’s o.k. to kill someone because they don’t feel pain?
              no, it’s not funny.

              • Michael Harrison

                You raise the issue of fetal pain, and then you ask this? Way to move the goalposts.

                Edit: Actually, I don’t think this is even moving the goalposts; you just changed topic. Are you willing to admit you were wrong about fetal pain?

                • RobMcCune

                  Actually dawkwin is trying to dodge the point that one of the people mentioned in the article wants to torture women.

                • dawkwin

                  Someone who has a sense of justice…you sound like you would be fine with torturing anyone who would say such a thing. Or are you o.k. with people having their own beliefs.?

                • RobMcCune

                  you sound like you would be fine with torturing anyone

                  No, you’re thinking of someone called dawkwin, though that person has no sense of justice.

                • dawkwin

                  judgement day stands…will be called on account of reign.

                • Michael Harrison

                  I can appreciate a pun as much as the next guy, but the tendency among evangelists to choose wordplay over saying anything of substance is decidedly a philosophical turn-off.

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

                  And it’s not even original wordplay, it’s always one of a scant pawful of old “god-approved” puns. And yes, it’s a turn-off, unless we’re both in agreement to make pun of the religion at hand.

                • Em

                  If I am willing to deal with Judgment Day, will you stop trying to be God?

                • dawkwin

                  never meant you to think I am God…
                  just know this… He left enough information (In His Word) for us to know what will happen on Judgment Day.
                  Do with it what you will. But He did leave clearly how He judges.
                  The pope just recently made a statement saying: “Who am I to judge…”
                  Well, the correct answer is: Not THE Judge…

              • Em

                You brought up fetal pain as an argument against abortion and I addressed your concern. Nowhere did I say that someone who cannot feel pain should be killed. Strawman arguments are not valid.

                • dawkwin

                  agreed…I don’t believe anyone would think that is a good standard.
                  my apology…yet if someone argues that it’s o.k. to kill a “fetus”/pre-born baby because they won’t feel it…that would be an inhumane belief.

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

              OMCC, FRIDGE HORROR! O_O”

          • Carmelita Spats

            Saline solution? Jumping Jesus on a pogo stick! So you must certainly be against chemical contraception, yes? The Roman Criminal Church has spoken against the pill and the IUD for DECADES because it considers them to be “abortifacients” since they might affect the lining of the uterus and disallow a “tiny person” from implanting itself. Here is “The Pill Kills” site which articulates the anti-choice position in all its wide-eyed crazed glory:

            http://www.thepillkills.com/

            Evangelical Christians are starting to take a second look at chemical contraception. Here is what Al Mohler, the former head of the Southern Baptist Convention, has to say about chemical contraception, “While this would not criminalize or restrict non-abortifacient contraceptives, it would outlaw birth control that does not prevent the
            fertilization of the egg.” He is referring to the pill and the IUD:

            http://www.albertmohler.com/2011/11/17/were-all-harry-blackmun-now-the-lessons-of-mississippi/

            The Roman Criminal Church ONLY accepts a very disgusting method which they periodically “rename” in an effort to cover up its failure: the Rhythm/Billings/Creyton Method. This “scratch and sniff” method is so disgusting that it triggers the gag reflex, like watching flies feed. It involves pulling out vaginal mucus and playing with it on toilet paper to see if you are ovulating. You chart your temperature every day. If you DO NOT want to get pregnant, you MUST, MUST, MUST allow for “cushion days” before and after ovulation. By the time you add up the days you must abstain, plus the cushion days, plus your MENSTRUAL CYCLE, you are left with maybe a week for sexual activity. ROFLMAO!

            When I took the “Pre Cana” class with my husband, we were both shocked. We asked the fuckwit teaching the class about the inordinate amount of days that married people who want to avoid pregnancy MUST abstain and he told us that menstrual blood was a GREAT lubricant! EWWWWWWW! It smells like rotting asparagus! Besides, who the hell wants sex when you’re bleeding like a stuck pig, cramped and bloated? Who the hell cleans the sheets? The woman? I’ve decided to remain a vicious serial killer since my uterus is laced with an IUD, a Dachau-In-Utero for fertilized eggs. I have NO idea how many children have been slaughtered in my uterus over the past ten years. I’d be glad to send you my menstrual pads and you can give them a proper burial. Praise!

      • GCT

        How does lamenting the immorality of Xians somehow mean one is “void of humanity?” If anything, Devi Taylor is showing a lot more humanity than the people you are attempting to defend.

      • Goape

        The very symbol for the religion is the torturous murder weapon used to kill it’s god’s earthly form/child-self. That seems like a death cult; a sad, confused death cult.

      • DougI

        Considering that the goal of Christianity is to die, it’s rather appropriate that it be termed a death cult.

      • rx7ward

        Right, because criticizing Christianity is a sign of “being void of humanity.” I would, rather, argue the exact opposite, that uncritical acceptance of Christianity is a sign of a lack of humanity.

      • http://www.devitaylor.com/ Devi Taylor

        How is that statement “ignorant” or “void of humanity”?

      • ShoeUnited

        In what way is a group whose primary focus is the murder and resurrection of a dead Jew, and the destruction (rapture) of all sentient life forever and an eternity, not a death cult?

      • Em

        I am religious and I also consider Christianity a death cult.

    • Albert

      Death cult? How do you come to that conclusion?

      • Goape

        The bible.

        • Albert

          That doesn’t explain how you came to that conclusion, it just indicates what you see as your source for that conclusion. Can you expound on your claim a bit?

          • EvolutionKills

            This life is a precursor, just a prelude to the infinite afterlife. And it’s damn important that we become Christians in this short mortal life before we die, because once we die and know for sure, it’ll be too late.

            It’s a religion built around living for dying.

            • Albert

              Seems to me that most Christian’s don’t look forward to death, but are comfortable when that day comes, to where they will end up.

              It’s a religion built around the idea that Christians will live forever in Heaven, not in Hell.

              • EvolutionKills

                “It’s a religion built around the idea that Christians will live forever in Heaven, not in Hell.”

                Thanks for reinforcing my point. It’s a religion built around living for dying, because you still forgot the whole fear of Hell bit.

          • Goape

            Reading the bible.

            • Albert

              Yeah. that really helps make sense to your conclusions now doesn’t it?

      • EvolutionKills

        “Christianity is a cult of human sacrifice. Christianity is not a religion that repudiates human sacrifice, it’s a religion that celebrates a single human sacrifice as though it were effective. ‘God so loved the world he gave his only son’ John 3:16. The idea is that Jesus suffered the crucifixion so that none need suffer Hell, except for those billions in India; and billions like them throughout history.”

        -Sam Harris in his debate with William Lane Craig at Notre Dame.

        • Albert

          Sam Harris said, “The idea is that Jesus suffered the crucifixion so that none need suffer Hell, except for those billions in India; and billions like them throughout history.”

          Isn’t that a misunderstanding of the bible?
          Didn’t the bible say that Jesus died once for all? Wouldn’t that include those in India and the billions like them throughout history?

          And I am still not clear on how this you see this as a death cult.

          Doesn’t Christianity not so much celebrate the dead of Jesus on the cross but that he had risen from the dead after dying on that cross?

          • Carmelita Spats

            It is a death cult. You look forward to the “afterlife”. Incidentally, the issue of human sacrifice was SOOOO relevant to the Catholic missionaries who came to Mexico in the 16th century that they avoided putting up crucifixes because they were dealing with another religion’s use of human sacrifice. If you look at 16th century churches in Mexico, you will see a plain cross with a skull at the bottom…The Dead-Guy-On-A-Stick was removed. The padres also burned heretics and those who refused baptism…human sacrifice. The last auto da fe was in 1850… Human sacrifice well into the 19th century.

            • Albert

              Because they look forward to an afterlife, it is a death cult.
              Okay.

              I get that there were many killings and such in the history of Christianity, but I’m not sure you can point to scriptures that would enforce those actions. The people that did that were either 1) interpreting things incorrectly, or 2) following themselves and not Christianity.
              Either way, I’m not sure you can declare something that is looking forward to an afterlife as a death cult.

              But anyway, this is very off topic so I’m fine with dropping it if you are.

              • GCT

                No true Scotsman rears it’s ugly head.

                • Albert

                  GCT, To claim “no true Scotsman” you need to show where you see the fallacy in my statement.

                  My understanding of No True Scotsman is as follows:

                  “It is an informal fallacy, an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion. When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim, rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original universal claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule”
                  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman)

                  It is true that I am in no way denying that there were those people that called themselves Christians that did quite a bit of killings.(my point #1)

                  But, I am also pointing out the objective rule which is Christianity (my point #2)

                  Christianity is a religion that follows the tenants of Jesus Christ and his apostles. Where do you see in the teachings of Christianity that killings of this kind are appropriate and acceptable?

                  To claim ‘No True Scotsman’ requires you to show where I am false in my statement.

                • tsara

                  “Christianity is a religion that follows the tenants of Jesus Christ and his apostles.”
                  I think the word you’re looking for is tenets.

                • Albert

                  tsara, you are correct. That is the word I meant to use. Unfortunately I don’t catch those types of errors unless spell check catches them first. Thanks for that correction.

          • EvolutionKills

            So all of those billions in India will be saved without belief in Jesus? GREAT! No one needs to actually believe or go to church, we’re all set already. Good to know. Now can all of the Christians shut up already?

            It’s a human sacrifice. The death is still a prerequisite to resurrection. Jesus isn’t claimed to have died of natural causes, his death was brought about by means of elaborate Rube Goldberg mechanics so that God could exploit a loophole in the laws of the cosmos that he created, but he needed his blood to do it.

            Have you seen ‘The Passion of the Christ’?I have, and It’s 2+ hours of torture porn. The death was a human sacrifice (as described in the Gospels), the death of Jesus is being celebrated even if indirectly. It’s immoral and creepy as all hell.

            • http://www.devitaylor.com/ Devi Taylor

              So all of those billions in India will be saved without belief in Jesus? GREAT! No one needs to actually believe or go to church, we’re all set already. Good to know. Now can all of the Christians shut up already?

              That is the million-dollar question, right there. If Jesus cleared the slate for me (i.e. died for my sins) then why do I need to be a Christian?

            • Albert

              Well, no, that isn’t actually the tenants of Christianity, right?

              There is a requirement to actually believe in Jesus to be saved according to the bible, right? But again, this is a choice for each person to make. And if the Christian bible is true in what it states, then those billions in India who choose not to believe, will go to Hell based on a choice they have made, right?

              I have seen the Passion. Mel Gibson did tend to make it rather gruesome. But, according to the Gospels, what was depicted is very possible what actually happened. The amount of blood and such might be exaggerated, but it’s hard to tell in reality.

              How do you mean immoral?
              I’m not sure Christian’s so much celebrate the death of Christ but rather the fact that he rose again. The mention of his dying is because, according to scripture, he died for a purpose, so we wouldn’t have to. So that is definitely an important thing in Christian beliefs, but I believe the main point is that he rose from the dead.

              • EvolutionKills

                I’m talking about the billions who have never even heard of Christianity, and will die never hearing of it. They had no choice, but they will all burn all the same. Some compassion, and it also speaks to just how fucking inept and extremely callous the god of the Bible is. Good thing there is no reason to think he exists.

                It is immoral because it is vicarious redemption, it is scapegoating. You cannot absolve yourself of personal responsibility, it would be immoral of you to ask and immoral of anyone else to offer. Christianity is scapegoating writ large. That your god would demand such a sacrifice, instead of just forgiving humanity was apparently out of his power. So he’s clearly callous, inept, immoral, not omniscient or omnipotent, and not at all worthy of worship if he did in fact exist. Once again, there is no good reason to believe he does, and we should all be happy for that.

                • Albert

                  You said, “You cannot absolve yourself of personal responsibility, it would be immoral of you to ask and immoral of anyone else to offer.”

                  I’m not sure I would agree with it being immoral to ask or for someone to offer it. I would have to ask you to explain how you come to that conclusion for me to be able to agree with you on that point.

                  But you are correct in that you cannot absolve yourself of personal responsibility.

                  What’s funny is that is exactly what Pro-choicers are saying should happen for the women who becomes pregnant without wanting to be.

                  Her making the choice to have an abortion is absolving herself from any responsibility.

                  What I have been advocating for, and is consistent with your assertion about responsibility, is that women(and men) are to take on the responsibility of caring for the child as a consequence for their actions.
                  They do all they can upfront, before they conceive, to prevent getting pregnant but if it happens they are no longer in prevention mode, but obligation mode, which means they are taking responsibility for their actions, not being absolved from them.

                • EvolutionKills

                  But do you want to know what shoots down your entire point? If they are Christians, they DO get to absolve their responsibility, don’t they? They can get the abortion, pray to Jesus, and be forgiven. Problem solved. They get the abortion they want, and Jesus is cool with it. Jesus is a cosmic scapegoat, whom you can load up with all of your sins and transgressions, then drive him out into the desert to die for you thus wiping yourself clean. After all it is claimed that ‘he died for our sins’, is that not right?

                  “I’m not sure I would agree with it being immoral to ask or for someone to offer it. I would have to ask you to explain how you come to that conclusion for me to be able to agree with you on that point.

                  But you are correct in that you cannot absolve yourself of personal responsibility.”

                  Thanks for contradicting yourself in the space of a sentence. You waffle over the immorality of vicarious redemption, then state ‘you cannot absolve yourself of personal responsibility’. But that is PRECISELY the core of the Christian doctrine. That all humans are sinful, but that by believing in Jesus he can clean you of that sin. Jesus can ‘absolve you of personal responsibility or accountability’ for your actions, and indeed he must to wash off the sin of Adam or you’ll never get into Heaven. This is why all of the ignorant unwashed masses that have never heard of Jesus are going to burn in Hell, so goes the Christian dogma. How have you missed that?

                  Christians have no personal responsibility or moral accountability, as per their religious doctrines. That’s why the core doctrines of Christianity are immoral. Christianity is simply moral scapegoating, writ large.

                  So back to responsibility. How come you only seem to care about one, and only one, responsibility? What about the woman’s responsibility to not add unnecessary burden to social services in a country where they are already underfunded? How about her responsibility to her other children, to make sure that she has enough resources to raise them without having to split everyone’s shares again? What about societies responsibility to respect the woman’s physical autonomy? How about her responsibility to herself and the world, to not a bring into the world a child they are not ready, willing, or able to raise properly?

                  Fortunately, I’ll never be burdened with this decision. It’s not a choice I would ever envy someone having to make, but I would not deny them that choice. They are responsible for their choice, and they will have to live with it one way or another. But regardless of their choice, I’m ready to support that woman’s decision. You seem more concerned with making that decision for her.

                  One has to wonder why you are so quick to jump into a woman’s uterus and plant a flag there, claiming that ‘territory’ in the name of others.

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

                  I am not obligated, under any circumstances, to act as a life-support system for a parasite, human DNA or no.

      • http://www.devitaylor.com/ Devi Taylor

        They venerate the death of Christ, not his life. He supposedly performed numerous miracles, but all they really seem to talk about is how he died for everyone sins. The majority of statues of their god is of him dying on the cross. They even wear the cross, his torture device, as as symbol of their religion. And don’t forget that the millions of people struck down in the bible by their god, or the many laws that could get a person stoned…to death. They say their religion celebrates life, but the Rapture, in which over 6.5 billion people die, can’t get here soon enough for them. As soon as someone does something against their religion, they want to condemn the person to death. Not turn the other cheek or forgive them. Death. So yeah, death cult.

  • dawkwin

    So you believe there should be NO penalty for NOT getting health care. At least that would be consistant

    • Em

      The problem is that people don’t just not get health care. They refuse to buy insurance with the assumption they will always be healthy, then end up with emergency situations that cost more, which other people must fund.

  • Gus Snarp

    I am unsurprised by the hypocrisy of anti-choice Christians.

    • dawkwin

      What do you think should happen to someone who kills a child 10 minutes before he or she is born?…20 minutes…2 days…20 days…2 months…etc.
      or 10 minutes after.
      This would go before a jury either way so opinions are just that.
      When you bring “God” into the equation…it’s clear He is a bit more absolute.
      That day would come. Then all “bets” are off.
      Don’t get mad…just think.

      • baal

        The difficulty of setting a cut off point is not an argument for never punishing the most egregious cases nor for not allowing the least case on a range.

      • TheG

        So… killing a child before it is born should have a reasonable earthly punishment decided by a jury of one’s peers.

        But the torture of someone for eternity for the same action is totally reasonable?

        Yeah, that’s some thinking there.

      • Gus Snarp

        A non-viable fetus is not the same as a child. The line at which a fetus may be fuzzy, but there are still clear differences between the endpoints. More importantly, the legal line for prosecution has been determined: viability. So drop the false equivalencies please.

        • dawkwin

          “non-viable fetus is not the same as a child”
          Sorry, a 1 month old baby cannot live on it’s own outside the mother’s womb.
          legal: man’s version
          legal: God’s Word
          don’t always match…the Bible says that over and over again.
          Your loose for now.

          • Em

            A 1 month old baby does not need to use its mother’s kidneys and lungs to survive. It’s care can be performed by any person and not ONE of them have to share their body. If that newborn does need for someone to share its body–its mother to give bone marrow–she cannot legally forced to donate.

            Dawkwin, why do you think a fetus has more rights than that 1 month old baby?

          • Christopher Borum

            My loose what?

          • Tainda

            Are you really that obtuse? It’s not saying a 1-month-old baby can live ON ITS OWN outside the womb. It is saying a 1-month-old baby can live (with the help of a responsible adult) outside the mother’s womb.

            Also, Gus Snarp’s loose what?

            • Gus Snarp

              I think it’s my bowels, that seems to be the effect reading his drivel has on me.

          • EvolutionKills

            ‘God’s Word’ has no standing in the law’s of a secular nation. Now fuck off, you lose.

            • dawkwin

              sure it does…you seem to have proved it.
              Romans 1:18-32

              • Michael Harrison

                Ugh, the teleological argument. To be fair, it’s a subtle point to understand why it’s fallacious, but it is fallacious.

              • EvolutionKills

                I’m sorry, quote the Bible to show how the United States is not secular? Try quoting the Constitution motherfucker…

                Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

                -First Amendment to the Constitution

                • bewildered

                  If you stop for just a moment and take the time to review the pro-abortion conversations, why are you people so angry? Evolution Kills, said a few times “you lose”. We aren’t in a contest, this is not a race, nor is it a game, but the sharing of ideas to perhaps get others to think, but to say “you lose”, leads me to believe that the anger that is deep within and continually boils to the surface, leads me to believe that your position is conflicting with the very moral aspects in your heart that we all have. By trying to justify your position, it is in direct conflict with where your heart really is, hence the anger. Instead of spilling your vitriol for all to read, stop for a few days, and truly examine your heart, I mean REALLY examine your heart. Perhaps, you’ll find that your viewpoints are mixed up and that the moral fibers that are within us all, may be an eye opening experience. This goes for any one else that wants to examine their hearts. Take a few days off from commenting, and quiet yourselves and examine your hearts.

                • tsara

                  Because you’re fucking advocating for rape and torture — which is what I consider forcing someone who is pregnant to remain pregnant to be. You may think you’re having an abstract philosophical discussion, but this is my goddamn life we’re talking about and my rights you want to take away. Of course I’m fucking angry. Your position makes me fucking sick. Assuming you know what’s going on in my brain (or, as you put it, ‘my heart’), just makes it fucking worse. It’s patronizing bullcrap.
                  Why don’t you take a few days off and go learn some empathy.

                • EvolutionKills

                  We can get angry because of dealing with vapid shits like yourself. I have little patience for people too fucking ignorant of the history of their own country to post blatantly false assertions like the United States is a ‘Christian Nation’, or other stupid shit like quoting the Bible in an argument over SECULAR LAW. People that do that are dumber than the ground they walk on.

                  Oh no, the Pro-choice side looks angry! It can’t possibly be because they’re all tired from dealing with the same handful of bogus, empty, and utterly immoral justifications for stomping all over women. Oh no! They must be angry because they are immoral! That’s it! I’m not going to present any reasonable or evidence based arguments to support my position, instead I’ll undermine my opponents by questioning their moral fiber! BRILLIANT!

                  And with that said, go fuck yourself. We’ve had enough of your bullshit stupid arguments that have been unceremoniously crammed back up your ass 7 ways to Sunday. You argument are terrible and do not stand up to scrutiny. So maybe it’s YOU who needs to reconsider their position, seeing as how it’s founded on nothing but misguided assumptions and ass backwards logic.

          • Gus Snarp

            Ah, I see the problem, you’re clearly an ignoramus.

          • ShoeUnited

            You are absolutely correct!

            Man’s word and God’s Word don’t match all too often.

            IN FACT, there’s a LOT of places where Man and God don’t see eye to proverbial eye.

            Like kicking over the stalls of money changers, eye for an eye, working on Saturday, mixing fibers, eating shellfish, tithing.

            BUT WAIT THERE’S MORE!

            Slavery, concubines, making it perfectly ok to rape little girls who haven’t had a menstrual cycle yet, stoning people to death, saying god’s true name, lusting in your mind and all other manner of thought crimes… AND A WHOLE LOT MORE!

            ORDER NOW AND WE’LL THROW IN THE BONUS CONFLICTING LAWS FOR THE LOW LOW PRICE OF GIVING UP YOUR SELF-RESPECT!

            CALL NOW!

            • EvolutionKills

              Billy Mays would approve.

          • http://www.devitaylor.com/ Devi Taylor

            Sorry, a 1 month old baby cannot live on it’s own outside the mother’s womb.

            True. But at that point, the mother is not required. Anybody can take care of the child. A fetus cannot be transplanted from one woman’s body to another.

      • Gus Snarp

        Catholic pro-lifers, in particular, ought to oppose the death penalty as well, so suggesting that it should be the penalty for abortion is very hypocritical. So is the suggestion that hysterectomy ought to be the punishment. Reconcile that with Catholic doctrine on reproduction.

        • dawkwin

          “ought to oppose the death penalty”
          Is this your belief or does this standard just come and go as the wind blows?

          • Nerdinity

            I think he’s referring to the “seamless garment” in Catholic theology, not his personal views. Pointing out their hypocrisy.

            • dawkwin

              Anytime a Christian says they believe something not in the Bible…bingo.

              Anytime someone who says they can believe anything they want yet judges a Christian has boarded the hypocrisy cruise ship, as well..

              • Whirlwitch

                Your logic is deeply flawed. People have the right to believe as they wish, yes. I’m still free to judge their beliefs. Just like they can say whatever they want, but I’m still free to judge what they say.

                Or are you just objecting to people judging Christians?

              • TurelieTelcontar

                People can believe what they whish. However, if they identify as Roman Catholic, they need to oppose the death penalty as much as abortion. By the rules of the belief system they identify as.

                So, to oppose one extremely, while furthering the other – makes one as much a hypocrite as a Muslim would be who demanded no one was allowed to drink alcohol (which he doesn’t like anyway) while eating bacon himself.

              • RobMcCune

                So what beliefs do you not allow people to have?

              • wombat

                Right-o, since we’re talking about things that aren’t in the bible, can you quote me the verse that says ‘thou shalt not abort’?

          • Gus Snarp

            I didn’t make it up, the Pope did.

      • Spuddie

        If it can survive outside the womb, its too late for an abortion. Any time before that is perfectly OK. How is that for an answer.

        When you bring God into the equation, you bring a POV which involves insulting, denigrating and attacking women for even considering such things.

      • Nerdinity

        Dawkwin, what people who ask these questions like “would you kill a baby one minute before it’s born???” don’t understand is that birth and labor are a process- just like conception. There’s no “magical moment” where *boom* it happens. A petty point, maybe, but indicative of the lack of understanding about women’s health that many of these people seem to suffer from. And that IS actually a huge problem.

      • Ibis3

        You know, there are some municipalities where it is against the law to cut down a tree on your private property without a permit. Should bylaw officers come to your house and fine you for throwing an apple core into your compost? Just think.

        In many urban areas, it’s illegal to keep chickens. Should I report you for the dozen eggs in your fridge? Just think.

        Oh, and what do you not understand about bodily autonomy? Forcing a woman to remain pregnant against her will is the same as treating her as a chattel. That’s called slavery.

        If a god exists and he or she has a problem with abortion, he or she can take it up with the person who had an abortion without any intervention from you.

        • Tainda

          I applauded this post!

          But remember, most christians treat anything that isn’t human as trash (in reply to your tree and chicken comment)

        • dawkwin

          “Oh, and what do you not understand about bodily autonomy?’

          That there are now 2 people that are living in the same space where only 1 was before?
          Yes, that is observed scientifically. Mother and child.
          Agreed, God said that He has taken care of your sin, as well as mine. But for those who are taking care of their own it is by “choice”.

          • EvolutionKills

            Sin is a made up bullshit concept, used to convince you that you are sick so some jackasses can peddle to you a cure.

            • dawkwin

              no, that would be your conscience…
              unless you don’t have one…

              • EvolutionKills

                A conscience is that voice in your head that makes you behave when you think no one is around to notice.

                Sin is defiance of god’s will, and is entirely based upon his arbitrary desires.

                Since we can’t prove the existence of any god, let alone what it’s desires are, sin ends up being nothing more than a means of control through fear. Sin has no correlation to morality or ethics.

        • bewildered

          Forcing a woman to remain pregnant against her will. Was she forced to conceive? One other question….Are you forcing the fetus to —– die? What is your definition of force? Does it include everyone —-BUT the fetus? HMMMM?

          • EvolutionKills

            The fetus is not a separate entity with it’s own will.

            • bewildered

              Didn’t answer the question….. Was the woman forced to conceive? In response to your comment…. The fetus is a separate entity. It just didn’t appear, as if it were a pimple to be popped. Was the fetus forced to be conceived? If the woman was not forced to conceive and the fetus was not forced? Why is the argument centered around “forcing” the woman to remain pregnant? There was no force intiially, she willingly allowed the sperm to be deposited within her, she willingly spent time with this man. But yet, she is forcing the abortion on the fetus! So who is forcing who?

              • RobMcCune

                So who is forcing who?

                You are, I don’t see what’s so bewildering about it.

              • JSC_ltd

                Consent to sex is not consent to conception.

              • EvolutionKills

                Contraception is not 100% effective. Also, are you completely oblivious to woman becoming pregnant through rape? Regardless, viable fetuses are possible without the woman’s consent.

                Since the fetus cannot survive outside of the mother, it’s ‘will’ is subordinate to the mother’s.

                Are you an organ donor? I am, and if I die and they can use my organs, I want them to be used to prolong the life of another. It is my CHOICE to be an organ donor. If you do not CHOOSE to be an organ donor, someone else cannot go against your wishes and harvest your body for usable parts. You are dead, but the needs and will of others cannot supersede your own control of your own body, even after your death.

                So how come you don’t want women to have AT LEAST AS MUCH CONTROL over their BODILY AUTONOMY as a CORPSE?

                • bewildered

                  I’ll start with your last comment… If a woman had better control over her body, then the conception would never have taken place. But, that must have been overlooked in making your argument. And the part of organ donors…HMMMM, Movin’ on… You mention viable fetus… if it is a viable fetus, and subordinate to the mother, then it must have life. You are subordinate to your boss, to the police, to the government. Therefore, you are under their control and direction. But you are still alive nonetheless. Why not a viable fetus??? HMMMM?? And the “rape” comment..The last ditch effort to justify the termination of a viable fetus. If your boss decides to fire you, or the police evict you from your house, through no fault of your own, would it be acceptable? No you would want some sort of retribution for having something done to you that you had no control over. So how do you justify, the termination, eilimination of a viable fetus?

                • EvolutionKills

                  I’m not answering anything else until you stop dodging the organ donor analogy.

                  And a woman that gets raped and becomes pregnant, she should be forced to carry that to term because she could have had better control? The whole point of rape is that it was beyond her control you ignorant fuck.

                • bewildered

                  ignorant f**k???. who is the ignorant one? Can you make an argument using something other than that. And you still dodge the question…. Who is the ignorant one? No worries, i understand…..HMMMMM? Organ donors and slaughtering viable fetuses, great comparison. Who is the ignorant one? HMMMM? Abortion is not about the women who were raped, because the women who are slaughtering the viable fetuses, were willing participants. Now that it has become inconvenient, because of their sexual tryst, slaughter the viable fetus. A woman who was raped is a horrible horrific thing to happen in thieir life, but why slaughter a viable fetus?

                • EvolutionKills

                  If it cannot survive outside of the woman, it IS NOT VIABLE you ignorant fuck. It’s clear you are more concerned about punishing a woman for her perceived sexual transgressions and the ‘rights’ of a potential human beings; and you care fuck-all for the rights, will, or autonomy of the women in question.

                  If the pregnant woman can commits suicide, killing both herself and the fetus, and only then does she have more control over her body in death than she did in life? YOUR POSITION IS FUCKED UP.

                • bewildered

                  My position is simple… The fetus (which is a baby) did not ask to be conceived, why shouldn’t the baby have a fair chance at life? All that has been said is the case for the woman’s rights…What about the baby’s rights to life? Not their fault, but give them a chance at life. Adoption agencies all over the world. Couples that can’t conceive can raise these babies. Couples that want to see the baby grow and become a member of society. My position is life. If that as you call it is effed up, than it is effed up. But it is still my position….

                • allein

                  Adoption is not an alternative to pregnancy, and in many cases, it is the pregnancy itself that is untenable for any number of reasons.

                  (Leaving aside the very real psychological effects that giving up a baby for adoption has on women.)

                • http://www.devitaylor.com/ Devi Taylor

                  That sounds very nice and all, but adoption is not a cure all. There are approximately 500,000+ kids in the foster care system. The last statistic I read stated about 50,000 of them age out of the system each year, meaning they are never adopted. Additionally, the system favors white newborns with no physiological or psychological defects. Older kids, disabled kids, and children of other races are less likely to be adopted. Add to that fact most religious conservatives oppose GLBT people adopting kids and have put laws into effect preventing them from doing so and the pool of available parents narrows even more.

                • EvolutionKills

                  If the fetus cannot survive outside of the mother, then it is not viable; and most certainly is not a baby yet. It’s not a baby until the umbilical cord is cut and it can survive on it’s own apart from the mother. Until then, not a baby.

                  You want me to support violating the rights and personal bodily autonomy of an actual woman, in favor of the potential rights of a potential human. Arguing from the ‘potential’ of a cell gets you nowhere. Unless you want to outlaw blowing your nose, because all of the skin cells you lose when you do is a holocaust of ‘potential’ human beings given our advances in genetics.

                  The ‘adoption’ argument gets you nowhere. The entire system is entirely overburdened as is. So fix the foster care and adoption services and strengthen other social safety net services to help provide for the adopted child (universal healthcare, food stamps, government assisted housing, etc.). After you’ve done all that, then you can hide behind the ‘adoption’ excuse.

                  Your position is life? Do you support the death penalty? Do you support foreign wars of aggression?

                  I oppose the death penalty, because it’s a permanent solution to a temporary problem, and far too open to abuse. I oppose our foreign wars of aggression and the needless lives lost and human suffering they have caused. I support the life, liberty, and rights of an actual woman against the encroachment and limitations you’d place on her in the name of ‘potential’ human beings.

                  My position is well argued for and consistent, can you say the same?

                • http://www.devitaylor.com/ Devi Taylor

                  Married women get abortions too, and these women usually already have children. They don’t want more kids because they are too old or they don’t have the resources (emotionally or financially) to raise another child. So are you saying a married woman should abstain from having a “tryst” with her husband if she doesn’t want to have any more kids?

                • Ella Warnock

                  Married women are held to the same standards as any other livesto . . . er, woman. If she’s having sex, she’d better be prepared to have as many blessings as god sees fit to “gift” her with. Even if you’re enjoying yourself licitly, you’re still basically a slut for, well, enjoying yourself.

                • Valde

                  Yeah, which is why when Savita H. died, and Beatriz’ life was at risk, many anti-choicers said that both women should have accepted the risks when they ‘spread their legs’ – and that death is preferable to ‘killing your child’.

                • Em

                  I ‘spread my legs’ for my husband on a very regular basis, as the Bible mandates. :)

                • Em

                  Organ donation is a great comparison. Unfortunately, that comparison means that you must be prolife/pro-forced organ donation OR pro-choice with regards to both abortion and organ donation.

                  You seem to have a real problem with forming a logically consistent opinion on this subject.

                • RobertoTheChi

                  What is with this stupid HMMM? shit? So goddamned annoying.

                • Michael Harrison

                  Could it be–SATAN?!

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

                  *snork*

                • RobertoTheChi

                  HMMM….yes that is a possibility.

                  And I will now have Dana Carvey stuck in my head for the rest of the day.

                • Valde

                  Because viable fetii are not ‘slaughtered’ in abortions.

                  Jellybean sized bits of protoplasm are removed from the uterus.

                  Your histrionics are laughable at best.

                • Carmelita Spats

                  The organ donor argument was beautifully spelled out for you.

                • EvolutionKills

                  They never expect the Organ Donor Analogy.

                  Sorta’ like the Spanish Inquisition…

                • Valde

                  If a woman had better control over her body, then the conception would never have taken place.

                  And there’s the money shot.

                • GCT

                  Well, it’s apparent that you only care about making sure those damned sluts suffer the consequences for having sex.

              • Valde

                It just didn’t appear, as if it were a pimple to be popped.

                It did. God put it there, with MAGIC!

          • Spuddie

            Were you there? Is it your body? Why should you be involved in her decision at all? Who asked you?

          • Em

            Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. If it were, there would be lots of pregnant men.

            Whether a fetus is never conceived or it is conceived and then aborted before it has any sentience, the result is the same. Unless you want to force women to have sex without birth control, abortion should be a null subject.

        • rtanen

          I agree, but one small quibble:

          The eggs in your fridge aren’t fertilized, and could not grow into chickens under any conditions. If they were, there would be a small blood spot in them.

      • Michael Harrison

        This was argued on an episode of House, M.D. I think the writers had a bit of insight with this line: “Nice thing about the abortion debate is we can quibble over trimesters, but ultimately there’s an
        ice-cold line–birth. Morally, there isn’t a lot of difference. Practically, huge.”

      • DougI

        Nobody performs an abortion 10 minutes before delivery (and obviously not after because then it isn’t an abortion). That’s just some stupidity the Antis dreamed up for pure, emotional propaganda purposes. It’s safe to assume that when an Anti is talking they are lying.

        • Whirlwitch

          Not to mention, since an abortion is the termination of a pregnancy, and a woman is no longer pregnant once the waters have broken, which tends to occur more than ten minutes before delivery, you can’t perform an abortion then, either.

      • Sweetredtele

        Why, sometimes God loves killing children! (he says nothing about zygotes).

        How about dashing little ones against the rocks?
        http://biblehub.com/psalms/137-9.htm

        What about sending a couple she-bears to kill children? How about Passover? The flood-all those children and infants were wicked?

        20-50% of all pregnancies miscarry. God aborts more than anyone.

      • JSC_ltd

        Your god doesn’t exist, so don’t try to bring him into the equation by division.

      • EvolutionKills

        Your ‘God’, if we are to take your Bible literally, is the MOST PROLIFIC ABORTIONIST OF ALL TIME. And I’m not just counting the flood of Noah.

        How many attacks, sacked cities, and acts of genocide (all of which must have killed pregnant women)? Almost too many to count.

        Killed everyone on the planet in the flood of Noah? Did you think that no pregnant women died in that flood?

        Now if you believe we were created, then he has to take credit for our biology. It is a fact of human physiology that woman naturally end almost 20% of all viable pregnancies. That’s 1-in-5 fertilized zygotes (complete with souls, so the fundies believe) are naturally ‘aborted’ by the woman’s body. 1-in-5, now take that across all of human history?

        GOD IS THE MOST PROLIFIC ABORTIONIST OF ALL TIME

        Assuming he really exists and you buy into a literal interpretation of the Bible, and you believe that zygotes have souls worth human consideration.

        Good luck squaring that circle.

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

          ….

          • EvolutionKills

            Thank you, Bender makes me smile.

        • Em

          In one passage, God applauds those who rip infants from their mother’s womb. Don’t forget that verse!

        • http://www.devitaylor.com/ Devi Taylor

          You win the Internet EvolutionKills.

  • kielc

    For these people, of course, the only moral abortion is your own abortion.

  • http://star-www.st-and.ac.uk/~pr33/ Paul Rimmer

    I think elective abortion (when the life of the mother is not at risk) after 20 weeks should be illegal, and that the penalty for an elective abortion should only be for the person performing the abortion. The penalty should depend on the circumstances, but should generally be a significant fine.

    • TheG

      Well, if you’re going to try to propose something reasonable, you’ll be kicked out of the tribe.

      Pro Lifers aren’t about punishment; they’re about vengeance.

      • http://star-www.st-and.ac.uk/~pr33/ Paul Rimmer

        I’m not interested in being part of a tribe, definitely not that sort of tribe! I’m interested in finding the most effective way to respect both the rights of the unborn and the rights of the mother.

        • Spuddie

          The rights of the mother are never respected by making abortion illegal. Its her body the fetus has to live in. Her will keeps it alive.

          The rights of the unborn are always going to be subordinate to the rights of the mother until it can live outside her. Therefore in the great balance of things, the rights of the unborn are unimportant unless actually viable.

          • Blacksheep

            Something I struggle with, maybe you have a take: Do you think it’s the opinion of most pro-choice individuals that women have 100% control over whether or not they carry a fetus to term? In other words, a couple gets together, the woman gets pregnant, and the father has 0 input into whether or not the pregnancy should be carried to term.

            Is this sort of a “possession is 9/10′s of the law” thing?

            • Spuddie

              The possession thing is the most important part. The father is not the one who undergoes the physical risk of the pregnancy and giving birth.

              He has the physical ability to run away from the pregnancy, she does not. She will always be considered responsible for the born child. The burden will be on her to prove the father is really the father.

            • tsara

              “Do you think it’s the opinion of most pro-choice individuals that women have 100% control over whether or not they carry a fetus to term?”
              Probably yes? If the pregnant person has a good relationship with the sperm donor, zie can consult hir for advice and for hir feelings about being involved and whatnot, but there’s no obligation to do so, and certainly no obligation to obey the sperm donors wishes. An analogy I’d make is for one partner in a marriage to be able to overrule hir spouse’s decision to donate or not donate an organ or to accept or not accept a donation while the person whose body is under discussion is conscious, of sound mind, and clearly stating hir wishes.
              It’s making decisions about somebody else’s medical treatment.

            • Michael Harrison

              The two people whose opinions matter most are the person whose body is being stressed the most, and the person who went to school for a decade to understand what exactly is going on with said body.

              • Michael Harrison

                Also, I have looked up information on the so-called post abortion depression. It turns out that this is largely experienced by women who have been coerced into an abortion they didn’t want. This is the main reason I don’t think the father has as much of a say; it also shows why the emphasis should be on choice.

            • cary_w

              Yup, the day you can turn your body into an incubator, then you get to take 100% control of carrying the baby to term. As long as the umbilical cord is attached to my body, the baby is an extension of me, it cannot live without me, so I have total control. Once it’s born, it is an individual citizen with its own rights, if it’s your child, you have a right to partial custody or you can fight for full custody if you want. Sorry, sucks to be male, you’d better think hard about where you let your sperm go.

              • Goape

                I agree with you—except I think it’s nice being male. (Seems silly that only men should be concerned with the whereabouts of their sperm though.)

            • TurelieTelcontar

              Well, I’d say in a good relationship, of course the mother should discuss this with the father. And if a woman told me that she had an abortion without talking with the child’s father about it, I’d seriously question the quality of their relationship.

              But the only way to legally give him a way for input involves also giving rapists or men who would object to an abortion and then walk away once it’s too late for one input rights. So, in a healthy relationship, I’d assume the decision gets made with some input from the father, and no law is needed. In an unhealthy relationship – the woman is the one who puts her health on the line in a pregnancy, and the one who has much more to lose. In these cases, making a rapist, or someone who is trying to control her by making her have and keep a child aware that he managed to impregnate her and she chose to abort, can be very dangerous for the woman. In this case a law would be a very bad idea.

              So, tl;dr: in a healthy relationship both people should have input, but probably will talk about it, since that’s kind of my definition of healthy relationship. In an unhealthy relationship getting into it can be dangerous for the woman.

          • http://star-www.st-and.ac.uk/~pr33/ Paul Rimmer

            I don’t share your moral framework.

            • Spuddie

              You have no moral framework to speak of.

              You are advocating coercion and attacks upon the autonomy of born human beings in favor of fanciful fictional notions absent any kind of rational basis.

              There is nothing moral about the gainsaying forcing women under color of law to give birth to children they had no intention on bringing to term. There is nothing moral about declaring yourself to be of greater importance over the decisions others makes over their bodies.

              Biology is a harsh mistress. If we were an egg laying species it would not be an issue. But since women have the sole burden of the pregnancy, their choices are the only ones which matter here.

    • GCT

      Why 20 weeks? Why would you make a punishment at all? If it is “murder” then how does letting the woman off with no punishment fit the crime? I may not like the fact that the people cited in the OP are bloodthirsty a-holes, but at least they are somewhat consistent.

      • Goape

        Yeah, consistency totally makes up for bloodthirstiness. That’s why I’m against punishing most serial killers.

      • http://star-www.st-and.ac.uk/~pr33/ Paul Rimmer

        Why 20 weeks?

        Because some cutoff needs to be in place, and the group of cells within the womb is quite possibly a person at and after 20 weeks. There’s also the argument from viability to consider.

        Why would you make a punishment at all?

        Because it may discourage doctors from performing elective abortions on babies after 20 weeks, and so would possibly save the lives of children.

        If it is “murder” then how does letting the woman off with no punishment fit the crime?

        Pragmatically, I don’t think this would be an effective way to reduce the number of elective abortions, and I don’t think punishing the woman would at all be politically feasible. Also, many women who get abortions do so because of financial concerns, or because they were raped or because of incest, and it would be unfair to punish them because they would be under a certain level of duress. Presumably, the abortionist is not under such duress, and under certain circumstances may find that performing the abortion justifies the fine.

        My end goal is the potential saving of lives by reducing the number of abortions after 20 weeks. I will seriously consider whatever policies will effectively and proportionately accomplish this goal without unjustly harming others.

        A complex position is not necessarily inconsistent. That sort of thinking is what leads people into fundamentalism.

        • GCT

          Because some cutoff needs to be in place, and the group of cells within the womb is quite possibly a person at and after 20 weeks.

          Says who and says who? Why do we need a cutoff and why is 20 weeks so magical? Why do you think it’s a person at 20 weeks?

          Because it may discourage doctors from performing elective abortions on babies after 20 weeks, and so would possibly save the lives of children.

          I reject your assertion that these are children. Where is your evidence. How do they magically become children at 20 weeks?

          Pragmatically, I don’t think this would be an effective way to reduce the number of elective abortions, and I don’t think punishing the woman would at all be politically feasible.

          This is why it’s inconsistent with the idea that you are actually pro-life. You’re not. You’re pro-control of women.

          • http://star-www.st-and.ac.uk/~pr33/ Paul Rimmer

            Says who and says who?

            The reasons behind this (I think that’s what you are actually asking about) are as follows.

            I’m unaware of any human being that does not have brain activity. Fetuses after 20 weeks may have brain activity, and so might be alive. Until there are better determinations of this, they should in my opinion be granted some protection.

            Some cut-off has to be in place, even if the cut-off is after the birth of the child. That cutoff is just as arbitrary as 20 weeks or any other cutoff.

            How do they magically become children at 20 weeks?

            I’m not claiming that they do.

            This is why it’s inconsistent with the idea that you are actually pro-life. You’re not. You’re pro-control of women.

            My concern is that the group of cells after 20 weeks may be a life, maybe the life of a little girl. Ending her life is exerting an extreme amount of control over her body, and I don’t believe that’s ethical. And I vote in accordance with my ethics.

            • Spuddie

              Nobody has to care about fetus brain activity. Abortion rights aren’t based on anything having to do with whether a fetus is “alive”. The only issue in its development needed is whether it can it live outside the mother.
              The only sane cut-off is based on viability. Anything else is just attacking a woman’s ability to make decisions about their own bodies.

              You may not like the decisions they make concerning pregnancy, but it is never yours to make. Your input is simply not welcomed. Even less so when it entails using the color of law to enforce it.

              Essentially you are saying your will and your decisions must be considered more important than what a woman has to say about her own body. Its a very arrogant and contemptuous view. One which relies entirely on ignoring or attacking women.

              • http://star-www.st-and.ac.uk/~pr33/ Paul Rimmer

                Nobody has to care about fetus brain activity. Abortion rights aren’t
                based on anything having to do with whether a fetus is “alive”. The only
                issue in its development needed is whether it can it live outside the
                mother.

                Why?

                I think the question is whether the fetus is a person. I think it’s wrong to kill people. I also think it’s morally reckless to destroy what might be a person

                • Spuddie

                  Because a fetus only lives by the will of its mother and nobody else on the planet. The same is never true of a born person.

                  There is no question here. As long as it is incapable of independent existence outside of the body of another, it can’t be considered a person no matter how much you pout.

                • lovesalot

                  And yet you would allow a woman, an actual person, to be destroyed for the possibility that a fetus, a potential person, might someday live, if the mother doesn’t die before the fetus is viable.

                • http://star-www.st-and.ac.uk/~pr33/ Paul Rimmer

                  Not at all. If the mother’s life is really in danger, the competent physician is the best person to determine that, and should destroy the fetus to save the woman.

                • Em

                  But by your standards, refusing to give a kidney is killing a person; thus, you should lobby for forced organ donation.

                • http://star-www.st-and.ac.uk/~pr33/ Paul Rimmer

                  No, I don’t think that’s a consequence of my position. It would be a consequence that, if my organ would already be in use by someone else (at the same time as me, or I had already donated it, etc.), even if it were somehow still inside of me, then if that person would die without my organ, that person’s right to life has to be accounted for.

                  In most cases, this will mean that I have a moral responsibility to allow the person use of my organs.

                  Now, conversely, if I have not yet donated my organs to another person, I can rightly refuse. But that case is not connected to my position on abortion.

                • tsara

                  My position is that if either of my teenage siblings were to be suddenly connected to me in such a way that disconnecting them would kill them, I would have every right to disconnect the. My siblings are indisputably people. I just don’t think that that matters. So long as my actions are reasonably proportional to ending the immediate and ongoing violation of my body, I bear no more moral responsibility than if I had pushed someone who was raping me off of me, and zie tripped, hit hir head, and died. I consider that to carry no moral burden at all; sure, it sucks, but I did nothing wrong.

                  Now, the law is not a moral code. If empirical evidence indicates that it is in society’s best interests to restrict abortion after a certain period, I’d be willing to listen. I highly doubt that the evidence will indicate that — for all of the reasons I’ve given in my other comments — but I am willing to consider the possibility.
                  But not until the political landscape changes. Not until after we’ve dealt with most of the inequality that exists. Not until after we’ve ensured universal healthcare (including mental health care), paid parental leave, good and comprehensive sex ed in schools, etc., etc., etc. I have to be confident that it isn’t the beginning of an erosion of the ability of people capable of bearing children to participate in society. Societal change has to come first.

            • GCT

              I’m unaware of any human being that does not have brain activity. Fetuses after 20 weeks may have brain activity, and so might be alive. Until there are better determinations of this, they should in my opinion be granted some protection.

              What makes your opinion on what makes personhood binding? And, why did you arbitrarily draw the line at brain function?

              Some cut-off has to be in place, even if the cut-off is after the birth of the child. That cutoff is just as arbitrary as 20 weeks or any other cutoff.

              It’s not abortion anymore if the child is born, so no, that does not constitute a cut-off. You’re basically claiming that we have to have a cut-off simply because we have to have a cut-off. I see no reason to accept this circular reasoning. And, a born child is not arbitrary.

              I’m not claiming that they do.

              Yes, you are. You’re claiming that their brain starts doing stuff at 20 weeks, so therefore…person.

              My concern is that the group of cells after 20 weeks may be a life, maybe the life of a little girl.

              Oh come off it. Your concern is making sure that women don’t have control over their own bodies when pregnant. That’s why you wouldn’t include them in decisions on whether they can have an abortion. That’s why they get let off the hook if they do have an abortion. That’s why your default is to make it law that abortion is illegal and then put the onus on doctors to break the law and hope that they aren’t prosecuted when an emergency comes up.

              • http://star-www.st-and.ac.uk/~pr33/ Paul Rimmer

                What makes your opinion on what makes personhood binding?

                The law in Texas, currently. Or maybe I misunderstand what you mean by “binding”?

                I don’t think it’s just an opinion, by the way. Personhood should always be liberally defined, otherwise we are likely to exclude people from it (as blacks and Jews, etc. have been in the past). The most liberal definition is an empirical one, where I already know that, say, Jeff is a person, and I ask what would still have to be there for Jeff to still be considered a person. I could imagine him inside the body of another person, or connected to the body of another person, and yet he’s still a person. Etc.

                And, why … brain function?

                Because I don’t know any person who doesn’t have a functioning brain, and I can’t think of any non-person that has both unique human DNA and brain function. That indicates to me a reasonably high probability that anything with unique human DNA and brain function is a person.

                • GCT

                  The law in Texas, currently. Or maybe I misunderstand what you mean by “binding”?

                  What makes your opinion more correct than mine? You’ve given no justification for your opinion other than you think it might be a person.

                  I don’t think it’s just an opinion, by the way. Personhood should always be liberally defined…

                  Opinion…

                  …otherwise we are likely to exclude people from it (as blacks and Jews, etc. have been in the past).

                  There are biological markers we can use to see that blacks and Jews (and women, much to your surprise I’m sure) are actually people. Markers like them actually being born.

                  I could imagine him inside the body of another person, or connected to the body of another person, and yet he’s still a person.

                  So, you’re in favor of forced organ donation then? If not, then it just, once again, shows the vacuity of your position.

                  Because I don’t know any person who doesn’t have a functioning brain, and I can’t think of any non-person that has both unique human DNA and brain function.

                  That’s because you’ve circularly already decided that brain function = person. But, that doesn’t answer my question. You don’t get to simply dictate your opinions and claim that they are truth and that we need to follow them. It doesn’t work like that.

                • http://star-www.st-and.ac.uk/~pr33/ Paul Rimmer

                  There are biological markers we can use to see that blacks and Jews (and
                  women, much to your surprise I’m sure) are actually people. Markers
                  like them actually being born.

                  Why should I accept what is just your opinion? People like Peter Singer argue that mothers have the right to end a child’s life after birth. Why your arbitrary designation?

                  Personhood should always be liberally defined, otherwise we leave people out.

                  You are welcome to disagree with my reasons, but recognize that there are reasons for why I think the way I do. If you disagree, put your votes where your beliefs are. I will do the same, and we’ll see who wins out.

                • TurelieTelcontar

                  Because after life any adult can take care of the child. It doesn’t need its mother for that.

                  The moment someone makes an artificial uterus, there’s a secure way to transport an existing fetus into it and a woman can sever her parental rights/duties completely, I’ll immediately support even fetus’s rights to life. As long as the fetus needs another person’s organs, it needs this person’s permission.

                • GCT

                  People like Peter Singer argue that mothers have the right to end a child’s life after birth.

                  At that point, the child is an autonomous individual. It’s not at all arbitrary.

                  Personhood should always be liberally defined, otherwise we leave people out.

                  Again, this is circular. You’re claiming that we need to liberally define person so that we don’t leave out unborn fetuses…because you claim they are persons.

                  You are welcome to disagree with my reasons, but recognize that there are reasons for why I think the way I do.

                  That you have horrible reasons does not make your position equally moral or justifiable.

                  If you disagree, put your votes where your beliefs are. I will do the same, and we’ll see who wins out.

                  Because the rights of women should be up for vote?

                • http://star-www.st-and.ac.uk/~pr33/ Paul Rimmer

                  Sorry, otherwise we risk leaving people out.

                  I think that the rights of many women in the womb are right now up for vote. I’m pleased with Texas’s vote, and many may follow suit.

                • GCT

                  Again, you’re relying on your circular definitions to argue. It’s logically fallacious and gets us nowhere, because you have no rational reasons for your position.

                • http://star-www.st-and.ac.uk/~pr33/ Paul Rimmer

                  I don’t see the circularity.

                  If there’s a certain dividing line or region, such that something is not a person on one side and is a person on the other, and if we have to find the line, then a liberal definition will pose less risk than a conservative definition for leaving people out. That’s simple probability.

                • GCT

                  Sigh.

                  It’s because you’re claiming to know what a person is, then making some arbitrary dividing line to include what you claim a person is, then claiming that it all fits together. Fetuses are people because they meet your criteria, which you set in order to claim that fetuses are people. It’s turtles all the way down and you still have yet to articulate any rational reason for accepting your criteria.

                  That, and we know it’s not about the babies at all for you, it’s about controlling the sex lives of women.

                • http://star-www.st-and.ac.uk/~pr33/ Paul Rimmer

                  Except that I’m not claiming to know what a person is.

                  I’m just claiming that there is such a dividing line or region. That’s all that is necessary.

                  It’s because I don’t know that justifies a liberal working definition.

                  That, and we know it’s not about the babies at all for you, it’s about controlling the sex lives of women.

                  No, it really is about saving children. If you think I’m being dishonest about this, why continue to respond to me?

                • GCT

                  Except that I’m not claiming to know what a person is.

                  Except that you are. You’re claiming to know well enough that you’re willing to curtail the rights of actual women in preference of your dictates.

                  I’m just claiming that there is such a dividing line or region.

                  That you proclaim it to be so does not make it so.

                  It’s because I don’t know that justifies a liberal working definition.

                  Why don’t we be extra liberal and claim it’s conception? Wouldn’t that be better and make sure to contain any potential person? Your stance is fallacious and based solely on your arbitrary determinations, which you feel entitle you to tell women what they can and cannot do with their own bodies. Shame on you.

                • Spuddie

                  So you are admitting the law in Texas had nothing to do with women’s health as claimed and was really an attempt at a limited abortion ban for its own sake.

                  Such honesty! One certainly didn’t see that coming any of that from the Texas Legislature or Gov Perry.

                  Btw the law was opposed by the entire medical community. Please do not pretend “20 weeks” had anything to do with medical knowledge or was endorsed by doctors.

                • http://star-www.st-and.ac.uk/~pr33/ Paul Rimmer

                  I think some doctors would endorse it. Possibly some of the same doctors who because of their consciences refuse to perform abortions.

                • Spuddie

                  “Some doctors” who endorse it out of non-professional, non medical reasons. As opposed to the organizations which represents ALL doctors as professionals and is responsible for setting the definitions of medical necessity and procedures in the field.

                  You can stop pretending it had any basis in medicine. You already admitted it wasn’t.

                • http://star-www.st-and.ac.uk/~pr33/ Paul Rimmer

                  Oh, I misunderstood! You are talking about the law. I don’t know whether it had a basis in medicine or not. All I can say is that’s not why I’m happy about it.

                  I’m happy about it because I think it may protect innocent children.

                • Spuddie

                  Fact of the matter is, you never find medical professional organizations endorsing these abortion bans or limitations. They are never based on women’s health or medical necessity. If anything they are abuses of such notions.

                  Innocent children are not the unborn. One has to be born to be a child. Of course by your statement not so innocent mothers must suffer your self-righteous judgment.

        • Spuddie

          So 20 weeks is purely arbitrary on your part.

          I see no reason to discourage doctors at all from elective abortions as long as a fetus can’t survive out of a womb. Its not your body, so it should never be your decision to make.

          I also find reducing the number of elective abortions through legal intimidation to be thoroughly immoral and repugnant. You are imposing your will on the bodies of others.

          If you want to reduce abortions, you have to support sane sex education, access to contraception, access to reasonable healthcare and improve the economic conditions for the working and middle classes.

          Your end goal is about women giving birth, it has nothing to do with lives after that.

        • TheG

          “Because some cutoff needs to be in place, and the group of cells within the womb is quite possibly a person at and after 20 weeks. ”

          Are you honestly proposing law based on something that is “quite possibly” a crime?

          And don’t get me started on the whole problem with your implication that forcing a rape/incest victim follow through with an unwanted/illegal pregnancy is somehow being more compassionate. You might as well be saying “Whoops, I’m sorry you were too ashamed to speak up or physically restrained from coming forward sooner. You’re going to have to go through a traumatic birth with your rape spawn.”

          • http://star-www.st-and.ac.uk/~pr33/ Paul Rimmer

            Are you honestly proposing law based on something that is “quite possibly” a crime?

            No. I’m proposing a law that may lead to saving the life of what is quite possibly a human being.

            • GCT

              No, you’re proposing laws to control women.

              • Tainda

                I wonder if most of these men (and women) realize the many laws that are in place controlling our bodies. Not just with abortion. Do they realize we aren’t allowed to even get our tubes tied without meeting a set criteria (age, already have children, etc.). I would imagine they either don’t or don’t care.

                • GCT

                  Excellent point. I’ve heard many stories of doctors refusing to do certain procedures because the women weren’t old enough, or didn’t have their husband’s consent, or the doctor was just sure that the woman would want a child in the future, and he knows better than she does what she should do with her body. This is just like the laws about forced ultrasounds before a woman can have an abortion. It’s all about keeping women as second-class citizens and baby incubators.

                • JA

                  Never heard of that…that law seriously exists?

                • Tainda

                  My cousin’s daughter just had her 3rd child and she is barely 21. She can’t have her tubes tied until she is 21 and a half.

                  I had my daughter at 20 and I didn’t want any more (and didn’t) but they wouldn’t let me get my tubes tied

                  Not sure if it’s a set law but doctor’s will not do them until a certain age.

                • Goape

                  The legal age for any medical procedure in the USA is 18. For elective surgeries doctors are free to exercise discretion. It sucks that it seems your cousin’s doctor is stringing her along, but you shouldn’t dramatise the situation by describing some nonexistent and maniacal law that’s out to “control our bodies”—that’s how conspiracy theories start.

                • Tainda

                  Or that I said not sure if it’s a law or not. When I get something wrong, I admit it.

                  I also realize the legal age is 18. And I was posting personal examples of people (including myself) that were well over 18. Also don’t make it sound like it’s just my cousin’s doctor that is “stringing her along”. It’s all of them. Plain and simple.

                • Goape

                  All doctors are stringing people along? Is that what you are saying? That isn’t plain or simple.

                  You were posting anecdotes and using them as evidence to prove a broad generalisation. Nothing I wrote states anything about your cousin’s situation or doctor as unique. I was simply and empathetically stating that your cousin’s situation sucks. You and your cousin can find other doctors and maybe have more success—good luck.

                  I can understand your frustration, which is palpable, but your post (the original one, the one I replied to) is irrational and tangential to the topic at hand.

                • GCT

                  They shouldn’t be required to find other doctors.

                • Goape

                  They shouldn’t be required? How were you able to conflate that from my statement? Guess what: most people aren’t born with a doctor; everyone finds a doctor at some point. The fact that people have the right to choose one that they like is a good thing. Similarly, doctors have the right to choose what elective surgeries to perform. Their choices on these matters may not always be the best, but we can’t demand that doctors shed any ability for personal opinion.

                • GCT

                  I disagree. If someone is a doctor, they are professionally bound to perform the actions that come with their specialty. Just like pharmacists are not allowed to refuse to dispense certain meds just for feeling uncomfortable, a gyno should not be allowed to impose hir religious convictions on a patient and refuse to perform procedures that should fall within their specialty. Saying that the woman can go and get another doctor (hence requiring the woman to go and get another doctor) is an abdication of that doctor’s professional duty.

                • Goape

                  So, if you ask a replantation surgeon to attach your thumbs to your pinkies, is that surgeon required to do it? No version of the hippocratic oath that I’m aware of requires doctors to perform surgery at the behest of their patients.

                  Comparing invasive surgery to doling out pills is an obvious false equivalence.

                  I’m adamantly opposed to religious interference in what should be rational thought processes. However, there are other reasons that doctors may have for not cutting a person open if it isn’t necessary for that person’s survival (which is one of the reasons this thread is off topic).

                  You’re saying that what a person is allowed to do is bad because it ultimately requiring them to do something. If someone offers you cake do you accuse them of requiring you to digest? You’re trying to justify the use of the word you put into my mouth.

                • GCT

                  So, if you ask a replantation surgeon to attach your thumbs to your pinkies, is that surgeon required to do it?

                  I wasn’t aware that that is a normal part of replantation surgery. Nope, it’s not. Would I object to a doctor that decides not to re-attach a thumb because it violates hir religious ideas that god made that thumb get cut off and putting it back on violates god’s will? You bet I would.

                  Comparing invasive surgery to doling out pills is an obvious false equivalence.

                  I’m not. I’m comparing professional ethics to professional ethics.

                  I’m adamantly opposed to religious interference in what should be rational thought processes. However, there are other reasons that doctors may have for not cutting a person open if it isn’t necessary for that person’s survival (which is one of the reasons this thread is off topic).

                  In the cases we are discussing, it’s always about knowing better for the patient than she does (and yes, it’s always a she).

                  You’re saying that what a person is allowed to do is bad because it ultimately requiring them to do something. If someone offers you cake do you accuse them of requiring you to digest? You’re trying to justify the use of the word you put into my mouth.

                  If a doctor refuses to perform a procedure that I elect for, then that doctor is requiring me to seek another doctor if I want the procedure done. You’re putting the onus on the women to find doctors that are willing to treat them as human beings, capable of making reproductive choices for themselves. Yes, that is placing requirements on the patient and the professional abdicating hir responsibilities as a professional.

                • tsara

                  “it’s always about knowing better for the patient than she does (and yes, it’s always [at least someone the doctor can pretend is] a she).”

                • Goape

                  “Would I object to a doctor that decides not to re-attach a thumb because it violates hir religious ideas that god made that thumb get cut off and putting it back on violates god’s will? You bet I would.” Me too. But I don’t concede to your assertion that the only reason a doctor could possibly have for not wanting to cut a person open, if that person’s life didn’t depend on it, is religious.

                  “I’m comparing professional ethics to professional ethics.” Only if, as you imply, doctors are somehow professionally bound to perform elective surgery—despite the plethora of potentially rational and non-religious reasons that may cause the doctor to be wary of cutting a person open to fiddle with their insides and cause irreversible change.

                  “In the cases we are discussing, it’s always about knowing better for the patient than she does (and yes, it’s always a she).” This is a pessimistic assumption. Also, why are we not including vasectomies in this off-topic discussion?

                  “You’re putting the onus on the women to find doctors that are willing to treat them as human beings, capable of making reproductive choices for themselves.” And you’re putting the onus on the doctors (other human beings) to act as mechanised creatures that do as instructed by people who are making decisions which may be misguided or emotionally charged and that they may later regret.

                  It’s true that sterilisation, for both men and women, can be an excellent option. I am personally not opposed to it. It is also unfortunately true that some doctors can be irrational or discriminatory and that this should not be tolerated. However, what I take issue with in this thread is the apparent polarisation that has been injected. The doctor isn’t always evil or trying to control the women’s sexuality. Sometimes, although it’s less verbalised, people regret having a sterilisation procedure, or doctors get sued for performing them, or a patient who was denied a procedure later appreciates their doctors hesitation. Why would the default position be that it’s always about controlling women’s bodies—that assumption seems wildly paranoid and sexist considering that the doctor could be a woman and the patient could be a man.

                • Miss_Beara

                  Someone made a comment on Libby Anne’s site about this. I think she already had a child, I don’t remember for sure, but she has a serious medical condition where pregnancy will likely kill her so she wanted to get her tubes tied. Well, no doctors would do that because she might change her mind later. The life or death of this person is less valuable than her ability to have children, even though she tells the doctor she cannot get pregnant because that is a death sentence. I cannot believe this is even legal.

                • Tainda

                  I feel for her that’s for sure.

                  My brother and SIL had 2 children that died because of genetic disorders. Every one of their children would have had the same disorder. The doctors would not do a tubal ligation on my SIL because she was under 30 so she has had to be on birth control.

                • Valde

                  That’s what I don’t understand.

                  It would be considered criminal to take a healthy born child, and inject them with something that gave them a disease that then caused them to die.

                  SO WHY THEN IS IT COMPELTELY ACCEPTABLE TO CREATE NEW LIFE THAT WILL MOST CERTAINLY SUFFER?

                  As far as I am concerned, the latter also counts as child abuse.

                • Em

                  Because it is LIFE and to prolifers, just being born alive is the goal. Apparently, nothing after that matters.

                • Valde

                  Yep.

                  I read a story, perhaps it was on FTB, where a bunch of pro-lifers were talking about how beautiful it was that a neonate was born, suffered for 20 hours, then died.

                  The sick fucks said that ‘her suffering teaches compassion’.

                  I am sorry, but that is flat out EXPLOITATION.

                • Em

                  The page pictured here routinely celebrates similar circumstances. Most recently, they praised parents who kept an unviable child alive on life support for a year and a half. The child was not sentient, but dammit her heart was beating and she had human DNA–isn’t that all that matters?

                • Valde

                  i still think that they have a pathological fear of non-existence – which explains not only the irrational belief in a god and an afterlife, but the ‘life at all costs’ philosophy they espouse.

                • Valde

                  I was reading about a woman in Canada with a severely degenerative disease who was DENIED tubal ligation by a catholic hospital.

                  A potentialy pregnancy would not only severely harm the woman, but the chances of passing the disease onto the resultant child were very very high.

                  The forced birthers were basically calling the woman selfish, and said that 1) suffering is noble 2) only jesus was perfect, so hey, create more disabled kids

                • tsara

                  Fucking fuck. Catholics shouldn’t be allowed to impose their fucked up morality on hospitals.

                • Em

                  There are entire states where doctors cannot do sterilizations below a certain age. I know a doctor who wanted to honor a 20 year old mother of five’s request for a tubal ligation but could not do it. I am not sure if it was a law or hospital protocol or what–but he agreed with the patient that sterilization was a great option but could not perform it.

                • tsara

                  …wait, there are actually laws about that!?

            • Spuddie

              At the expense of other human beings who are born and autonomous.

              Until the fetus can live independently of its mother, it is not a separate unique person. It is foolish on your part to consider it so.

              • http://star-www.st-and.ac.uk/~pr33/ Paul Rimmer

                I’m not sure an infant can live independently of its mother (and neither are some ethicists, like Singer).

                I also don’t know why that matters. I consider the wilful ending of the life of a person to be morally wrong. I also consider the destruction of what may be a person to be morally dangerous.

                • Michael Harrison

                  The question many pro-choice individuals ask is: to what degree is the mother required to use her body as an incubator? An infant can be put up for adoption. Medical technology has not progressed to the point where the fetus is viable at, say, three months.

                • Spuddie

                  You are being idiotic.

                  Any human being can care for a born child. Hence maternity wards, adoption of newborns, foster care… Only the mother keeps a fetus alive and only in her body. That uniqueness gives makes all the difference.

                  If you can’t understand the difference between those situations your input on the subject can’t possibly be taken seriously. You will always be ignorant as to the most important parts of the arguments.

                • allein

                  If an infant couldn’t live independently of its mother, adoption would not be possible.

                  Unable to live without the care of another person is not the same as unable to live independently of the biological mother.

                • Em

                  Really? An infant cannot live without its biological mother? Then why do adopted infants survive?

                • http://star-www.st-and.ac.uk/~pr33/ Paul Rimmer

                  An infant cannot live without the support and care of adults. This requires the use of their bodies. My organs, muscles, etc. are bound in service to a little child. What if I change my mind and decide it’s not worth feeding my child anymore?

                • Em

                  How does this require the use of one person’s body in particular? My younger sister was adopted, and her mother was uninvolved from the moment of her birth. Yet my sister is now a functional adult, which implies that post-birth, her mother’s body was not needed at all.

                • http://star-www.st-and.ac.uk/~pr33/ Paul Rimmer

                  Use of legs, arms, back, brains, heart. All of these are typically involved when taking care of a child.

                  An absurdly extreme example is say I have a back problem, and it turns out that picking up kids will likely make it worse, so I kick my kid out of the house in order to protect my back. New situation came up, and I don’t want to give up my bodily autonomy.

                  The only similarity is that my body is being used by another. In the case of the kid and my back, it is wrong for me to stop taking care of the kid. In the case of the fetus in the mother’s womb, it may be wrong for her to stop taking care of what may be her child.

                • GCT

                  Not. At. All. The. Same. Not. Even. Close.

                  If you can’t take care of your child, you can immediately give that child up to the state for adoption. You are not forced to continue to lift the child for many months until a certain time. Secondly, making that comparison is specious from the beginning, because you are not being forced to lift the child, and the internal use of your organs is much different from external actions that one willingly takes on by taking on the responsibility of raising a child.

                  The better analogy is forced organ donation. Apparently, if you have a liver that I need, I should be able to take it according to you.

                • Valde

                  A born child doesn’t live within your body.

                  more /facepalm

                • Carpinions

                  Are you seriously that dumb? I don’t even know if I should bother responding if you’re as old as you seem to be, and don’t understand the difference between being pregnant and parenting on a medical level.

                • http://star-www.st-and.ac.uk/~pr33/ Paul Rimmer

                  Where did I say these things were identical on the medical level, or on any level?

                  They are similar only in that both involve a conflict between the rights of two people. My freedoms are restricted because of my children.

                  I am very very old… 30, in fact. Ancient.

                • Olive Markus

                  So…. a woman dies giving birth. The father is left to raise it. It survives. Explain the extraordinary, laws of the universe-denying miracle required for that to happen then?

                • Guest

                  I have no idea what you are talking about.

                • http://star-www.st-and.ac.uk/~pr33/ Paul Rimmer

                  No miracles necessary.

                  With future technology it may be commonplace to remove a fetus from the womb of its mother and preserve it. The mother can die, and a 20 week fetus can live on.

                  We are all dependent on outside sources for our continued existence.

                • Olive Markus

                  You: I’m not sure an infant can survive without its mother.

                  Us: Yes, yes, it can.

                  You: That’s what I said.

                • http://star-www.st-and.ac.uk/~pr33/ Paul Rimmer

                  I actually said that I’m not sure an infant can live independently without its mother. You seemed to agree. Now you seem to be lost.

                • Sally Strange

                  I actually said that I’m not sure an infant can live independently without its mother.

                  Yes, and you were wrong. An infant can easily live without its mother, provided it has some sort of caretaker. That’s the point.

                • http://star-www.st-and.ac.uk/~pr33/ Paul Rimmer

                  That caretaker has a responsibility to that infant. He presumably cannot decide that, because of his bodily autonomy, that he is tired of caring for the child (this requires use of his muscles, organs, etc.) and so will cease to do so.

                  Infants cannot live independently. I would argue most people cannot live independently for very long. We need each other. Our commitments to each other, especially to our children, restrict our own autonomy. It would be highly immoral to place our autonomy over those who are dependent upon us for their life and wellbeing.

                  The case of the mother and fetus is definitely more extreme, the connection more direct, but I think the same ethical principles apply if the fetus is a person.

                • wombat

                  If a caretaker cannot or does not wish to take care of a child, they can put them in another’s care and walk away. When a pregnant woman can remove a foetus from her body and implant it elsewhere to finish developing, then your analogy will be valid.

                • Valde

                  Really. So when a woman dies in childbirth the infant dies too BECAUSE NOBODY ELSE CAN LOOK AFTER IT.

                  /FACEPALM

              • GCT

                I would argue that it’s not a separate, unique person until it is living autonomously outside of its mother.

                • Spuddie

                  Exactly. =)

            • TheG

              Then you almost have what is possibly an idea (arguably) for in some cases there is a chance that might be a very bad law. But it is definitely a bad interpretation of how the legal system justly works..

    • tsara

      There are problems with imposing time limits:
      1. they are often abused by less-than-scrupulous pro-life (and/or plain abusive) organizations and people delaying those seeking abortions or outright lying to them about how far along pregnancies are, which has the result of penalizing the young, economically disadvantaged, mentally ill, abused, mentally impaired, or otherwise disadvantaged.
      2. they create situations in which doctors fear performing therapeutic abortions because it’s often not clear just how deadly a situation has to be for a pregnant person in order for the physician to be allowed to perform an abortion and not be charged with murder. In these situations, people die.
      3. exceptions for ‘health of the mother’ also usually fail to include provisions for mental health.

      • http://star-www.st-and.ac.uk/~pr33/ Paul Rimmer

        1. they are often abused by less-than-scrupulous pro-life (and/or plain abusive) organizations and people delaying those seeking abortions or outright lying to them about how far along pregnancies are, which has the result of penalizing the young, economically disadvantaged, mentally ill, abused, mentally impaired, or otherwise disadvantaged.

        The simple solution to this is to better restrict those sorts of pro-life organizations.

        More than that, any sort of legal sanction like this will require other policy changes. The best way to reduce the number of abortions after 20 weeks is to encourage use of contraceptives, make performing abortion after 20 weeks illegal and institute a universal healthcare system that will support the needs of the mother and her child.

        Removing any time-limit or sanction will not likely decrease the number of abortions, and if abortion after 20 weeks involves the ending of a human life, we should try to reduce the number as effectively as we can.

        2. they create situations in which doctors fear performing therapeutic abortions because it’s often not clear just how deadly a situation has to be for a pregnant person in order for the physician to be allowed to perform an abortion and not be charged with murder.

        This will be left to the discretion of the practising physician and the judgement of an ethics board. Just as with many difficult decisions physicians have to make.

        Every abortion after 20 weeks would ideally be followed by a Morbidity and Mortality Conference, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morbidity_and_mortality_conference , the standard practice after the death of a patient.

        3. exceptions for ‘health of the mother’ also usually fail to include provisions for mental health.

        In most of these cases, the woman should have the baby anyway, because terminating the pregnancy possibly involves the death of a human being. This is one reason why universal healthcare, covering also the mental health of the mother, is so important.

        The cases in which having the child may lead the mother to suicide would be highly speculative, but the physician would be able to violate the law if he or she felt it best to do so, and would then have to pay the fine as a consequence.

        • GCT

          This will be left to the discretion of the practising physician and the judgement of an ethics board. Just as with many difficult decisions physicians have to make.

          I’ll note that you continue to leave the woman out of the decision. It’s rather telling.

          • http://star-www.st-and.ac.uk/~pr33/ Paul Rimmer

            I don’t think that she’s competent to determine whether (a) the group of cells in her own body is a human person or not or (b) whether that group of cells is a threat to her life. That’s for the doctors to decide.

            Before there’s a reasonable chance that the group of cells is a person, ideally well before 20 weeks, it’s completely up to the woman what to do with those cells. She should take a morning after pill.

            Many of these cases would be eliminated simply by encouraging use of contraception, availability of morning after pills and by instituting a universal healthcare to provide fro those women who may have to give birth to their children.

            • GCT

              It is about control of women…nailed it. Apparently pink lady brains are not capable of making health care decisions about their own bodies.

              And, no one should ever be forced to give birth.

              • http://star-www.st-and.ac.uk/~pr33/ Paul Rimmer

                I believe it is unacceptable to set the rights of one person (the mother) against the rights of another (the child).

                It is the ultimate act of control upon a child to end its life. Acting to end the life of a person is wrong.

                • Spuddie

                  Yet that is exactly what you do. You set the rights of a born autonomous person over the rights of something which can’t exert rights of its own. The rights of the born person will always be greater than the rights of the life whose existence is based on said born person. You can’t protect a fetus without attacking the mother.

                  We are not talking about a child’s life. A child is a born person. An autonomous person capable of independent existence and can exert their own rights as one.

                • http://star-www.st-and.ac.uk/~pr33/ Paul Rimmer

                  Yet that is exactly what you do. You set the rights of a born autonomous
                  person over the rights of something which can’t exert rights of its
                  own.

                  No, at least I try not to. I try to respect both the existing rights of the mother and the possibly existing rights of the fetus, making decisions that are of minimal moral danger for both.

                  One could argue that if a person cannot exert his or her own rights, then those rights are even more in need of protection by others.

                • Goape

                  It’s more difficult to argue that a fetus that can’t stand up for itself needs more protection than the rest of us.

                • http://star-www.st-and.ac.uk/~pr33/ Paul Rimmer

                  Agreed. Because a fetus may not be a person and may not have any rights at all. That’s why doctors should save the mother in all cases where the pregnancy puts her life at risk.

                • Sally Strange

                  Don’t think of it as an abortion. Think of it as an eviction, and get to work inventing those artificial uteri!

                • http://star-www.st-and.ac.uk/~pr33/ Paul Rimmer

                  This is an excellent point. It may be that future medical technology will make the moral dimension of this discussion moot. Abortion will be replaced by birth and artificial preservation.

                • tsara

                  I have no problem with that. If the technology exists and the procedure is generally as safe and accessible as abortion, the bodily autonomy concerns I have are gone.

                  EDIT: not that you necessarily care, and not that that doesn’t create its own issues.

                • http://star-www.st-and.ac.uk/~pr33/ Paul Rimmer

                  Oh, I think this would be greatly preferable. I do care.

                  In fact, even for women who would choose to keep their pregnancy, they could “have their children” outside the womb the majority of the time, removing considerable physical strain and limitations pregnancy brings. It would be a wonderful thing, I think.

                • tsara

                  There are still issues, particularly wrt societal costs and generational poverty, but if we’re imagining a happy situation in which we’ve made all the societal changes people have brought up (strong safety net, universal health care, etc.), I would have no objection to restricting abortion after a certain time if the option to remove the embryo/fetus was available at any time. The procedure to remove the fetus would absolutely have to be just as safe as an abortion in similar conditions, though, otherwise I do object to legal restrictions.

                • http://star-www.st-and.ac.uk/~pr33/ Paul Rimmer

                  Of course. Ideally it would be just as safe and implemented everywhere.

                  Universal healthcare would go a long way to reducing the number of abortions. Kids are expensive. Much less expensive here in Scotland!

                • tsara

                  Yep. I’m in Canada, and I’m fighting on this issue partly because our PM is pretty sympathetic to the worst of the ‘big businesses&churches, small government’ Republicans in the US. It’s a really worrying trend, and Texas is about the worst of it.
                  They restricted abortion while shutting down women’s health clinics that provide contraception and evidence-based sexual (and general) health information, gave a whole bunch of funding to crisis pregnancy centres (denounced by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; known for propagating misinformation, lying to people seeking abortions about the regulations in place and about how far along they are, for making lots of money off of pressuring young people to give up their healthy white babies for adoption, for denouncing contraception, and for being excessively interested in whether or not people are married and what their relationship with Jesus is like)(citations forthcoming), cut SNAP (supplemental nutrition assistance program) benefits, and possibly other fun things that I’m forgetting.

                • Spuddie

                  Yet you completely ignore consideration of the mother in favor of arbitrary time limits on making decisions on their bodies, criminalizing them for having such considerations and show a complete lack of awareness of the issues involved for them.

                  Somehow you know better than they do about their own bodies. Your moral choices and considerations are so superior, it would be natural to force women to accept them.

                  You show no respect for the mother.

                  “One could argue that if a person cannot exert his or her own rights, then those rights are even more in need of protection by others.”

                  Which is akin to noting that men can’t get pregnant is somehow oppressive and discriminatory towards them.

                  Since no other “rights” are a zero-sum game other than those alleged for a fetus, there is no equivalent or analogy which fits here. Since “protection” of the fetus involves attacking its mother, it fails. You seem to be utterly incapable of thinking of the mother as an actual human being with control of their own bodies.

                • http://star-www.st-and.ac.uk/~pr33/ Paul Rimmer

                  Yet you completely ignore consideration of the mother in favor of
                  arbitrary time limits on making decisions on their bodies, criminalizing
                  them for having such considerations and show a complete lack of
                  awareness of the issues involved for them.

                  Hardly. Their rights are being considered in two ways. First, if they happen to get an abortion after 20 weeks they won’t face any legal consequences. Only the doctors will. Second, if the mother’s life is at stake, then in all cases the fetus should be destroyed in order to save the mother’s life. None of this “find out which is more viable” stuff.

                  You show no respect for the mother.

                  I am sorry you think this. I’m trying to show the maximum respect for the mother while also showing respect for her child. I will hope you do the same.

                • Spuddie

                  That is not consideration of their rights. That is you imposing an irrational limit on control of their bodies for its own sake for irrational reasons. You advocate coercing and intimidating doctors as a method of enforcing such decisions, how moral of you!

                  As long as a fetus is dependent on its mother to survive, there is no rational argument made against abortion. You make a distinction between elective abortions and those for medical necessity. All it means is that you have no respect for a woman to exert control over her body except when it is an emergency that you deem worthy. How magnanimous of you to grant such favors on lowly women who are seemingly incapable of exerting decisions about their own bodies.

                  You are showing nothing but arrogance and contempt for women. You treat them as non-entities subject to your will. You have so much respect for them that they must be forced to accept your ideas for what to do with their lives.

                • Miss_Beara

                  I am sorry you think this. I’m trying to show the maximum respect for the mother

                  By taking away her right to bodily autonomy? By showing time and time again that the fetus has more rights than women? By reducing women to their biology whether they like it or not?

                  You show zero respect for women. You do not know the reasons why women get abortions. It is none of anyones business. If you truly showed respect for women, you wouldn’t be minimizing them down to their biology. You wouldn’t be wanting to take our bodily autonomy away for the sake of a zygote or fetus, the womans personal life be damned.

                  A fetus cannot use my body without my consent much like I cannot force you to donate part of your liver even if it would save my life or the fact that you cannot use the organs of a corpse without consent before death even if it would save 10 people from death.

                • http://star-www.st-and.ac.uk/~pr33/ Paul Rimmer

                  A woman, whether inside or outside the womb, is far more than her biology.

                  It is a difficult thing, to respect both the rights of the mother and the possible rights of the life inside of her. That line needs to be carefully walked.

                  It seems to me as though the extremist positions on both sides, pro-choice and pro-life, potentially reduce a woman (whether inside or outside the womb) merely to her parts and fail to respect her as a person.

                • GCT

                  Oh bullshit.

                  One side seeks to reduce the woman to a baby incubator that cannot make choices for herself and must pay the price for being slutty and having sex. The other empowers her to make choices about her own body and reproductive abilities. Bullshit that the pro-choice side fails to respect her as a person. That’s a blatant lie you tell yourself to make yourself feel better for being a misogynist.

                • http://star-www.st-and.ac.uk/~pr33/ Paul Rimmer

                  Well… qualifying this response to me as “friendly conversation” or “rational conversation” might be a stretch. Name-calling rarely works well to get anyone to change their minds about anything, although maybe you think dialogue with those who think as I do (I’m the only one I know of) is worthless?

                  I’ll remind you, I’m not on either side. I’m making a new third position.

                  Still, your fairly irrational response here pales in comparison to the hateful responses I’ve received in pro-life fora.

                • GCT

                  There’s nothing irrational about calling out bullshit when it happens or putting 2 and 2 together to get misogynists when it’s the case. You’ve consistently argued that women cannot and should be in charge of their own bodies and ignored the counter arguments. People advocating for misogynists policies need to be called out.

                • GCT

                  You’ve yet to justify why we should consider this unborn fetus a person. And, you are setting their rights against each other. It’s just that you think an unborn, possible person is more important than an autonomous woman. It’s because you don’t value women.

                • http://star-www.st-and.ac.uk/~pr33/ Paul Rimmer

                  I think the fact that it empirically appears to be a person (brain waves and DNA) is sufficient reason to give it a reasonably high probability of being a person. High enough, at least, that we should treat the fetus as a person, all else being equal, just in case it is.

                • Goape

                  A guppy also has brain waves and DNA.

                • Em

                  Mature brain activity does not occur until 28 weeks. And even then, mature is relative.

                • http://star-www.st-and.ac.uk/~pr33/ Paul Rimmer

                  But there is some brain activity going back to about 12 weeks. Ideally this is where I’d like to push the bar back. 20 weeks seems more politically feasible (and worked in Texas!). But eventually I’d like to stop it at 12 weeks until more is known one way or the other.

                  If there’s something that looks like a brain and there’s electricity going through it, until more is known, I say best to err on the side of caution and consider it possibly a person.

                • GCT

                  I love how “erring on the side of caution” is never done for the benefit of the woman.

                • http://star-www.st-and.ac.uk/~pr33/ Paul Rimmer

                  I think it absolutely is. If the mother’s life is at stake, then the fetus is treated as not a person for as long as it is part of the mother.

                • TurelieTelcontar

                  Wrong. If the mother’s life is at stake, it doesn’t damn well matter whether tohe fetus is a person. Or do you object to self-defense also?

                • http://star-www.st-and.ac.uk/~pr33/ Paul Rimmer

                  I think you misunderstand. If ending the life of the mother would likely save the fetus but destroying the fetus would not likely save the life of the mother then the doctor would be bound to save the life of the fetus, IF the fetus were considered a person in such a situation. I don’t think it should be.

                • baal

                  wth. Fetal personhood cannot rise and fall based on the health status of the mother. That’s the type of wishywashy thinking that has so many (politely!) disagreeing with you today. My personhood has no bearing on someone else’s health and no one else’s health has a bearing on whether or not I’m a person!

                • http://star-www.st-and.ac.uk/~pr33/ Paul Rimmer

                  I phrased that poorly. Let me try again.

                  We are talking about the definite personhood of a woman vs. the possible personhood of a fetus. It is always better to take certainty over possibility.

                  Second, even if the fetus is a person, then (I contend) it will have the right to continued access of its mothers body if preventing that access results in the fetus’s death. The exception would be if continued access to the mother’s body would result in the mother’s death, in which case bodily autonomy kicks in, and the fetus, even if a person, should be killed in order to save the life of the mother.

                • baal

                  I think your framing only makes sense* if we’re starting with a clean slate and looking forward. We aren’t, however, in that ivory tower position. I suggest a different framing where we use the empircal outcome of various legal regimes to see what type of rules lead to the least harm and best outcomes. I’m certain that an extensive assessment down my road leads to the conclusion that the best rule is the will of pregnant woman.

                  *and I would still disagree with it.

                • Em

                  At 12 weeks, there is nothing that looks like a brain.

                • GCT

                  Simply repeating yourself and throwing in the word “empirical” does not make your case any better.

                • http://star-www.st-and.ac.uk/~pr33/ Paul Rimmer

                  The fact that you saw this case gives you my reasoning. You may disagree with it (and please vote what you think is true), but those are my reasons.

                  That’s my justification. You can’t say that I haven’t given any justification (well you can, but you would be lying). You can say that my justification is insufficient, or irrational, etc. Maybe you will be right.

                  I hold deeply to the hope that reason will prevail. If I am indeed wrong, I hope to be convinced of it by sound reasoning, and soon, so I can change my mind.

                • GCT

                  Your “reasoning” is fallacious as I have pointed out, and therefore not compelling. I have no reason to take your subjective opinions as truth or binding dictate, much to your chagrin it seems. Hence, you have no actual justification, as simple proclamations do not rise to the level of justification.

                  Lastly, you do not hold to the hope that reason will prevail. That’s rather dishonest of you to say, because when your logical fallacies are pointed out, you shrug them off and continue to proclaim the same arguments over and over. You have no wish to change your mind in the face of rational argument, so you ignore all argument that you see. You can not be convinced, no matter how much you lie and claim that you can be.

                • http://star-www.st-and.ac.uk/~pr33/ Paul Rimmer

                  Not chagrined at all. You didn’t convince me, and I didn’t convince you. But at least we were able to have a friendly conversation about this topic. That’s something very rare these days, I think.

                  I’m thankful for your criticisms, which will help refine my view, and will probably change its content to some extent.

                • GCT

                  I don’t think your insistence on controlling women’s lives is very friendly at all. Nor do I find your dishonesty in this exchange to be friendly or indicative that you will change your views at all. Your intent seems to be to control women’s lives.

                • http://star-www.st-and.ac.uk/~pr33/ Paul Rimmer

                  You seem to have no reasons. Only insults. I won’t be reading your responses anymore.

                  You are of course welcome to “call me out” to others, but this is the last response you will get from me.

                • GCT

                  That’s a lie. I’ve pointed out inconsistencies and problems in your arguments. You simply ignore them. And, you continue to assert that women can’t handle making choices over their own bodies. You should be ashamed of yourself.

                • Spuddie

                  No it doesn’t. It has no independent existence. It can’t be a person in any kind of legal, moral or societal sense.

                • http://star-www.st-and.ac.uk/~pr33/ Paul Rimmer

                  We have fundamentally different results from what may be fundamentally different moral philosophies. You have not as yet provided me with much reason to reconsider mine. Why should I consider “independent existence” to be the deciding factor?

                • Valde

                  EEG of a fetus before 26 weeks is identical to that of a clinically braindead patient on life support.

                • Ella Warnock

                  Do you approve of pulling the plug on every patient that “might” be braindead? Well, DO YOU? Want to MURDER THEM? ::flaps hands and runs in circles::

                • tsara

                  Citation? I’d like to see that.

                • Valde

                  This is from poster cjvg over at RH Reality check;

                  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

                • C.L. Honeycutt

                  Brain waves and DNA are signs of a human being, not a person.

                  I had a discussion once with a fundamentalist preacher and columnist that was at the time utterly bizarre, because his definition of a “person” hinged upon mere genetics, while mine hinged upon personality and sentience – the “soul” that we can’t really quantify yet, though it is a construct of biology. His was the reductionist, materialist outlook that he kept complaining about and attributing to pro-choicers and accepters of Evolutionary Theory.

                • Valde

                  They like to fall back on the old line ‘we can’t be sure a zygote doesn’t feel pain’

                  Srsly.

                • C.L. Honeycutt

                  There seems to be more evidence that Daffy Duck feels pain than that a zygote does. :P

                • Valde

                  i was ‘debating’ some idiot named Roger Resler over at LieActionNews and apparently he wrote a book in which he claims to destroy all pro-choice arguments.

                  This is one of his supposed slam dunks:

                  “When does a person become a “person”. At birth? At conception? Somewhere in between? The pro-abortionist says we don’t know, so we can terminate
                  the pregnancy at any time before birth.

                  This logic is atrocious. Lets take that same logic into another situation. Lets say I have an
                  old building I need to demolish. I am not sure if there is any one in the building at the time. I send someone in to see if it is clear. They come back and tell me they were not sure. They saw a pot of stew cooking over a small fire and it looked like a homeless person had been there. I then go ahead and demolish the building, because the potential homeless person is not the same as a homeless person.

                  If I was not sure if there was someone in the building, why in the world would I destroy it anyway. If the abortionist is not sure if the fetus is human, why
                  kill it?

                  This was hands down the best book on the argument
                  against abortion I have ever read. It is packed with so much logical information that there can be no argument against it.I highly recommend it and wish I could give it better than 5 stars.
                  I give it 6 out of 5 stars.”

                  http://www.amazon.com/Compelling-Interest-Real-Story-behind/dp/1618431137/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1376057530&sr=8-1&keywords=roger+resler

                • http://star-www.st-and.ac.uk/~pr33/ Paul Rimmer

                  I suspect that every person I’ve ever met had DNA and brain waves.

                  I also suspect that anything I’ve encountered without DNA or brainwaves hasn’t been a person.

                  Now maybe someday we will find angels or aliens or fairies or whatever, and maybe they are also people, but so far, this has been an empirical fact.

                • tsara

                  Sentient computers = people.

                • http://star-www.st-and.ac.uk/~pr33/ Paul Rimmer

                  Possibly, although so far none exist.

                • C.L. Honeycutt

                  Right. Personhood requires those two things, and more. They’re the ingredients, not the pie.

                • http://star-www.st-and.ac.uk/~pr33/ Paul Rimmer

                  I agree. Brainwaves and DNA only show that the fetus is possibly human.

                • Em

                  It does not matter to me, a pro choice person, in the least when life begins. A newborn infant and a 40 year old Nobel Prize winner both have the same legal right to my body: zero. Even if they will die without the use of my body, they have no right to it.

                  I fail to see how a fetus has more rights than that.

                  Not to quibble, just explaining my point of view to someone who is on the same side of the argument.

                • Em

                  When you force a woman to give up her body for another person, you are setting the rights of one person (the fetus) against the rights of another (the woman).

                • http://star-www.st-and.ac.uk/~pr33/ Paul Rimmer

                  I don’t see it that way. I think that both the extremist “pro-life” position and the extremist “pro-choice” position do this. Life of the mother > life of the child, so kill it. Life if the child > life of the mother, so keep it no matter what. Those two positions set rights against each other.

                  I’m trying to find the best way to accommodate both the rights of the mother and the possible rights of her child. Clearly, the end of this will be skewed toward the mother, since she is certainly a person, whereas the fetus may or may not be a person, but I don’t think either extreme is right because both put the rights of one party against the other (they ignore the rights of one or the other parties).

                • TurelieTelcontar

                  Then how does the right to bodily autonomy fit in? Generally, as I tried to point out with the organ donation example, the right to bodily autonomy of one person trumps the right to life of another person.

                  This is even in the case of the bodily autonomy of a corpse trumps the right of life of the multiple persons that could be helped with their organs.

                  And yet, you argue that the right of life of what might possibly a person trumps the right of bodily autonomy of a living woman.
                  This chain only works if you think that a corpse has more rights than a living woman who had the nerve to have sex and doesn’t want to be pregnant anymore.

                • http://star-www.st-and.ac.uk/~pr33/ Paul Rimmer

                  Then how does the right to bodily autonomy fit in?

                  There are two bodies to consider when determining bodily autonomy, and both need to be respected. I will grant that my solution may not be perfect, but any solution that entirely ignores one in favor of the other is clearly wrong.

                  Where the mother’s bodily autonomy come into play is in two places:

                  1) Before the fetus might be a person, the mother can do what she likes to the group of cells. She can seek out a first trimester abortion.

                  2) After the fetus might be a person, the woman’s right to bodily autonomy, namely her right to her own life, always trumps the possible rights of the fetus to life.

                • TurelieTelcontar

                  the woman’s right to bodily autonomy, namely her right to her own life,

                  That’s a false equivalence. Her bodily autonomy is not the same as her right to life. It means her right not to have anyone else use her organs without her consent.

                • http://star-www.st-and.ac.uk/~pr33/ Paul Rimmer

                  When they are already presently using the organs (as in the violinist example), and their ceasing to use those organs will result in their death, then I think that their right to life is what should be protected. I know this takes me on the unpopular end of Jarvis’s thought experiment, but that’s where my ethics (and my moral intuition both) leads me.

                • Em

                  So if you donate blood once, then you are obligated to donate blood for the rest of your life?

                  Letting someone use your body requires ongoing consent.

                • Valde

                  Yeah, and if you’re a slave, you’re a slave for life! Obviously!@

                • TurelieTelcontar

                  So, say the next time you get a blood test done, the nurse also uses the blood to decide whether you can be an organ donor. The results are that your kidneys fit with someone else. If you are then kidnapped, and operated on, taking your kidney out, you wouldn’t go to the police and ask them to prosecute the person who did this, and then try to get your kidney back? Instead you would just go “oh, well, now the someone who has my kidney needs it to survive, so I’ll just deal with it.”

                  And furthermore, you’d be happy if the law was actually changed so that if you tried to get the person who has your kidney prosecuted, you’d be in danger of being prosecuted for attempted murder?

                • Valde

                  Yeah see, that’s why we have laws that protect bodily autonomy. Because if we didn’t, people would be routinely kidnapped and their blood/bm/organs harvested – and they would have no recourse.

                • Em

                  Well, of course he would be for that. Consent to a blood test is the same as consent to organ donation! At least, it must be to someone who thinks consent to sex is the same as consent to pregnancy.

                • http://star-www.st-and.ac.uk/~pr33/ Paul Rimmer

                  Let’s look at this interesting scenario, but it needs to be adapted in order to match better the situation of, say, a woman who is impregnated against her will.

                  Someone finds out I match the kidney of his dying son. He kidnaps me and makes the transfer. His son knew nothing about this, and now has my kidney.

                  Do I prosecute this guy? Definitely! That’s the easy question.

                  Do I now have the right to get my kidney back, knowing that doing so will kill this guy’s son?

                  That’s the harder question. I think it’s immoral to do so, because getting my kidney back involves killing this kid, and killing people is wrong.

                  In this case, I’d even take the more extreme position. Say I will probably die if I don’t get that kidney back. I think that, since it is no longer mine and the person who now has it got it through no fault of their own, they have a right to keep it, and I should not be able to get my kidney back, even if it kills me.

                • Em

                  You might refuse to see it that way, but it *is* that way. No one is choosing which life is more important. Both parties have the right to decide who uses their body.

                • Miss_Beara

                  It is the ultimate act of control upon a child to end its life. Acting to end the life of a person is wrong.

                  Leaving women out of the equation again. That’s nice. It is the ultimate act of control upon women to force her to remain pregnant against her will.

                • http://star-www.st-and.ac.uk/~pr33/ Paul Rimmer

                  The woman enters the equation in two ways.

                  First, before the group of cells is possibly human, the woman can terminate the pregnancy.

                  Second, once the group of cells is possibly human, the mother’s life always trumps the possible life of the fetus.

                • Valde

                  I believe it is unacceptable to set the rights of one person (the mother) against the rights of another (the child).

                  They already are set against each other. Pregnancy is not a state of wellness. The fetus is genetically programmed to grow as a big as possible – even if it negatively impacts, or even kills, the pregnant woman.

                • phantomreader42

                  Paul Rimmer, wad of excrement poorly sculpted into a crude mockery of a human form, shat out the following stream of verbal diarrhea:

                  I believe it is unacceptable to set the rights of one person (the mother) against the rights of another (the child).

                  And yet you see nothing at all wrong with completely erasing the rights of the woman, pretending she is nothing more than an inanimate incubating machine, denying her any existence other than her pregnancy and the parasite in her womb. What a worthless piece of shit you are.

                • http://star-www.st-and.ac.uk/~pr33/ Paul Rimmer

                  Ezook! Yegadz! My dastardly plan has been thwarted by the Phantom Reader!

                  Oh, Phantom Reader, I was not expecting your cunning reply but a mere nine days after this very comment was left! A critical mistake! One I will take care not to make again! I will be ready for you, Phantom Reader. You may have won the battle, but we shall win the war! WAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!!

            • tsara

              “I don’t think that she’s competent to determine whether (a) the group of cells in her own body is a human person or not ”
              …what the fuck!?

              • Em

                Her doctor is definitely competent to make that call, so leaving this between a woman and her doctor ensures there is always one, but most likely two, people with enough science education to understand the situation.

                • tsara

                  “Her doctor is definitely competent to make that call”
                  No, actually, because it’s a philosophical and emotional question, not a medical one.

                  But also, it’s about 99% irrelevant to the question of whether or not and how much we should restrict abortion.

                • Em

                  Doctors are better trained in medical ethics than laypeople, including politicians who likely failed freshman biology.

                • tsara

                  And I am much happier with doctors helping people make medical decisions than I am with politicians doing so, but doctors will be trained on the legal and ethics-board rules pertaining to performing the procedure. That doesn’t give them the right to make decisions about the moral and philosophical status of myself or things inside of my body for me. Personhood is a philosophical concept, not a medical one.

            • allein

              And who is competent to decide whether she is willing to take the risk?

            • Olive Markus

              You’ve proven the actual position of the “Pro-Life” movement right there. Thank you for that:

              “I don’t think that she’s competent…”

              You believe that a woman has no rights nor the competency to control her own body. Her body doesn’t belong to her, it belongs to others to do with as they please. A woman is literally property. This belief is also directly responsible for rape culture.

              What you just said right there is why your beliefs deserve no respect, and neither do you.

              • Valde

                “I don’t think that she’s competent…”

                Seriously. WTF.

            • phantomreader42

              I don’t think you’re competent to wipe your own ass, Paul Rimmer. You treat women as less than human, because you yourself are nothing more than a wad of excrement poorly sculpted into a crude mockery of a human form.

              • http://star-www.st-and.ac.uk/~pr33/ Paul Rimmer

                I’m on to you, Phantom Reader…. heh heh heh….. ha ha AHAAHAHAHAAA!!!

        • TurelieTelcontar

          Interesting, are you also of the opinion that people who once decided to donate bone marrow or a kidney are to be held to this decision, if someone else dies if they don’t do it? After all, the life of someone else is at risk.

          I think it’s telling that we respect a corpse’s right to bodily autonomy so much that people die for lack of donated organs, but a living woman’s right to bodily autonomy gets chucked out of the window for a fetus.

          • http://star-www.st-and.ac.uk/~pr33/ Paul Rimmer

            Interesting, are you also of the opinion that people who once decided to donate bone marrow or a kidney are to be held to this decision, if someone else dies if they don’t do it? After all, the life of someone else is at risk.

            This is a good question. I would say that once the other person has the kidney, you can’t take it back. Until then, they should be able to opt out.

            As interesting as the question is, I don’t see how it’s connected to this discussion. Could you please clarify for me?

            • tsara

              But a 20-week fetus is still in my body.

              • http://star-www.st-and.ac.uk/~pr33/ Paul Rimmer

                That doesn’t impact whether that fetus is a person or not. I believe it’s wrong to kill people, even if they are inside other people.

                • tsara

                  Good for you? Don’t get an abortion then. I think that if I tell the thing or person in my body to get out and it doesn’t, I am free to remove it, him, her, or hir from my body in whatever way is safest for me. I do not consider it my problem it removing it, him, her, or hir from my body means that it cannot live.

                • http://star-www.st-and.ac.uk/~pr33/ Paul Rimmer

                  I believe it is important to make laws protecting the lives of people, even people inside other people, so I’ll vote and advocate to protect them. You are of course free to vote according to your conscience and advocate for what you think is best.

                  I think that right and reason will win the day, and I think I’m on the right side of this issue. History will be the judge.

                • tsara

                  Honestly, I don’t think laws are necessary. Even in Canada, it’s really hard to get late-term abortions, because hospital ethics boards already impose codes of ethics on hospitals.
                  And people don’t generally sit around for six months, happily pregnant, and then suddenly decide that they’ve changed their mind.
                  It may be possible to legislate the perfect balance to let all of the cases with extenuating circumstances through, but to catch the one person per year who gets a truly elective late-term abortion. I kind of doubt it, though.

                • http://star-www.st-and.ac.uk/~pr33/ Paul Rimmer

                  I do think that the greatest effect toward reducing the number of elective abortions after 20 weeks (and even the number of abortions to save the life of the mother), is to encourage contraception and day-after pills, and very early term abortions. All of these are good and necessary things in the pro-life struggle, and it is sad to me that most pro-lifers don’t see it.

                • tsara

                  I agree with you on those.
                  By the way, if you’re in Texas, you may want to read up on crisis pregnancy centres.

                • http://star-www.st-and.ac.uk/~pr33/ Paul Rimmer

                  I’m not. I’m in Scotland. I hope never to live in Texas.

                  The fact that I’m pleased it passed one law doesn’t mean I’d be happy there (for reasons beyond the abortion issue).

                • Em

                  Paul, I read prolife sites such as the one shown in this article. They are against contraception and feel it is the same as an abortion.

                • http://star-www.st-and.ac.uk/~pr33/ Paul Rimmer

                  And I think that’s stupid of them. Counter-productive at least.

                • baal

                  When I, a 40+ year old person take up living inside of even bigger people, then I’ll be interested in your turduckin rights question. History is clear, attaching substantial penalties to nearly any abortion leads to women dying often in horrible ways and in worse than horror movie scenarios. Worse, by burdening abortion, the ‘self help’ remedies reduce fertility so that if your goal is really more souls for the lord, you stop trying to control women and let them have babies when it makes sense to that women.

                • http://star-www.st-and.ac.uk/~pr33/ Paul Rimmer

                  History isn’t a very good guide here because what I’m proposing has never been attempted. Making sure there are no penalties for women getting the abortions, and fines for those who perform them is important.

                • Olive Markus

                  So you are admitting that the fetus continues to have more rights than any person, namely, the right to continue the use of the pregnant person’s body against their will. And the pregnant person has fewer rights than any person, namely, they don’t deserve the right to have their body used only with ongoing consent?

                  Check. Got it.

                • Em

                  Sounds like you are for forced organ donation. After all, someone likely died today because you chose not to donate bone marrow. Are you *really* qualified to make that decision?

                • http://star-www.st-and.ac.uk/~pr33/ Paul Rimmer
            • TurelieTelcontar

              Because you say that one person – the mother – has to possibly put her life on the line for a pregnancy she doesn’t want anymore, donating her blood and organ use for a fetus. Because otherwise a human being (=the fetus) dies.

              Yet we let people as a society die all the time, because we consider that a dead person’s blood and organs can’t be used without their consent, even if otherwise people die.

              • http://star-www.st-and.ac.uk/~pr33/ Paul Rimmer

                The matter of letting a person die or giving up an organ to that person is different from letting a person die (say, an infant or young child) because it is inconvenient to feed her.

                And both of those are also different from causing the death of a person, which is what abortion may indeed do.

                It seems as though it is wrong to cause the death of one person, unless it is to save the life of another.

                • Em

                  Feeding someone does not require the use of my kidneys and lungs.

                • TurelieTelcontar

                  But pregnancy is dangerous for the mother, more so than donating bone marrow. Especially since donating bone marrow by now is usually done by taking medication that gets the needed cells into the bloodstream, from which they can be filtered out.
                  Actually, the fetus is actually taking all the nutrients it needs out of the mother’s body, no matter how much she might need them herself. It is for nine months actively using all the organs of its mother. Pregnancy can for example lead to diabetes – sometimes only for the duration of the pregnancy, sometimes from then on.

                  I disagree that causing the death of a person is different from letting someone die. Where do you see the difference?

                • http://star-www.st-and.ac.uk/~pr33/ Paul Rimmer

                  I disagree that causing the death of a person is different from letting someone die. Where do you see the difference?

                  I don’t accept negative moral responsibility. Kai Nielsen has a nice article about this. But even if I accepted negative moral responsibility, there is no ethical system of which I’m aware that completely equates letting someone die to killing that person. The law makes the distinction, between negligent homicide and murder charges.

                • Em

                  So you feel responsible for every child who has died because you refuse to give blood, bone marrow, a kidney, and pieces of your liver?

                • Valde

                  Separation from the uterus ‘lets the fetus die’

                  And considering that the fetus is unviable outside the uterus, how it is removed is immaterial.

                  And the point of abortion is not to kill a fetus – it is to end the pregnancy.

                • baal

                  A fetus is not a person.

                • http://star-www.st-and.ac.uk/~pr33/ Paul Rimmer

                  I don’t know if that’s true or not. I think a fetus might well be a person. It’s morally reckless to destroy what might be a person without just cause.

                • baal

                  I don’t think we need to hold off on the question of the morality and ethics of abortion. We have a range of legal regimes and can see the real world outcomes from each. that’s a sound basis on which to base policy.

                  Your 20 weeks then huge penalty model might not precisely be enacted but the totally illegal + small exception States are close.

                • Valde

                  People are sentient beings. Fetii are not.

            • Em

              A pregnancy is not a one-procedure deal. Ongoing use of one’s body requires ongoing consent.

        • tsara

          I’m still not convinced.
          1. A major shift in the political climate would be required for any of those changes to take place. Currently, CPCs receive major governmental funding in several states in the US (which should be unconstitutional) and the verbal support of many, many legislators. And while I would welcome most of those changes, I would not be happy with abortion restrictions as a trade-off, particularly with the way pregnant women keep getting charged with things for behaving like human beings while pregnant.
          Also, I note that you didn’t address a few of the groups I mentioned: the abused (who may be seeking abortion later because it took them that long to escape their abuser or to figure out how to get an abortion without their abuser finding out), the mentally ill or mentally impaired (who may not have known they were pregnant before or understood what that meant), etc.

          2. This has a history of going badly. I’d need some assurance that provisions would be in place to prevent a Beatriz or Savita. There are also many cases of pregnant people being refused both cancer treatments and abortions.

          3. As someone with mental health issues, I find that horrifying.

          4. Another factor is the effect of the time limit itself on the pregnant person. I know that if I ever became pregnant with a wanted embryo/fetus, I would need, for the sake of my mental health, to be in a place where I can reassure myself every single day that I am doing this because I want to be doing it, and that I can stop at any time if I need to. A time limit would probably mean that I’d have a few false starts — panicking and getting abortions just before the time limit — and has the risk that I’d panic after the time limit and do something stupid (like stab myself in the abdomen or go binge drinking with a nice drug cocktail or starve myself).

          • http://star-www.st-and.ac.uk/~pr33/ Paul Rimmer

            1. A major shift in the political climate would be required for any of those changes to take place.

            I’m an idealist and I hope to help bring about such a shift. Maybe that will be an important first step before any legislation of abortions after 20 weeks should be considered.

            Also, I note that you didn’t address a few of the groups I mentioned: the abused (who may be seeking abortion later because it took them that long to escape their abuser or to figure out how to get an abortion without their abuser finding out), the mentally ill or mentally impaired (who may not have known they were pregnant before or understood what that meant), etc.

            I think more effective policies and a better general treatment of these people is the real solution to this issue, as well as others constantly facing those so marginalized by our society. A good universal healthcare program and effective charities and social welfare programs will help minimize this. But it seems to me unfair to write off the fetus, which may be a person, simply because its mother is marginalized. Why marginalize both? Also, with the mentally ill, it may be the case that the mother in her right mind would want to keep the child.

            2. This has a history of going badly. I’d need some assurance that provisions would be in place to prevent a Beatriz or Savita. There are also many cases of pregnant people being refused both cancer treatments
            and abortions.

            I think that if we don’t make too big a political deal of it, and leave the tough decisions in the hands of doctors, we should be fine. Besides, if some court does decide that the hospital or doctors made a mistake, it’s a fine. No prison time. In my mind this would be conducted such that many malpractice cases would not be so mild.

            • tsara

              The changes in politics regarding the treatment of marginalized people have to come before restrictions on abortions.
              The inability of people to control their fertility is a bloody obvious barrier to them having the ability to advocate for themselves.
              There is a thing called ‘cycles of poverty’ and ‘hereditary poverty’.
              Texas’s abortion restrictions — the ones that you seem to like — are actually terrible. You really need to do more research on them.

        • EvolutionKills

          The best way to reduce abortions is to legalize them, provide easy access to contraception, and safety nets to help provide for the child (ex. universal health care).

          • http://star-www.st-and.ac.uk/~pr33/ Paul Rimmer

            I’m glad we share the same goals. We disagree on strategy. I feel confident that making an act illegal will generally decrease the frequency of the act. Maybe I’m wrong. I’d like to see how.

            • Michael Harrison

              Or it can force people to go to the black market, fueling criminal organizations to the point they rival recognized legal authority, as happened in America during Prohibition, or in South America because of cocaine.

              • http://star-www.st-and.ac.uk/~pr33/ Paul Rimmer

                Possibly so, but I don’t think that a hefty fine for the abortionist (and no punishment for the woman) will likely drive back alley abortions. Especially when wide use of contraception has greatly reduced the number of unwanted pregnancies, and a universal single-payer healthcare system is in place to provide for the women and children who got through the cracks.

                • Michael Harrison

                  I’ll freely admit there were flaws in my analogy. So, to make it more rigorous, say the women who don’t want the child start making use of chemicals obtained from the street. The lack of regulation means these chemicals are not well regulated, and are thus potentially dangerous for the mother. The fact that these chemicals are being obtained from criminals means these purchases may well be fueling different criminal activity.

                  Note I am not right now arguing that abortion should be legal (although I believe it should); I am simply arguing that criminalization has effects that must be considered. And, in fairness, you addressed this. However, it is not just a question of resources. There are questions of how pregnancy affects the mother’s health (if nothing else, hormones making the mother more limber for the sake of giving birth also make her more prone to injury from a fall), or even whether the person feels ready to be a parent.

                • http://star-www.st-and.ac.uk/~pr33/ Paul Rimmer

                  I pretty-much agree with everything you’ve stated. I think that’s a rational defence of why situation needs to be accounted for.

                • Em

                  A lot of women pre-Roe performed their own abortions, with disastrous results. To my knowledge (I know a doctor who worked in the ER then), police were not called. They usually had lifelong issues from poking coat hangers into their private parts, but even when they ended up okay, they were treated and sent home.

                  It is noteworthy that modern prolifers want much stricter punishments than were used pre-Roe v. Wade.

                • allein

                  I don’t understand your logic here. Imposing a penalty on the provider means few people with the proper training and equipment willing to do the procedure, therefore the procedure is not available to the women who need it, which leads to desparate women willing to go to shady providers who may not have the proper training and equipment and certainly do not have the proper oversight to make the procedure safe for those women. It matters not that there is no penalty for the woman if the procedure is not safely available when they need it.

                • http://star-www.st-and.ac.uk/~pr33/ Paul Rimmer

                  The fine would only be for 20+ week fetuses, and only for elective abortions (the woman chose to go in for an abortion after 20 weeks, no significant physical risk noted and the physician performed the abortion). Of course, since this is the real world, this will probably be abused, in both directions (zealous politicians and lawyers going after law-abiding doctors, and abortionists trying to hide a late-term abortion practice under protecting the life of the mother).

                  At the end of the day the average number of lives saved (given present knowledge) will, I predict, be higher with legal restrictions than without them.

            • Em

              Abortion rates before Roe v. Wade are believed to be roughly the same as after. The big difference is in how many mothers died in the process.

              • Miss_Beara

                This reminds me…

                One of my former teachers is now a priest. I looked on his facebook page and he said that before the “sexual revolution” there were no abortions and women rarely used birth control. After Roe v. Wade abortions became the common thing and every woman is using birth control and that it ruins women and families. He also thinks that unmarried straight couples living together and homosexuality, along with abortion and birth control, are the reasons why society is the way it is.

                A lot of people look at the past with rose colored glasses.

                It makes me sad that he thinks this way. I used to have a lot of respect for him.

            • EvolutionKills

              Simple, the illegal part does NOTHING to stop abortions. All it does is drive the practice underground, which makes it far more deadlier for the mother. Abortion rates are much lower in western Europe (where abortion is widely legal, rate is 12 per 1000) compared to eastern Europe (where it’s illegal and underground, rate is 43 per 1000). It’s been studied by the World Health Organization, banning abortion simply DOES NOT lower abortion rates. Want to know what does lower abortion rates? Easy access to contraception and comprehensive sex education. The best way to prevent abortions is to PREVENT UNWANTED PREGNANCIES.

              This makes perfect sense if you’re actually worried about life. But many of the Pro-Lifers seem more concerned with other things, like controlling a woman’s sexuality, her bodily autonomy, punishing her for her perceived digressions, and anything else unrelated to limiting suffering.

              http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2012/10/how-i-lost-faith-in-the-pro-life-movement.html

              http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/12/world/12abortion.html?_r=1&amp;

              http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_IAW.html

              • http://star-www.st-and.ac.uk/~pr33/ Paul Rimmer

                I don’t know how you can claim this so confidently since my particular strategy for making abortion illegal has, to my knowledge, never been attempted.

                I think that punishing the woman for getting an abortion is bad strategy. More, I think it ignores her personhood.

                • EvolutionKills

                  You strategy hasn’t been proven to work. The ones I cite have been proven to work, the evidence is there in western Europe. It’s in the numbers. Did you even look at the links I gave you? I took me a few hours to dig through and digest all of them, not 10 minutes…

                • http://star-www.st-and.ac.uk/~pr33/ Paul Rimmer

                  I think my strategy will further reduce the number of elective abortions after 20 weeks. The only way to really find out is to try it, and Texas effectively is trying part of it. Admittedly, it’s the least important part (contraception and universal healthcare will be far more effective). We’ll see what happens.

                • EvolutionKills

                  I have little confidence in Texas being able to reign in political abuses by fundies. They have a poor history in that regard.

                  I also fail to see the advantage of limiting a woman’s options, as opposed to following the European model; when we already know that the European model WORKS. Not ‘maybe’ it works, it’s not an ‘idea’ or an untested ‘strategy’; it’s a proven path for getting results. If your primary concern is limiting suffering and lowering the amount of abortions, there is no reason to support any other position.

                  Simply make it legal, and put up the money for better social safety nets, comprehensive sex education, and easy access to contraception. It’s the best way to prevent unwanted pregnancies, and thus, prevent abortions.

                  Simple as that. No pseudo-science, no theories, only a model that’s already been proven to work.

                • Ella Warnock

                  But the European model allows women to be the sexual beings they are apart from motherhood. In that way the antis would view that model as decidedly non-workable.

                • TurelieTelcontar

                  To be fair, if you are citing the European model, it should be noted that Germany does have a limit: An elective abortion is only available until 14 weeks, if you take a consultation and wait three days. Medically indicated abortions only after that.

                  On the other hand, Germany has extensive laws to support pregnant women, and parents:
                  Pregnant women can’t be laid off (from start of pregnancy to 240 days after birth)

                  Money during the pregnany, Money for the child, paid leave from 6 weeks before birth to 12 months / 14 months if it’s a single mother or divided between mother and father. And universal health care.

                • Em

                  Germany also has free birth control and does not subject women to waiting periods/ultrasounds/etc that can delay an abortion for months.

                • TurelieTelcontar

                  How do you define “free”? Because I would have to pay for the pill, unless it’s medically indicated. And you need a recipe from a doctor for plan B.

                  But there’s much less argument about it, and there’s even a lot of “use condoms” billboards around, so people who are actually anti-birth control are kind of the lunatics no one takes seriously.

                  There’s a waiting period of three days between the consultation you need to be alloed an abortion, and the abortion. But I think that’s not quite as dramatic here as in the US, as there’s not so many distances to go, the consultations are with general family council centers, so it should be available near where you live. Also, the consultation is paid for by healthcare, an elective abortion has to be paid for by the person wanting it, unless they don’t have the money, then it can get paid by the state.

                • EvolutionKills

                  Precisely. They want to support the woman’s choice, whether it be to carry the pregnancy to term or to abort it. I think the German time frame might be a bit restrictive, but they have the proper framework in place to support a woman who has a pregnancy. We have nothing close to that in the States. Their actions speak well of their empathy and care for the rights of everyone involved.

                • TurelieTelcontar

                  Also, I’m not sure how liberall the medical indication is taken – but I haven’t yet heard of anyone dying because of the lack of one. And when I told my mother about Savita Halappanavar, she thought that was impossible.

                  And, any organisation who offers a consultation has to give you the paper so you can get an abortion afterwards. The result? Catholic family council centers withdrew from pregnancy consultation because of that.

                • EvolutionKills

                  Germany is sounding more and more awesome. I want to vacation there, maybe spend a week taking a motorcycle across Europe.

                • Em

                  Texas has made contraception out of reach to the average citizen and is opting out of Obamacare. Is that your solution?

                • Spuddie

                  Yep. He just doesn’t want to admit to it in public. Its never about anything more than forcing women to give birth against their will.

                • Valde

                  Women don’t have 20+ week abortions for kicks, which is what you are implying.

                  What you want is to play fast and loose with women’s health, because you think women and their doctors are too stupid to make medical decisions on their own.

                • allein

                  Actually, I think it does just the opposite. It implies that a woman choosing an abortion doesn’t really know what she’s doing and should therefore be exempt from any punishment from an otherwise illegal act in which she is fully complicit. If the doctor is the “murderer” then the woman is the one who ordered the “hit.” If you argue that abortion should be illegal, why is the primary actor (she’s the one who initiated the “crime,” after all) not deserving of penalty?

                  There is this idea among the pro-life crowd that women with unwanted pregnancies are sluts who “chose to have sex and should have to deal with the consequences” and at the same time they are placed on the level of children who can’t possibly be trusted to make their own medical and life decisions. As a woman, I find it highly insulting.

                • http://star-www.st-and.ac.uk/~pr33/ Paul Rimmer

                  If you argue that abortion should be illegal, why is the primary actor (she’s the one who initiated the “crime,” after all) not deserving of penalty?

                  First, I don’t think all abortion should be illegal. I think some abortions should be illegal. The vast majority of abortions occur before 20 weeks and I would not advocate making those abortions illegal.

                  But why shouldn’t the woman be fined? It’s a good question, and I think you can find the answer in the comments from many people here who feel so strongly about my position.

                  The primary reason is because I’m a pragmatist, and I think punishing the woman will encourage far more back alley abortions and other terrible things than simply fining the doctor.

                  The secondary reason is because the woman isn’t making an objective decision. She cannot. She’s the subject of the decision. She’s connected to this person, and I think the duress that puts her under mitigates much of her moral responsibility. To the point where I think that a woman who procures an abortion (and in some cases women who kill their infants) should not be punished by the law.

                  I’ll conclude with a simple example. A guy who wants to die gets his friend to shoot him. His friend shoots him and the guy lives. The guy who was shot was under duress and should not be prosecuted at all. The friend who shot him should be prosecuted with assault with a deadly weapon.

                • cowalker

                  The secondary reason is because the woman isn’t making an objective decision. She cannot. She’s the subject of the decision. She’s connected to this person, and I think the duress that puts her under mitigates much of her moral responsibility.

                  This is an outrageous statement. Do you see the implications? Would you hold her accountable for credit card bills run up during her pregnancy due to purchasing baby products and maternity clothing? If she steals money from her employer to pay medical bills during her pregnancy, would you exonerate her? If she abuses her toddler for preventing her from getting the rest she needs, is she morally exempt? You would also be setting up an argument that a pregnant woman is not competent to choose an abortion at 10 or 15 weeks.

                  I cannot accept any law that relegates a normal pregnant woman to the category of being legally incompetent. That would open the door to taking away her autonomy to make any decisions about her medical care during pregnancy as well as taking away her moral culpability for any action connected with her pregnancy.

                • http://star-www.st-and.ac.uk/~pr33/ Paul Rimmer

                  I don’t think she’s legally incompetent, but I do think that having another person connected to her body makes decisions concerning that person far more subjective than, say, decisions concerning credit card companies or employers, who are not connected to her body. My argument isn’t one of incompetence. It’s one of duress. And it’s not just mine. Many here have made the same sort of argument in an attempt to change my mind. I find the argument itself convincing, and that’s why I think it wrong to punish a woman for the possible killing of her child, within the womb (since it is bodily connected) and even in some cases outside the womb (since it was very recently bodily connected).

                  The main reason for not fining women for abortions is that doing so will, by my estimation, likely encourage more dangerous sorts of abortions. I don’t think restricting the punishment to a fine, and only fining the abortionist, will have a similar effect. I advocate we try it to find out (and Texas already halfway is).

                • allein

                  Punishing the provider -> fewer legit providers -> women finding other ways -> more dangerous abortions. How do you not see that?

                  And Texas’s laws are intended to make abortion as inaccessible as possible, because they can’t just ban it outright. The people passing these laws are not interested in the best interests of the women in their state.

                • http://star-www.st-and.ac.uk/~pr33/ Paul Rimmer

                  Whatever the lawmakers intend, the part of the law I support is restricting abortions after 20 weeks. The reason this may not work out well in Texas is that they have virtually non-existent healthcare and don’t push contraception and first trimester abortions.

                  In a society where these three things were done: making abortion after 20 weeks illegal, making available to all women wide-spread contraception/first trimester abortion and instituting universal healthcare, this is what I predict will happen:

                  1. Widespread use of contraception will greatly reduce the number of women who want or need abortions.

                  2. The vast majority of women who want or need an abortion will know to get one (because first trimester abortions would be easily available, she would know about them and they would be free to her)

                  3. A now small number of women, likely those marginalised by society, are going to slip through, and will be in one or both of two categories: wanting an abortion (maybe for very good reasons) or needing an abortion to save their lives.

                  Women who need abortions to save their lives will get one, because abortion after 20 weeks to save the life of the mother is legal.

                  Tragically, the majority of women who wanted an abortion but couldn’t get one will be mentally ill, or abused, or would have been a victim of incest, or otherwise controlled by family or by their partner. Since there is no punishment for the woman, and ample support systems (including a very well-supported planned parenthood), women like this stand a chance for getting moral support and education. Universal healthcare will make it more feasible for them to have the child and, if they choose, give it up for adoption, etc.

                  But maybe they will seek out an abortion anyway. Since there’s no legal risk for the woman, she can seek out an abortionist without fear of legal consequence. As for the doctor, since the punishment for abortions after 20 weeks is not prison time, but instead a substantial fine, the doctor may think that an abortion should be performed anyway, and will then have to pay the fine.

                  The fine will discourage many doctors from performing these abortions, which is good for the fetus, but should leave enough doctors willing to take the risk of punishment and perform the abortions if their conscience leads them to do so, which is good for the mother who may otherwise do something harmful to both herself and possibly her child. I think there will be enough abortionists who would do this in the most dire circumstances that the number of back alley abortions would not significantly increase.

            • onamission5

              Making abortion illegal only serves to make abortion significantly less safe. There’s a reason that pro-choice folks use the coat hanger as a symbol of regressive politics surrounding abortion rights. People who need abortions will often go to desperate measures to acquire them at huge risk to their own lives.

            • Valde

              Rates of abortion are highest in countries where it is illegal.

        • baal

          The 20 weeks line was created by a bogus religiously minded end driven misreading of fake science (fetal pain, like that answers the full range of ethical issues). Other lines are drawn at the 14 day ‘fetal heartbeat’ mark. The law has focused on the otherwise viable mark of 27 weeks (and that’s really a push, preterm is not a good situation, for reference, full term is 40 weeks).

        • Miss_Beara

          In most of these cases, the woman should have the baby anyway, because terminating the pregnancy possibly involves the death of a human being.

          Yeah, who cares if I have massive depression and anxiety with suicidal tendencies while pregnant. Who cares if I cannot even get out of bed because my hormones are making me want to kill myself. Who cares if I get post partum depression and I want to kill myself and which will make me in no position to care for an infant. Yeah, who cares about all of that. As long as that baby gets born.

        • wombat

          “In most of these cases, the woman should have the baby anyway, because terminating the pregnancy possibly involves the death of a human being.”

          I have no words for how misinformed this is. Discounting mental illness like this, reducing it to ‘not really an illness’ is rude, it’s uninformed, it’s cruel, and it’s unacceptable. Mental illness can affect pregnancy and motherhood in many way, from the risks of psychiatric medication to the foetus to the risk of full-blown psychosis in the mother. Pregnancy in conjunction with any illness is more risky than usual, and mental illness is not something you can hand-wave away just because it affects the mind more than the body.

    • cary_w

      That may sound reasonable on the surface, but how will it work in practice? Who gets to decide how much the mother has to risk her life before she can get an abortion? Would mental illness/risk of suicide count as “her life being at risk”? What happens if something goes wrong in the pregnancy after 20 weeks? What about victims of rape? Are you OK with forcing a rape victim to bare the child of her attacker against her will?

      All pregnancies are different and all pregnancies are risky, it’s impossible to make laws that cover all situations, so instead we just have to trust women and their doctors to do the right thing. To me this is where the “choice” comes into play. I have the choice to continue a life threatening pregnancy if I want to. I also have the choice to end it and know that I will be alive to raise my other children. I get to decide, not you, not the government, not my doctor. I am willing to accept that not everyone will make the same choice I make in the same situation. I just wish everyone was willing to accept my choice as well.

      • http://star-www.st-and.ac.uk/~pr33/ Paul Rimmer

        Who gets to decide how much the mother has to risk her life before she can get an abortion?

        The physician and/or an ethics board in questionable cases.

        Would mental illness/risk of suicide count as “her life being at risk”?

        I would imagine probably not, but that also would be for the ethics board to sort out.

        What happens if something goes wrong in the pregnancy after 20 weeks?

        If in the opinion of the responsible physician the life of a woman is at stake and would best be saved by terminating the possible life of the fetus, then the fetus should be terminated.

        What about victims of rape? Are you OK with forcing a rape victim to bare the child of her attacker against her will?

        I’m not OK with it, no. Ideally, such pregnancies will be terminated well before 20 weeks, when there are virtually no serious ethical considerations to be made for the group of cells inside a woman’s womb. In such cases where this group of cells may well be a living person, I strongly believe that that person has a right to life, and that right should be protected in the most effective way, even if it involves situations and cases that I find decidedly not OK.

        • TurelieTelcontar

          The physician and/or an ethics board in questionable cases.
          And yet Savita Halappanavar died in Ireland because the doctors weren’t convinced the situation was life-threatening enough for her until she was dead. They were to afraid that the court would decide differently, that they rather left a woman to die, than make this decision.

          • JA

            Beat me to it.

          • Miss_Beara

            They were more worried about what the courts would say than saving a woman’s life. Sad.

        • lovesalot

          Do you hear yourself?

          If your life is at risk, to whom shall we give the power to decide whether you get the care that you need?

          • http://star-www.st-and.ac.uk/~pr33/ Paul Rimmer

            If your life is at risk, to whom shall we give the power to decide whether you get the care that you need?

            If my life and the life of someone else are both at risk, and a physician can only attempt to save one, that’s the physician’s call.

            Since a 20+ week old fetus is only possibly human, the life of the mother always takes priority. But it would be up for the physician to make that call.

            • lovesalot

              Yes, a fetus is a potential human. Under construction. Not a child.

        • cary_w

          My life is hanging in the balance, the sooner an abortion is preformed the more likely I not only live, but live with less chance of medical complications, and you want me to wait for an ethics board to decide if I can get an abortion? What am I, a child who is too stupid to understand her situation? You don’t think I can decide for myself how much I’m willing to risk my own life? Do you have to defend your case before an ethics board to get elective surgery? Do you understand how offensive it is to have someone tell you that you are incapable of making your own decisions?

          That kind of government control is totally unacceptable, you’d think the party of “less government” would understand that!

          • http://star-www.st-and.ac.uk/~pr33/ Paul Rimmer

            My life is hanging in the balance, the sooner an abortion is preformed the more likely I not only live, but live with less chance of medical complications, and you want me to wait for an ethics board to decide if I can get an abortion?

            Not at all. I think the physician should make the call, and the case should be discussed to find out possible mistakes in a Morbidity and Mortality conference.

            If the physician is not sure about whether your life is sufficiently at risk to justify possibly killing another person, then that physician should have recourse to an ethics board.

            • cary_w

              Right, you a saying that I am not rational enough to make dicisions about my own health. The physician has to make them for me.

              And yet you people fail to see how anti-abortions laws are not designed to reduce the need for abortions, but merely to control women whom they believe are too stupid to know what to do on their own.

              • Em

                Physicians are already the gatekeepers of health care. You cannot get antibiotics or painkillers without the agreement of a physician.

                I think this decision should be between a woman and her physician. Physicians are well-trained in ethics and also have personal boundaries. Even a pro-choice physician will generally not be comfortable with performing a purely elective abortion at full term. In countries where abortion is legal throughout the pregnancy, late term abortions are rare and generally performed only in emergencies because doctors are uncomfortable with late term elective abortion.

                Doctors are uniquely trained to evaluate medical ethics. Given the freedom to perform abortions at their will, they will do a fine job of informally regulating the procedure, just as they do with back surgery and other procedures.

            • Em

              Having to defend a position in M&M is nerve-wracking and will certainly influence physicians to wait a bit too long to perform an abortion.

        • http://absurdlypointless.blogspot.com/ TBJ

          I strongly believe that that person has a right to life, and that right should be protected in the most effective way, even if it involves situations and cases that I find decidedly not OK.
          Just curious how many times have you in the past called or wrote your congressman asking him to object to an act of war?

        • allein

          Who gets to decide how much the mother has to risk her life before she can get an abortion?

          The physician and/or an ethics board in questionable cases.

          No. The doctor may determine what the risks are for a particular patient, based on her history and circumstances, but it is the woman who gets to decide how much risk she is willing to take on. No one else.

        • wombat

          “Would mental illness/risk of suicide count as “her life being at risk”?

          I would imagine probably not, but that also would be for the ethics board to sort out.”

          So mental illness just doesn’t count? If your mind is sick it’s not real?
          Who are you to debate abortion ethics when you don’t have a basic grasp of an important factor contributing to it? Being forced to continue a pregnancy has huge potential to adversely affect a woman’s mental health, and here you are saying that doesn’t matter.

  • BenFromCA

    First, that’s a big bowl of sicko, too. Second, why black out the names of the respondents? It’s a public forum. They should bear the public shame that goes along with making such uninformed and inhumane assertions.

    • baal

      Selection / sample bias. If you have 1000 people who commit a crime but you only nab 10 of them and that 10 just happen to be a definable group, then it’s not really fair to subject them to huge amounts of abuse while letting the other 990 go. I do see people argue that by beating the shit out of the 10 with extreme abuse will put the right type of righteous fear into the other 990 but I find that position morally reprehensible.

    • Smiles

      Fortunately we CAN identify these people… Hemant was kind enough to link to the comments. Here it is again if you need to know who to “unfriend”…

      https://www.facebook.com/LifeBeginsAtConception/posts/629818607037924

  • Nerdinity

    I’ve been monitoring this page for quite some time, you’ll find a lot of hate. The page founder also has a number of other pages where she spews the same bile and a number of falsehoods about women’s health. Have fun!

    • Goape

      Are you trying to point out hypocrisy? Are you doing it while ignoring the hypocrisy of “pro-lifers” who vehemently call for the murder of people who abort fetuses?

      • TheG

        It is easier to point out the mote in someone else’s eye than to address the speck in one’s own eye.

        • Nerdinity

          I meant Life Begins at Conception. I am whole-heartedly pro-choice. My apologies for being unclear. :)

          • Nerdinity

            I actually study sexual and reproductive health at the graduate level as a public health student. I got banned from that page a long time ago when I pointed out their “facts” were wrong and they didn’t understand the statistics presented in studies and the like. Academia is evil and liberal, you know. *snort*

          • Spuddie

            Thanks for the clarification. I got the mistaken impression from your initial post. =)

            • Nerdinity

              No problema.

    • Spuddie

      N/T

  • tyler

    i’m rather more interested in how they’d choose to prove an abortion took place. wouldn’t they have to investigate every miscarriage as a potential murder?

  • Andrew B.

    It seems that even “God’s love” can’t overcome base human vindictiveness.

    • phantomreader42

      More like “god’s love” is nothing more than base human vindictiveness.

  • advancedatheist

    The abortion issue really involves control over women’s sexuality, not over the safety of the unborn.

    I didn’t really understand social conservatives’ fixation on abortion until I started reading the manosphere blogs, which lay out a coherent view that women need restrictions on their sexual freedom because their unleashed hypergamy (look it up) damages society. When we have both more self-identified sluts and more men than ever who wind up either sexually rejected or financially screwed over by man-hostile marriage and family laws, so that more and more of them have gone “on strike” out of frustration with this adversarial environment, that suggests that our society has traveled down the wrong path. The effort to push back on abortion makes sense as an strategy to try to restore relationships between men and women into a more natural pattern.

    And I do mean “natural.” It violates women’s evolved nature to have sterile hookups with a series of men they have no intention of marrying, and on top of that, meddling with their natural hormonal cycles through chemical contraceptives can’t do them much good, either. The social science data suggest that having even one premarital sexual adventure, and more definitely two, can turn experienced women into high divorce risks compared with virgin brides. The allegedly “superstitious” priests who insisted that women save themselves for marriage had better intuitions about female sexuality than us “enlightened” atheists.

    Notice that this this view of human sexual behavior has nothing to do with religious beliefs, though religious traditions promoted generalizations about female sexuality as hitchhikers. Atheists can make a solid critique of beliefs about the gods because we can’t observe or communicate with our tribe’s supernaturals, despite what the people on those foolish “ghost hunting” shows on cable claim. But men have had to live with women all along. If this resulting patriarchal wisdom tradition, a kind of Bayesianism of our ancestors, tends to put women in a bad light – well, you can’t blame that on the gods, now, can you?

    • TheG

      “It violates women’s evolved nature to have sterile hookups with a series of men they have no intention of marrying, and on top of that, meddling with their natural hormonal cycles through chemical contraceptives can’t do them much good, either.”

      Except for the evidence that I can also bring in that claims the opposite: multiple sex partners increases the fitness of both the reproducing female and the offspring. (Read “The Moral Animal” by Robert Wright, as well as many, many others). Just because you toss around words like “Bayesianism” doesn’t make your claims settled or even sound.

      “The social science data suggest that having even one premarital sexual adventure, and more definitely two, can turn experienced women into high divorce risks compared with virgins brides.”

      Wait, you were talking about evolution, then somehow morphed it into a (evolutionarily) recent invention of marriage. Focus, dude. You haven’t shown the link between marriage and fitness. There are quite a few steps you forgot to introduce.

    • GCT

      Yes to your first paragraph. Shame that you think it’s a good thing.

      And, while we’re at it, let’s rely on a single study from the Heritage Foundation that completely ignores all confounding factors to determine that we should be controlling the sex lives of women to make sure that they stay true to their (one, and only) man. Ugh.

    • Michael Harrison

      Really? Evolutionary psych? I have said it before and I will say it again: any attempt to reduce us to our genes, or our evolutionary history, etc., etc., forgets a basic tenet of evolution, that fitness is defined by environment. Mating strategies that worked 2000 years ago are probably not going to take into account the stresses of modern day American life.

    • Carpinions

      WTF are you on about? Superstitious priests are called that for a reason: Their beliefs are based on superstition. There’s no knowledge there, especially if your a Catholic male.

      You have a strange definition of “natural”. The sexual behaviors (seemingly mostly from the female perspective) you prescribe as bad are the *actual* natural processes, and the thinking gained from experience the limiting factor. You claim the opposite, that the artificial limiting from thought is the natural behavior (when history is rife with evidence to the contrary), and then later on you say that contraceptives are an artificial interruption that messes with women’s bodies. You are having things one way in one part of your argument, and then trying to have them another way afterward. You can’t say that it’s natural for women to be limited out of necessity, and then also claim that their bodily functions occur in a natural fashion that artificial means only exacerbates.

      This smacks of misogyny because in your post everything revolves around the man saying no and women being advised not to use contraceptives as they see fit. Never mind the fact that men are far more often sex offenders than women, and are often the socially accepted and expected initiator of sex with women. Study after study shows male predilection for distraction and obsessiveness with sex and courtship. I don’t care what your social science data says, it’s only one facet, and taken alone cannot even begin to face down the mountain ranges of counter-evidence.

      And the notion that the anti-choice crowd is only anti-abortion because of female unleashed hypergamy is a riot. If that were the case, why do they incessantly show bloody pictures of abortions on protest signs and make it all about life life life and “murder”? The anti-choice crowd is unabashedly religious, quite conservative on reproductive issues, and openly misogynistic in their goals. They’ll say they want to hold men accountable too, except there’s no way to shackle men like there is women.

      The anti-choice position is patently immoral. It would take volumes of blog posts to explain all the reasons as to why, but I’m sure anyone here would be happy to take up that challenge.

    • onamission5

      I notice you wear glasses. Why are you violating nature!!!eleventy!

      • ShoeUnited

        Because (just like women), he should have final say over the control of his (her) own body and bodily functions.

    • Olive Markus

      Wait, I thought he was actually explaining these beliefs through mockery of them, not actually advocating them as ideas he holds to be true…

      I guess I’m wrong about this?

    • Valde

      How wrong you are.

      Recent studies have shown that women have evolved to be just as promiscuous as men. However, the male ego needs to believe that women are nothing more than asexual homemakers – hence the need to control female sexuality.

      The tripe you are spouting is nothing more than Taliban-lite.

  • Nerdinity

    These people are using The Handmaid’s Tale as an instruction manual.

  • Spuddie

    When your position is based on slut-shaming and attacking women as a matter of principle, putting them in prison is just a natural course of things.

    • Nerdinity

      Gotta make sure those women know their place in society- as broodmares!

      • viaten

        Yes. America has a lot of “catching up” to do compared with other cultures. We can’t let them outnumber us too much.

        • Albert

          What do you mean catching up? In what regards?

          • EvolutionKills

            The massively lower abortion rates (and lower murder, theft, poverty, etc.) of western Europe. We are behind the developed nations of Europe in almost every measurement of societal health, and we’ve been behind for decades.

            • Albert

              I haven’t seen those statistics. Do you have any resources you could share that you get your facts from?

              • Spuddie

                confirmation troll is confirming.

                • onamission5

                  Srsly.
                  If anyone was wondering what JAQing looks like? I present you with Albert.

                • Spuddie

                  So would he be a JAQ-off or is it that he doesn’t know JAQ?

                • onamission5

                  I seem to have acquired a stray letter ‘a’ from somewhere. Will remedy!

                • Spuddie

                  He could just be JAQing us around.

                  I am just having fun with this. =)

                • Albert

                  Why is asking for resources to back up a claim that someone made considered trolling?

                • Spuddie

                  I have no idea what you are talking about. Please elaborate.

                  What do you mean by “claim” in this context?

                  Do you have some evidence to prove you are trying to engage people with good faith responses?

                  I am unfamiliar with the notions of “backing up”, can you explain it?

                  Are you saying all factual assertions require links to outside sources except your own?

                  Are you naturally skeptical of all claims made in response to you? Why?

                  I am just asking questions. =)

                • Albert

                  Yeah, and?
                  If someone doesn’t understand what you are meaning, how is asking a question being a troll?
                  If someone is trying to make sure that a word used is meaning the same to both people, how is asking what they mean by that indicate trolling?
                  If someone makes a claim that I don’t believe is factual, or I don’t know the facts, how is asking them for resources or evidence trolling?

                  What you might consider being “naturally skeptical” is what I consider to be concerned that I understand what the person I am talking to is saying.

                  Just as me asking you what you have considered me saying that would lead you to believe I’m trolling.

                  Your examples, though, don’t show trolling, I’m not trying to frustrate people or make people mad, I’m trying to understand their point of view better. This is not trolling as I understand it.

                • Spuddie

                  What do you mean by “doesn’t understand”? In what way don’t you understand such things? Please elaborate.

                  If you make a claim, does it require links to every factual assertion you make? If not, why would it be expected of others?

                  Have you made any disputes of factual information posited by other posters? Have you made any of your own? Please detail them with citations to support them.

                • GCT

                  What do you mean by “What?”

                • phantomreader42

                  Did you just what?
                  Is what you yes?
                  Did you whatever?

                  Whatever you I guess.

                  The stalking horse
                  Was hides the guy
                  In which the pony is a phony was a lie.

                  You say
                  Stuff is way
                  Way to go
                  GO AWAY!

                • Em

                  You haz not the google? I only ask for references when I cannot find them myself, or when the statement goes against research that I have seen.

                  Your arguments here seem to be nitpicky (not ALL prolifers are Republican therefore it is invalid to point out that the vast majority are?) and fail to actually address what anyone says. It does come across as trolly, although I think you are probably trying to pick holes in other arguments because you don’t have an argument of your own that is not based in your religion.

              • EvolutionKills
                • Albert

                  Thanks for the links. I will have to take some time to read them. I appreciate you posting them.

                • phantomreader42

                  And eight days later, you still haven’t so much as glanced at the references you pretended to ask for, you worthless lying sack of shit. Isn’t that imaginary god of yours supposed to have some sort of problem with bearing false witness, Albert?

                • Albert

                  Actually I have looked at them.
                  And how does that relate to you? It was EvolutionKills that gave them to me, right?
                  What obligation to you do I have in regards to reading them?

                  Were you expecting me to come back with some sort of refutation or something?
                  It’s it possible that I’m still pouring over the information to really understand what EvolutionKills was saying?

                  What imaginary god are you talking about?

                • phantomreader42

                  You have shown no evidence that you have learned anything, from those links or from anything else. You asked for those references as a futile and stupid delaying tactic, and as soon as they were posted you ran away and pretended they didn’t exist, so you could keep on babbling nonsense that has been shown to be false multiple times. You are a lying sack of shit.

              • talkingsnake

                You have been pwned multiple times, and now you will be ignored.

              • Em

                It would require pages of links to support his arguments, but they are accepted as common fact. When I googled this issues, I found a variety of studies finding the same. You should also know these numbers–you are pro-life, and thus I assume you would be familiar with the societal conditions that lower abortion rates.

            • viaten

              Good point. Although my reply was sarcastically referring to “being fruitful and multiplying”, the US does have catching up to do in social health, education, opportunities, etc.

          • viaten

            Raw population numbers. Big families as the Catholic Church would like to see. We can’t have other cultures out breeding us, lessening our influence in the world. I’m being sarcastic of course.

            • Albert

              Sarcastic perhaps, but there is some truth to that statement.
              Every group understands the influence they can present in numbers. As much as people say they don’t matter, they really do.

              Good point.

      • Albert

        How do you come to that conclusion that this is what pro-life people are wanting to make women?

        • EvolutionKills

          By a study of their actions, in regards to being both anti-choice and the other political agendas they tend to support.

          • Albert

            For instance?

            • EvolutionKills

              Pro-Life goes hand-in-kind with religious conservatism. What else goes hand-in-hand with religious conservatism?

              They are pro-military, supporting excessive defense spending and wars of aggression; both of which cause a ton of excess death and suffering. They also tend to be in favor of the death penalty. It’s clear they are more interested in retribution than anything else.

              They want a smaller government (except for the aforementioned defense spending), including massive cuts or elimination of programs that would help in child care. This includes repealing universal healthcare, government assisted housing, food stamps, and the like. They’re more interested in making sure the baby is born, than in making sure it’s taken care of once it’s out of the womb. This is less a concern for the unborn, than it is control over women and enforcing limits on their autonomy.

              Pushing to make abortion illegal, will do nothing to lower abortion rates. All it will do is push people seeking them to go underground, all this results in is more deaths for the mother’s. It makes no significant impact on abortion rates, it just makes it far more dangerous for those who do get them. The best way to lower abortion rates is comprehensive sex education and easy access to contraception; both of which are opposed by religious conservatives. This shows that they are far more concerned with passing ‘moral’ judgement than they are in actually lowering the amount of abortions.

              • Albert

                You said, “They are pro-military, supporting excessive defense spending and wars of
                aggression; both of which cause a ton of excess death and suffering.”

                Can’t the goal for better weapons than the other guy lead to not having to use them at all? It makes the other guy think twice before attacking us, right? I know I would think twice about attacking someone that has a fully automatic weapon over someone that has a billy club.

                You said, ” They also tend to be in favor of the death penalty. It’s clear they are more interested in retribution than anything else.”

                Favor the death penalty for who?

                You said, “Pushing to make abortion illegal, will do nothing to lower abortion rates. All it will do is push people seeking them to go underground, all this results in is more deaths for the mother’s.”

                That is an interesting take on that. Doesn’t this mean they are being in control of their own bodies if they choose to go have an abortion in some back-ally, then that is their choice? Who are you to say they can’t do that?

                You said, “The best way to lower abortion rates is comprehensive sex education and easy access to contraception; both of which are opposed by religious conservatives.”

                But contraction isn’t 100% protection. What about those condoms that break?

                What if the Pro-lifers said, you can do your education and you can pass out your contraception and we will make abortions illegal?

                This way, the education is out there, the protection is out there and the people are told they are not having to take responsibility for their actions. If they choose to have sex, they will have to deal with the consequences of that action. If the protection fails, or they don’t use any, and they get pregnant, they are not responsible to raise the child they produced, right? After all, they now have complete control of their own bodies and they weighed the risk and had consensual sex.

                What this would also do is remove your argument for them being more concerned with passing moral judgement than lowering the abortion rate, right?

                • tsara

                  “Can’t the goal for better weapons than the other guy lead to not having to use them at all?”
                  What are they teaching them in schools these days? That has not historically gone well. Not to mention, that’s not all they’re doing.

                  “Favor the death penalty for who?”
                  Just in general. See: Rick Perry celebrating Texas’s executions.

                  “Who are you to say they can’t do that?”
                  I’d do it, but you’re a sick fuck if you think it’s better to have DIY abortions rather than safe ones. The people who went to see Kermit Gosnell knew they might die. Sometimes it’s get an abortion or die trying. I find it difficult to understand why people don’t see the desperation driving the actions of people who get unsafe abortions.

                  “But contraction isn’t 100% protection. What about those condoms that break?”
                  It’s better than nothing and leads to far fewer unplanned pregnancies. Fewer unplanned pregnancies means fewer abortions.

                  “What if the Pro-lifers said, you can do your education and you can pass out your contraception and we will make abortions illegal?”
                  …then I’d say, ‘gee, thanks, you sick fucks’.

                  “If they choose to have sex, they will have to deal with the consequences of that action.”
                  It’s cruel to say that sex should have consequences, and everything you’ve said makes me think that you think it should. Fuck you, fuck you, fuck you.

                  “What this would also do is remove your argument for them being more concerned with passing moral judgement than lowering the abortion rate, right?”

                  Not really. There’s also things like paid parental leave, subsidized daycare, SNAP, etc.

                • EvolutionKills

                  “Can’t the goal for better weapons than the other guy lead to not having to use them at all? It makes the other guy think twice before attacking us, right? I know I would think twice about attacking someone that has a fully automatic weapon over someone that has a billy club.”

                  How well has that worked out for us? Over a decade of non-stop war, and what do we have to show for it? How well will it work in the future? Mutually assured destruction worked with Russian during the Cold War, that tactic will not work with a nuclear armed Syria or Iran. We’ve done nothing but abuse our military. We also spend more money on our military than the next 5 largest military forces combined. And the next 10 largest military forces after the US? They’re all allies or neutral, not a single antagonist nation is anywhere near close to spending as much as we do. It’s embarrassing.

                  “Favor the death penalty for who?”

                  I don’t favor the death penalty at all. It’s a permanent solution to a temporary problem, and it is too prone to human error. I also think it’s hypocritical to support the killing of people while calling yourself ‘Pro-Life’.

                  “That is an interesting take on that. Doesn’t this mean they are being in control of their own bodies if they choose to go have an abortion in some back-ally, then that is their choice? Who are you to say they can’t do that?”

                  My point is that they WILL still get abortions, I just want it to be as safe and transparent as possible. There is no reason for the mother to needlessly die because of complications.

                  “But contraction isn’t 100% protection. What about those condoms that break?”

                  No shit, that’s why I support a woman’s choice. She can do everything to prevent an unwanted pregnancy and she can still get pregnant through no fault of her own.

                  “What if the Pro-lifers said, you can do your education and you can pass out your contraception and we will make abortions illegal?”

                  Nope, not good enough. It still infringes on a woman’s physical autonomy to force her to carry a pregnancy to term against her will.

                  “This way, the education is out there, the protection is out there and the people are told they are not having to take responsibility for their actions. If they choose to have sex, they will have to deal with the consequences of that action. If the protection fails, or they don’t use any, and they get pregnant, they are not responsible to raise the child they produced, right? After all, they now have complete control of their own bodies and they weighed the risk and had consensual sex.”

                  This only shows that you’re more interested in punishing woman for having sex, and not actually concerned with reducing abortions.

                  “What this would also do is remove your argument for them being more concerned with passing moral judgement than lowering the abortion rate, right?”

                  Wrong. You’re still a misogynist, and your arguments are still terrible.

                • Albert

                  How does having a war for ten years negate my argument that better weapons reduce attacks?
                  The last attack we had on our soil of any substantial size was 9-11. And that is why we went to war, it was not us starting it, right?

                  “Favor the death penalty for who?”
                  I’m sorry, I think you misunderstood my question. I was asking for who are they using the death penalty on?

                  Most people that believe that we should have the death penalty believe that we have laws that enforce certain moral rules, that we, as a society, believe every person in that country should abide by.
                  And they believe that each of these laws have punishments that fit the crime they cover. They see punishment, not reform, is the goal of justice.
                  They see that humans are rational and moral people who know the difference between right and wrong and can make the choice to do right or wrong but chose to do evil anyway.
                  And since the knew better and still did the crime, they should be punished to enact justice. Therefore, they see capital punishment as a necessary tool to use because justice is not served if innocent lives are taken without retribution.
                  If the victim, of the offender, lost their lives why should the offender only lose their liberties? How do you see that as justice?

                  You said, “I also think it’s hypocritical to support the killing of people while calling yourself ‘Pro-Life’.”
                  I think it depends on what you mean by Pro-life. If taking the life of a person that chooses to do evil keeps other innocent people alive then that is being Pro-life. It would be better to never lose any lives, but if people chose to do wrong, then they need to be punished in order for justice to be served.

                  You said, “My point is that they WILL still get abortions, I just want it to be as safe and transparent as possible. There is no reason for the mother to needlessly die because of complications.”

                  I have no doubt they will still get abortions; but isn’t that still their choice?
                  If what Pro-lifers say is true about a new human life starts at conception, then isn’t it just as valid to say there is no reason for a child to needlessly die just because a mother doesn’t want them?
                  At least in the situation of back-ally abortion, the mother has a choice to do what she wants, the child does not regardless if it is in a back-ally, clinic or hospital, right?

                  You said, “No shit, that’s why I support a woman’s choice. She can do everything to prevent an unwanted pregnancy and she can still get pregnant through no fault of her own.”

                  No fault of her own? Really? Who’s fault was it for her to have consensual sex in the first place?
                  I would say that is at least partially her fault, wouldn’t you?

                  You said, “Nope, not good enough. It still infringes on a woman’s physical autonomy to force her to carry a pregnancy to term against her will.”

                  Getting pregnant is a know risk of sexual intercourse, would you agree?
                  Why do you say “against her will” as if she has no obligations based on her current circumstances?

                  If you decided to go rock climbing, you know there is some risk in getting hurt, right?
                  So you take your ropes and your chalk and your helmet so that you are as fully protected as you can be while you perform this action. All of a sudden you find yourself in a situation where your losing your grip. Can you just opt out and say I don’t accept the consequences of my actions and step away from the whole situation? Of course not,

                  But this is exactly what you are proposing that women and men should be allowed to do when they knowingly have consensual sex, understanding the risks in involved, and end up getting pregnant.

                  Why should they not be held responsible for their actions if they already know the risks involved?

                  You said, “This only shows that you’re more interested in punishing woman for having sex, and not actually concerned with reducing abortions.”

                  I think you might be misunderstanding some definition of words.
                  Punishment: The infliction or imposition of a penalty as retribution for an offense.
                  Consequence: A result or effect of an action or condition.

                  This isn’t punishment, it is a consequence of their actions.

                  If I decide to take my hard earn paycheck and spend it all at the casino it isn’t a punishment if I go home broke, it’s a consequence of my actions. Actions, I might add, I know the risks for before I walk in the door.

                  Is your suggestion that I should not be held responsible for my actions but that the casino should give me back every bit of my money because I really didn’t want to lose it all in their casino?

                  You said, “Wrong. You’re still a misogynist, and your arguments are still terrible.”
                  You might think that, but it’s not true, I’m not a misogynist. And name calling doesn’t help your arguments anymore than it refutes mine.

                • tsara

                  “They see that humans are rational”
                  Well, that’s a problem right there. My favourite book: Thinking, fast and slow, by Daniel Kahneman. The studies it expands on are the ones that won him (a psychologist) the nobel prize in economics.

                  EDIT:
                  “How do you see that as justice?”
                  I don’t find justice to be a useful concept. And I don’t believe in punishment for the sake of punishment.
                  EDIT II: Also, I despise the concept of innocence. *spit*

                • EvolutionKills

                  Thank you for proving my first point. What did the billions upon billions of defense spending do, besides put us in debt and give us an itchy trigger finger to use the largest military on Earth? Did it do anything to stop over a dozen men armed with 50 cent box-cutters? All those billions did FUCK ALL to stop domestic terrorism.

                  The death penalty is born from a greater concern for retribution than rehabilitation or justice. How many people have been sentence to death on eye-witness testimony (the absolute worst kind of evidence), only to be exonerated by DNA evidence? The numbers are scary. It is quite clearly open to abuse, and appeals to the death penalty eat up more tax payer money in litigation than if the inmate were to sit in prison their entire lives and then some. It is both financially and ethically better to do away with it. And why are the people in favor of it overwhelmingly Christian? Isn’t one of Jesus core teachings forgiveness? Can’t you just wait and let your god do the judging in the afterlife? That so many of them don’t do either speaks only of their hypocrisy.

                  “I think it depends on what you mean by Pro-life. If taking the life of a person that chooses to do evil keeps other innocent people alive then that is being Pro-life. It would be better to never lose any lives, but if people chose to do wrong, then they need to be punished in order for justice to be served.”

                  Removing that person from society removes their ability to do further harm. You can serve justice without killing them, provided you are more concerned with justice than retribution. It also prevent justice from being abused and miscarriage by killing innocents. You cannot make reparations to the dead.

                  “I have no doubt they will still get abortions; but isn’t that still their choice?If what Pro-lifers say is true about a new human life starts at conception, then isn’t it just as valid to say there is no reason for a child to needlessly die just because a mother doesn’t want them?
                  At least in the situation of back-ally abortion, the mother has a choice to do what she wants, the child does not regardless if it is in a back-ally, clinic or hospital, right?”

                  Once again, if you were more concerned with actual LIFE instead of RETRIBUTION, then you wouldn’t hold your position. Abortion will happen, making them illegal just makes them more dangerous. Making abortion illegal will not prevent abortions, it will only kill more women. But you don’t care about their safety (or their physical autonomy), you don’t care about their lives, so calling yourself ‘Pro-Life’ makes you a hypocrite.

                  “No fault of her own? Really? Who’s fault was it for her to have consensual sex in the first place?I would say that is at least partially her fault, wouldn’t you?”

                  Once again, you are more concerned with PUNISHMENT over a woman perceived sexual digressions. You want her to be punished for enjoying sex for pleasure, even though contraception is not 100% effective. It’s not about life or saving the unborn, you want to punish women. Pull yourself out of the stone age you misogynistic hack. You want people who never want children to never have sex, full stop. That’s not going to happen. Now you can either be a realist and do things that will actually lower the number of abortions (comprehensive sex education, easy access to contraception, universal healthcare, etc), or you can be a fundamentalist hack that focuses on punishing people for their perceived sexual dalliances. You’ve made it abundantly clear that you are far more concerned with PUNISHMENT and RETRIBUTION than you actually are with lowering abortion rates. I want to lower abortion rates, and the best way to do that is to be Pro-Choice. Suck it.

                • GCT

                  The rock climbing analogy doesn’t work. Here’s a better one. After you fall and you break your leg, would you go to the doctor to fix it?

                  And, yes, you are a misogynist.

                • Miss_Beara

                  That is an interesting take on that. Doesn’t this mean they are being in control of their own bodies if they choose to go have an abortion in some back-ally, then that is their choice? Who are you to say they can’t do that?

                  You are really dense. Back alley equals dangerous. Back alley means the chance of arrest if abortion becomes illegal and the woman is caught. Back alley means women could die or be severely injured in the process. Back alley means having an abortion performed by someone with no medical license. Do you even know what back alley means?

                • Albert

                  Not sure what you are basing your comment of me being dense on, but I will leave it as name calling and nothing more.

                  As far as your other comments, I agree that back ally abortions are dangerous; back ally does mean a chance of arrest if abortions are illegal and women are caught; back ally does mean a woman could die or be severely injured in the process; and back ally can mean the abortion is preformed by someone with no medical license.

                  I agree with that 100%.

                  So what?

                  Are you now saying that a woman should not be allowed to make her own choices?

                  Isn’t it the woman’s choice to go bungee jumping even though she knows there is a risk of it being dangerous?
                  Isn’t it the woman’s choice to go rock climbing even through there is a risk of injury?
                  Isn’t it the woman’s choice to have someone perform surgeries on her knowing they might not be licensed?

                  For someone that I would consider is fighting for the right to women to choose what they do with their own body, you are certainly making the argument that they should not be allowed to make those choices.

                  The magnitude or the danger of a decision should not be something that limits her ability to choose does it? If so, then that same argument can be used in the case of abortions.

                • allein

                  If a woman seeks a back-alley abortion, it is because she doesn’t have a legal choice. Nobody chooses to go to an unlicensed medical provider unless the services they need are not available legally. The argument is not that a woman shouldn’t be able to “choose” an unsafe abortion, it is that she shouldn’t have to resort to that option.

                • Em

                  Contraception is not 100%, but countries that make it widely available have lower abortion rates.

                  Superior weaponry has yet to bring an end to war.

                  If pregnancy is the logical consequence for sex, why don’t men get pregnant?

                  In what other circumstance is a person required to give of their body to anyone else, even their own child?

                  Did I address all of your illogical arguments?

        • Nerdinity

          Seriously? These people act like gestating is the end all, be all of femaleness.

          • Albert

            How do you come to that conclusion?
            Are pro-lifers telling women to have sex and make babies?

            • Michael Harrison

              Look around at representations of women who don’t have children in media. They aren’t being told to have sex and make babies, but if they don’t, it’s suggested something might be wrong with them.

              • Albert

                Not sure what you are getting at. Can you explain further?

                • Michael Harrison

                  Consider, for example, the stereotype of the spinster (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/OldMaid). Or the crazy cat lady who treats cats like the children she’ll never have (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CrazyCatLady).

                • Albert

                  I can see your point to an extent, but do those two examples really hold up much today? Seems to me that woman have more often than not broke out of that stereotype of having to be a homemaker, don’t you?
                  Or am I missing your point?

                • Michael Harrison

                  It’s not as prevalent today as in the past, but slut-shaming still happens.

                • Albert

                  I’m sure it does, but that doesn’t mean that attitude is prevalent or even in the majority, would you agree?

                  I know I don’t feel that way or think that way.

                • tsara

                  But you talk that way.

                • Michael Harrison

                  I’m surprised you’re on the Internet and haven’t come across it more often.

            • Nerdinity

              Humans have sex, it’s just part of the human condition. What many pro-lifers do is fight against measures, such as mandating comprehensive, medically accurate sex education for everyone, as well as restricting abortion. They may not be holding a gun to anyone’s head, but there’s certainly little freedom in their world.

              • Albert

                Don’t those people that want to have sex have the freedom to get a vasectomy or have their tubes tied? Isn’t that taking control of their own bodies and being responsible?

                • Nerdinity

                  Good luck trying to find a doctor to sterilize you if you are a young, childless woman. Most won’t even go near that.

                • Albert

                  What happen to it’s the woman’s right to choose? All of a sudden you just lay down that fight and say, “Oh well, I guess we can’t.”?

                • phantomreader42

                  Albert, have you EVER, even ONCE, even for the tiniest fraction of a nanosecond, even CONSIDERED glancing in the general direction of the real world? No, of course you haven’t. You lying fetus fetishists never do.

                • Albert

                  Well, the real world says that human rights should be equal for all human beings, right?

                  In fact, there is a whole site that spells that out. ( http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml )

                  It even states in Article 2 the following:

                  “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.”

                  Did you happen to see that word it started with? EVERYONE…. That means, if science is correct in stating that a new individual separate human being is created at conception, then that human too, is entitled to all of those rights and freedoms.

                  I’m not sure what world you are living in, but I’m thinking it’s your own.

                • phantomreader42

                  Albert babbled:

                  Did you happen to see that word it started with? EVERYONE…. That
                  means, if science is correct in stating that a new individual separate
                  human being is created at conception, then that human too, is entitled
                  to all of those rights and freedoms.

                  That’s a pretty big IF, Albert. Do you have anything, anything at all, that even vaguely LOOKS like a speck of evidence to back it up? No, you don’t. You can’t, because SCIENCE DOES NOT SAY THAT, ONLY THE VOICES IN YOUR HEAD DO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                  As desperate as you are to insist that “Science” backs you up, it doesn’t. It just doesn’t. Continuing to lie about it won’t change reality, it’ll only make it more obvious that you are a lying sack of shit.

                  Oh, and let me remind you, because you’ve clearly forgotten WOMEN ARE PEOPLE!!!! That means WOMEN have rights. Rights that you and your fellow fetus-fetishists are so eager to deny them that you pretend to think fetuses are people, but throw them away the instant they become inconvenient. They only way you treat fetuses as human is in the sense of a human shield you can hide behind.

                • tsara

                  “That means, if science is correct in stating that a new individual separate human being is created at conception,”
                  Why do you continue to say this? Science doesn’t tell us anything about when ‘a new individual separate human being is created’. That’s a value judgment, and science doesn’t do those. No, you’ve picked a point in the reproductive process (conception: a point which you have failed to prove the significance of) and decided that that is the dividing line. I don’t value human DNA; I’d chuck a microtube of human zygotes in the biohazard bin without a single pang of conscience. Again: you have failed to prove that conception is morally significant.

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

                  “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.”

                  All that? Applies to people who have actually been born.

                • Albert

                  You did happen to see the last part, “birth or other status”, on there, right?

                  This is why it starts with Everyone, no one is excluded.

                • RobMcCune

                  Actually it’s sterilization. Why do you want to punish promiscuity with either forced birth or sterilization?

                • Albert

                  I didn’t say anything about forcing this on women, did I?

                  I offered it as an option, no different than contraceptives, but with a bit higher success rate. Isn’t that the goal of contraceptives, to not have unwanted pregnancies?
                  If the woman(or man) are being honest about not wanting to have children, shouldn’t they be taking the best precautions to prevent that from happening?

                • Em

                  Doctors will not perform sterilization on young women. It is considered a breach of ethics and against the law in many states. In addition, many people who do not want children right now plan to have them in the future. A young married couple in college, for example, might plan to have children when they have the means to support them.

                • Albert

                  So change the law so women can be in more control of their own bodies. Isn’t that what pro-choice is all about?

                  It’s interesting that, according to you, tying a woman’s tubes is consider a breach of ethics, but terminating a human life is not.

                  It is true that many don’t want children now but do later in life. These procedures are reversible. And there are other options open to them as well. For example, In Vitro.

                • GCT

                  You must be trying to be dense, because no one can be this consistently unable to follow straight-forward arguments.

                  No, according to us, tying a woman’s tubes is not a breach of ethics. The problem is that doctors will not do the procedure, because they, like you, think they know better than their female patients.

                • Em

                  They are reversible 40% of the time, and the average family cannot afford in vitro. Why should a woman mutilate her body because your religion says so?

                • Albert

                  How do you punish promiscuity? It’s not a person that it can be punished.

                  as far as sterilization being forced, I’m not advocating for it to be forced, but an option that is open to those that choose it. I’m not sure how you thought I was saying we should force it on people.

                • RobMcCune

                  And if thy fallopian tube offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee:

                  –Matthew 5:29

                  Sorry, people shouldn’t be forced to adhere to the body-hating asceticism of a death cult.

                • Albert

                  Never saw that verse in any bible I have seen. Just curious, what translation is that from? :)

                  How exactly are they body-hating?

                  If Pro-lifers are correct that a human life starts at conception, isn’t all they are trying to do is save a body from destruction?

                • Em

                  They are trying to save one body by forcing another body to give up something for it.

                  And once that body is born, they don’t care how it is fed or provided for. The only body that matters to prolifers is the one without sentience or awareness.

                • Albert

                  I care how it is fed or provided for. This is the reason I say that those involved with making the choice to take the risk of having sexual intercourse should also have the obligation of caring and providing for the child. We expect people to take responsibility for their actions in other parts of life, why not this one?

                  If that body is allowed to continue to grow in it’s natural environment it will become aware, just like the one making choices and carrying it.

                • tsara

                  Some people believe in consequence-mitigating.

                • Em

                  That’s a pretty big IF.

                • Albert

                  You mean the “if” for my statement “if that body is allowed…”?

                  If so, how do you see that as a big IF?

                • Em

                  With God Himself killing around half of all conceptions and all…

                • Em

                  Most pregnancies do not become live births, even without abortion. God is the greatest killer of fetal life.

                • Valde

                  A zygote isn’t a body, it’s a genetic blueprint.

                • dawkwin

                  Jesus said:
                  …Truly I say to you, Inasmuch as you have done it to one of the least of these my brothers, you have done it to me.
                  –Matthew 25:40

                • Hanna Wenk

                  Dude, is there something wrong with your short-term memory? It’s been addressed and re-addressed and then addressed again. What’s wrong with you?

                • Spuddie

                  Its all part of the tactic of Blather, Rinse, Repeat

                  =)

                • Albert

                  You said, “It’s been addressed and re-addressed and then addressed again.”
                  What’s been addressed and re-addressed? If so, what was the conclusion?

            • Nerdinity

              In addition, many pro-lifers spout rhetoric that reduces a woman to her uterus, saying that because a woman’s body can sustain a pregnancy, she must do so, or that not embracing pregnancy means a woman is less female or feminine than others. Women are more than their body parts, and how she uses those parts has no bearing on her status as a woman.

              • Albert

                Many Pro-choicer’s spout rhetoric too, wouldn’t you agree?

                You said, “… that reduces a woman to her uterus, saying that because a woman’s body can sustain a pregnancy, she must do so”

                Why do you suppose they say that?

                You said, “…or that not embracing pregnancy means a woman is less female or feminine than others. Women are more than their body parts, and how she uses those parts has no bearing on her status as a woman.”

                I agree 100%. But does this help your argument any more or less?

                • Nerdinity

                  Why do I suppose they say that? Because many of them are incapable of seeing women as anything other than broodmares, or feel that a woman’s highest calling is to be a mother, whether or not the woman in question agrees. It’s a reductionistic view and objectivism, to say the least.

                • Albert

                  That’s a rather bold statement, don’t you think?

                  Just curious, who do you see women? What do you believe their highest calling is?

                • Nerdinity

                  I don’t claim to know what the highest calling for women is, because all women are different. I see women as individuals, Motherhood is not mandatory to be a woman.

                • Albert

                  Hey, we agree on something! See it can happen.

                • Nerdinity

                  Your agreement means nothing unless you actively support all women as individuals who can make their own informed decisions. Please, stop being condescending.

                • tsara

                  “Just curious, who do you see women? What do you believe their highest calling is?”
                  Human beings, and whatever the individual woman in question thinks. Women != the Borg.

                • Em

                  Why do women need to have a uniform calling? Are we not individuals created by God, according to you?

                  Maybe a woman is called to medicine, to save the lives of tens of thousands of people. Maybe she is called to be a mother. Maybe she is called to be a musician. We are not one unit. We are hundreds of millions of individuals. To argue that we all share the same calling, as determined by our naughty bits, is very dehumanizing.

                • Albert

                  I don’t see women as that and I hold many of the same views on abortion that they do.
                  I see motherhood as one of the many callings of women out there. It’s not my place to deem it the highest calling as all women are different.

                • Nerdinity

                  You don’t see women as individuals? Yeah, we know, dude.

                • Albert

                  You’re inferring that.

                  I will restate what I said. I noticed I missed a punctuation which might have confused things a bit.

                  I don’t see women as that(meaning as broodmares), and I hold many of the same views on abortion that they do.
                  I see motherhood as one of the many callings of women out there. It’s not my place to deem it the highest calling as all women are different.

                  How you could infer that I don’t see women as individuals is beyond me.

                • Spuddie

                  Well you certainly have no respect for them to carry on sexual relations or maintain control of their body without your special say-so.

                • Albert

                  How do you come to that conclusion?

                • Spuddie

                  What do you mean by “conclusion”?

                  Since I was making reference to your prior statements, are you so senile as to forget what you have said?

                  Or is this merely a sign of vanity? That you require having your own statements read back and itemized for ego stroking?

                  Are you just dishonest? That you have to remember what you had told others in order to get a story straight and for future revision?

                  Is confirmation troll is still confirming?

                  =)

                  Lets just say, the answer to your question is “everything you have said”

                • Spuddie

                  Not really. The anti-choice POV is all about semantical fictions, misrepresentations, conflation and deliberate omissions.

                  Unborn is equated with born people. Born people are considered non-people. Personal choice and autonomy becomes an irrelevancy. Self-righteous indignation somehow becomes more important than basic human existence. As points of view go, the anti-choice one requires a lot of rhetorical gymnastics to make it work.

                • Olive Markus

                  Yeah, I was “schooled” today by an Anti-Choicer who thinks I’m ridiculous because I see a difference between a person growing a fetus inside this person’s body attached to internal organs and a person sitting five feet away from a baby. Yup. Apparently, there is ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE between these two things.

                  Well, hasn’t my mind been blown?

                • Em

                  They see a difference. Once a child is born, they can fend for themselves, amirite? No need for food stamps, socialized medicine, and Head Start.

                • Olive Markus

                  Amazingly, the Pro-LIfer was using the argument that because the child can’t fend for itself, it is exactly the same as though it were a fetus. (So, a 6 year old = 1 week old fetus. Literally. The woman’s body, not surprisingly, was not one time a consideration.) Anyway, therefore, we aren’t allowed to kill it. And if we allow abortion, we should be allowed to kill any child that can’t fend for itself.

                  Of course that doesn’t extend to social safety nets, because, well, if you’re worthy, God will provide???

                • Albert

                  What deliberate omissions are you meaning?

                  It’s true that Pro-life equate the unborn to be the same as the born, they are all human beings with rights. Why is this incorrect?

                  You said, “Born people are considered non-people.”

                  Actually, that is not correct.

                  Unborn people are considered people in the same way that born people are considered people. As you said earlier, we equate the unborn as the same as the born.

                  What is this wrong?

                  “Self-righteous indignation somehow becomes more important than basic human existence.”

                  Actually basic human existence is the whole point. We just consider conception when a human life starts, so the unborn are included into those humans that are important and should be given a chance at basic human existence.

                  You said “As points of view go, the anti-choice one requires a lot of rhetorical gymnastics to make it work.”
                  I’m not sure how you come to that conclusion.

                  Pro-life simply follows what science shows us, that life starts at conception. From that point on, what has been created is an individual human being who should have the same rights as every other human does.
                  How is this view rhetorical gymnastics?

                • TurelieTelcontar

                  Because no living human being has the rights to someone else’s organs. Not even a litre of blood a month. So, you want to give a fetus rights no born person has.

                • Albert

                  Your “rights to someone else’s organs” argument is a non sequitur.
                  Your conclusion, that a child doesn’t have a right to the mothers organ’s, doesn’t follow your premise.

                  A child is not an invader, though, a parasite living off his mother. The mother’s womb is the baby’s natural environment.
                  Sex and motherhood are companions in the sense that it’s not unreasonable to expect parents to take responsibility for their offspring.

                  Your argument suggests that the child is an invader and is taking the organs from the mother against her will.
                  But that is not the case. Your argument dismisses the fact that the unwanted pregnancy happened because of the actions of the mother.
                  Regardless if she intended to get pregnant, the responsability is now hers to care for the child.

                  If I drove my car to the store and wreck into
                  someone, then I’m responsible for paying to have their car fixed. I can’t say, “I didn’t intend to crash into them so I’m not obligated
                  to pay.” When I chose to drive, I accept whatever consequences come from that behavior.

                  The same goes for sex. If a woman decides to have sexual intercourse and ends up getting pregnant, she can’t say, “I didn’t intend to get pregnant so I’m not obligated to this child I created.” Sorry, it doesn’t work that way. You chose to have sex, you accept whatever consequences come from that behavior.

                  And to be clear, I’m not letting the man involved off the hook; he is just as responsible, if not more so.

                  You see, I see a fetus as a separate individual living human being, no different than you and I. The fact that it has to live in a different environment doesn’t make it any less human. The fact that it is less developed than you or I doesn’t make it any less human. And even though it’s smaller then you and I, it’s still a human being.

                  You show me how a fetus is not human, and then made we can talk about it not having the same rights as all other human beings. Because last time I checked, human rights are for every single human being, not specific ones.

                • phantomreader42

                  So, Albert, since you’ve admitted that you don’t think a pregnant woman is actually a human being with the right to control her own body, can you tell us at precisely what point in a pregnancy you believe a woman loses the right to ownership of her own organs? In your delusions, at precisely what point does a pregnant woman cease to be a human being with rights to bodily autonomy? And if you’re too much of a coward to admit that’s what you’re arguing, we’re back to you granting your irrevocable consent to anyone harvesting your organs without anesthetic. Still waiting on that address and blood type…

                • Albert

                  When did I say that a pregnant woman is not a human being that is in control of her own body?

                  What I said was that she is not in charge of the newly created body that is growing inside her. She can’t decide to terminate that human beings life. If she wants to do hers, that’s her choice, but to do that to another human being is called murder.

                  “can you tell us at precisely what point in a pregnancy you believe a woman loses the right to ownership of her own organs?”

                  She never loses the right of ownership. They will always be her organs. But she is not owner of the organs that are growing on the human inside of her.

                  ” In your delusions, at precisely what point does a pregnant woman cease to be a human being with rights to bodily autonomy?”

                  She never cease to be a human being. But she also does not have rights over another human beings body.

                  If a woman is to insist that she has complete control over her body then she also needs to accept that every other human being has the same right that she does.

                  “And if you’re too much of a coward to admit that’s what you’re arguing,…”

                  That isn’t what I’m arguing. that is what you are inferring.

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

                  You are a lying, disingenuous fuck, albert. You keep erasing women from the equation, then claim you “support” our choices all while trying to justify limiting our choices to ones you, personally, approve of.

                  IF a fetus is an independent human being (and even if it isn’t, it’s irrelevant), IF it is… well… no other independent human beings are allowed to just take from or use another person’s body — alive or dead — without that person’s explicit and ongoing consent.

                  A fetus, when present without a woman’s consent, is violating her body.

                  A woman is in no way obligated to put up with that violation for any amount of time, and has the absolute right to remove the thing growing in her.

                  Your argument boils down to reducing women to walking incubators and putting the “rights” of a blob of tissue over the actual rights of a living, breathing, born person. (We ended slavery ages ago, your attempts to bring it back have been noted.)

                • Albert

                  “IF it is… well… no other independent human beings are allowed to just take from or use another person’s body — alive or dead — without that person’s explicit and ongoing consent.”

                  For some reason you think you can absolve the woman’s responsibility from any consequences when it comes to getting pregnant.

                  The newly created human being was created because of her actions. She understands that there are chances she could get pregnant, even if that was not her intention.

                  By engaging in sexual intercourse, a women is giving her consent to any and all consequences of that action. Is is accepting the risks and enjoyment that comes from this action; no different than driving a car.

                  If I’m driving a car, I am accepting any and all consequences that happen while I am driving. If I wreak into another car, I can’t simply say, “I never intended to run into you so therefore I don’t have any obligation to pay for the damages to your car.” Would you accept that reasoning from someone that hit you in your car or would you insist, no demand, that they be held responsible?

                  If a women becomes a walking incubator, as you put it, it is of her own fruition. No one is forcing her to have sexual intercourse. If they are, then that is considered rape. And I don’t condone rape.

                  And again, if what is growing inside the woman’s womb, by her own actions, is a independent human being, then she does not have the right to terminate that human life as it is not hers to take.

                  If it is a independent human being then it has rights, no different than any other human being does.
                  You say it’s a blob of cells, that is true. But so are you, me and every other human being on this planet. Why is it that since your blob of cells is larger than another you feel you have more rights than another blob of cells that is smaller or less developed than you?

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

                  “If it is a independent human being then it has rights, no different than any other human being does.”

                  Right, so why do you want to give it the right to highjack a woman’s body? No other independent human being has that right…

                • Albert

                  According you Webster’s you are using the word highjack(hijack) incorrectly. ( http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/highjack )

                  It is not hijacking the woman’s body, it is growing in the environment it is intended to be in. The fact that she chose to have consensual sex means she has accepted the chances that getting pregnant could happen.

                  You said, ” No other independent human being has that right…”
                  If it is an independent human being from conception, then the woman has no right to terminate it’s life as it is not her life to take.

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

                  If it is an independent human being, it does not get rights that other independent human beings don’t get, i.e. the right to use a woman’s body without her consent.

                  Therefore, abortion is nothing more than an act of self-defense.

                  (And no, for the eleventy-billionth time, CONSENT TO SEX IS NOT CONSENT TO PREGNANCY.)

                • Albert

                  You said, “If it is an independent human being, it does not get rights that other independent human beings don’t get, i.e. the right to use a woman’s body without her consent.”

                  I would agree. The problem is you seem to assume that she did not give consent.

                  Here’s the thing. We all know that women get pregnant via sexual intercourse, correct?

                  If so, then if she is a willing party in engaging in sexual intercourse she is accepting all possible outcomes from that action.

                  If so is not wanting to accept all possible outcomes, then she doesn’t have to be a part of that action.

                  When I drive my car, I accept all possible outcomes from that. The enjoyment is a great part of driving my car. The adrenaline rush I get from excessive speed is awesome. But if I get wreak into someone, that too is a possible outcome. I accepted that “risk” when I got behind the wheel. That means that I am not obligated and responsible for my part in that outcome. I have to pay for the other persons car if I caused the wreak regardless if it was my intention to hit them.

                  Pregnancy is no different. The enjoyment is a great part of sexual intercourse; the adrenaline rush is awesome. But if the contraceptives my partner and I chose to use don’t work, it might cause a “wreak”, but we are now obligated for the outcome of our actions.

                  (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/consent) defines consent as:
                  1) n. a voluntary agreement to another’s proposition.

                  2) v. to voluntarily agree to an act or proposal of another, which may range from contracts to sexual relations.

                  “Consent is an act of reason and deliberation. A person who possesses and exercises sufficient mental capacity to make an intelligent decision demonstrates consent by performing an act recommended by another.
                  Consent assumes a physical power to act and a reflective, determined, and unencumbered exertion of these powers. It is an act unaffected by Fraud, duress, or sometimes even mistake when these factors are not the reason for the consent. Consent is implied in every agreement.”

                  Consent to sex IS consent to all outcomes including pregnancy.

                • tsara

                  “The problem is you seem to assume that she did not give consent.”
                  When someone’s body is involved, consent can always be revoked: any time, for any reason.

                • Albert

                  “consent can always be revoked: any time, for any reason.”

                  If the woman is getting naked and making out and it starts to get hot and heavy then all of a sudden has a change of heart, then you are correct, she can change her mind and tell her partner no. And in that situation she can revoke consent.
                  But if she proceeds to continue, and goes through with sexual intercourse, she has just given her consent to, and accepted, every outcome that comes along with that action; including pregnancy.

                  Just as my analogy about driving a car. You are always welcome to push on the brake and park the car and get out. But if you continue to drive it and then end up hitting someone, you are obligated to fix the other persons car. You can’t simply say, “I never intended to hit you; this accident is unwanted, therefore I am not responsible. I didn’t give my consent to the accident so I don’t have to pay.” Sorry, it doesn’t work that way. You drive the car, you accept every outcome that comes along with that action.

                  If not, I would like to understand how you believe people can just dismiss their responsibility simply because they don’t want it.

                  The woman’s option to revoke consent ended once the deed was done.

                  If a guy is making out with a woman and she takes off her bra, then gets embarrassed because she decided she didn’t want to show off her breasts, she can’t take that back. The guy has already seen them. Her time limit to revoke her consent for him to see them has already pasted and she is now feeling the consequences of her actions. Heck, even if he poked out his eyes, she still can’t take back the fact that he saw them.

                  You are trying to equate getting pregnant as if she can just will that it never happened. Sorry, it doesn’t work that way.

                • tsara

                  “But if you continue to drive it and then end up hitting someone, you are obligated to fix the other persons car.”

                  But I’m not obligated to give them my kidney or blood or bone marrow, or to become their life support even if it’s my fault that they need it in the first place.

                  Money != my body. I am appalled that you keep making that comparison. (see also: your ‘feeling violated from losing money at a casino)

                  “want to show off her breasts, she can’t take that back.”

                  But she can put her shirt back on. She can say not anymore.

                  “You are trying to equate getting pregnant as if she can just will that it never happened.”

                  No, I’m not. Abortion doesn’t mean ‘never happened’ (though I still don’t believe that an embryo or fetus is a human being). It means ‘stop’, ‘not anymore’. It is a termination of a violation that is in progress.

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

                  This guy is one sick fuck, yeah?

                • tsara

                  Hitting my triggers in nearly every comment.

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

                  He’s so… condescending and holier-than-thou. I guarantee you, if he were pregnant, he’d be first in line to get that thing out of his body.

                • phantomreader42

                  Not to mention dumber than dog shit.

                • Albert

                  You said, “But I’m not obligated to give them my kidney or blood or bone marrow, or to become their life support even if it’s my fault that they need it in the first place.”

                  That’s exactly right. But if you did consent to give them your kidney or blood or bone marrow, once you give them it, you can’t take it back. You are obligated to the consequences of that action.

                  It is the same thing for consensual sex. Once you have done the deed, you can’t take it back. You are obligated to the consequences of that action.

                  You said, “Money != my body.”

                  I’m not equating Money = body. You are inferring that because you are missing the point.

                  I’m equating responsibility = responsibility.
                  Responsibility for paying for someones car in the case of an accident.
                  Responsibility to paying the casino when you lose all your money.
                  Responsibility to care for a newly created human being when you end up getting pregnant from having consensual sex.

                  This is a basic cause and effect issue.

                  If you cause an action to happen there are effects that take place.

                  If just before you cause the action to happen you stop the process(as in the example of the women deciding to not go through with sexual intercourse), then the effects of that action will not happen; at least not because of that specific action.

                  Examples of causes: give a kidney, give blood, have drive a car, have consensual sex.

                  Examples of effects: kidney transplanted, blood given, hit another car, conceive a child.

                  Your choice to either consent or revoke consent ends right as the cause/action has completed. After that, you are no longer able to give or take back consent. That time has gone.

                  What happens is you are now on to another cause and effect.

                  In the case of the woman putting back on her bra, you are right, she can put it on and never show that guy her breasts ever again. But it does not undo the fact that he has seen then once already. That cause and effect have past. And the responsibility she took on from that cause was that there was another person in the world that has seen her breasts.

                  It’s the same in consensual sex. The woman/man can choose to never have sex with that person or anyone else for that matter, but she can’t take away the last time she/he did it or the consequences from that last time. Once the sperm is places in the woman’s womb and an egg is fertilized, the effects from that cause, of consensual sex, have begun. And you can’t absolve yourself from that action or the responsibility for it anymore.

                  You said, “It means ‘stop’, ‘not anymore’. It is a termination of a violation that is in progress.”

                  I think you are using the word violation incorrectly.

                  Webster defines violation as:
                  : the act of violating : the state of being violated: as

                  a : infringement, transgression; specifically : an infringement of the rules in sports that is less serious than a foul and usually involves technicalities of play

                  b : an act of irreverence or desecration : profanation

                  c : disturbance, interruption

                  d : rape 2, ravishment

                  This does not fit what is happening when a woman gets pregnant from consensual sex.

                  Conception (getting pregnant) is a natural result of sexual intercourse. It fits the natural laws of what happens when sperm is deposited at the same time an egg flowed down the fallopian tube. There is no violation that was committed in this process.

                  I agree that there is a violation that is being caused, but that isn’t from consensual sex or getting pregnant, but rather termination a human life by choice. This is considered murder.

                  You said, “(though I still don’t believe that an embryo or fetus is a human being).”

                  What is your evidence for your basis?

                • phantomreader42

                  Albert, as hard as it is for you to accept this, WOMEN ARE PEOPLE!

                  You don’t get to force a woman to risk her health and life because your sick death cult says an undeveloped parasite without a brain (such as yourself) is a person but she isn’t. Women don’t give up their right to bodily autonomy when they become pregnant, not if you rape them, not even if they were stupid enough to willingly have sex with a worthless piece of shit like you. If you think a woman should be forced to give up control of her body because your imaginary friend says so, then you will IMMEDIATELY post your address and all relevant medical information so your organs can be harvested and given to human beings instead of being wasted on a brain-dead pile of garbage like you! If YOU won’t give up your body, then quit demanding women do so, you fucking asshole!

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

                  Not once have I ever said that women are not people. You are inferring something based on comments of mine you don’t like.

                  I have been clear that I support a woman’s right to be in control of her OWN body. But if what is growing inside her is another human being, that is a separate body and one that she does not have control over.

                  You said, “You don’t get to force a woman to risk her health and life because your sick death cult says an undeveloped parasite without a brain (such as yourself) is a person but she isn’t.”

                  First of all, there is almost no risk to a woman’s health or life if a pregnancy is allowed to continue without human intervention. There are some cases where a woman’s health can be an issue and I believe that with proper care and guidance, most situations can be prevented long enough for the new human being to be born. In the case of ectopic pregnancies, I have already stated that the new human being would be aborted. Not because the mother is more or less important, but because the idea is to save as many lives as possible. And the mother is the logical one to select for survival in that situation.

                  You said, “Women don’t give up their right to bodily autonomy when they become pregnant, not if you rape them, not even if they were stupid enough to willingly have sex with a worthless piece of shit like you.”

                  In the case of rape, I have said that we should leave that as a concession for an abortion to be allowed. Not because the new human being should be punished for the crimes of the father, but because the mother was not a willing party to the sex act. This means she did not give her consent.

                  But it is different if she does choose to take the changes of having sexual intercourse knowing that there is a chance to get pregnant. This is called being accountable for your actions. Which is what I have been saying over and over. We don’t have the right to absolve ourselves of our responsibilities just because we don’t like the outcome.

                  You said, “IMMEDIATELY post your…”

                  Doesn’t this go against the whole idea of people having the right to say what goes on with their OWN body?

                  Now you’re contradicting yourself. Either ALL human beings have control of there own bodies or they don’t, which is it?

                  I’m saying that NO ONE can have a say over another persons body.

                  If embryologists are correct that what is created at conception is a newly formed human being, then no justification for abortion is enough. If it’s not, and they are wrong, then no justification is needed.

                  The problem is you all keep arguing from opinion instead of the facts.

                  You keep thinking I’m demanding women to give up their bodies.
                  I am doing nothing of the sort. What I am saying is that they have willingly gave consent to sexual intercourse which means they are accepting every and all outcomes of that action. This does include the changes of getting pregnant.

                  You see when a woman is pregnant there are now at least TWO human beings in that same area. 1) the mother and 2) the child, possibly more than one.

                  I am putting ALL human beings at the same level.
                  One is not better than the other.
                  ALL human beings are equal and are all in control of their own bodies.
                  That means a man can’t tell a woman what she can and can not do with her body.
                  That means a woman can’t tell a man what to do with his own body.
                  That means a mother can’t tell a newly created human being what to do with their own body.
                  Which is why when a woman chooses to have an abortion she is killing another human being against it’s will.

                  People need to be held responsible for their own actions. Not the actions of others, but for their own actions. If you rob a bank, you get punished and sentenced. If you wreak a car into someone else, you pay for the damage you have caused. If you go to a casino and spend all your money, you now have to deal without having that paycheck. And if you consent to have sexual intercourse you accept and are responsible for every and all outcomes from that action.

                  I get you don’t like that. I understand it makes you mad to have to be held responsible for your own actions. But it has to be the same across the board, or we can not hold other people accountable for their actions.

                • phantomreader42

                  Albert, YOU don’t think people have the right to say what happens to their own body, so YOU should give up that right. If you can’t live by your own rules, why should you be able to force women to live by them? Why can’t you practice what you preach? Oh, yeah, because you’re a worthless lying hypocrite.

                  You keep saying shit that just plain is not true. This has been explained to you again and again and again, and still you keep lying. Isn’t that imaginary god of yours supposed to have some sort of problem with bearing false witness? No, science does not say what you want it to. No, setting foot in a car does not mean you have no recourse if you’re in a car crash. No, consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. The bullshit that your delusions are founded on IS NOT TRUE! It never has been true, and it never will be true, no matter how many times you keep repeating it, not even if you shove your fingers so deep in your ears you crush your own tiny, useless brain.

                  But, since you haven’t posted your address and medical details so your organs can be harvested for a more worthy purpose (making dog food would count), it’s time for you to SHUT THE FUCK UP!

                • Albert

                  You said, “YOU don’t think people have the right to say what happens to their own body, so YOU should give up that right.”

                  What have I said that indicates I don’t support people to have the right to say what happens to their own body?

                  You said, “If you can’t live by your own rules, why should you be able to force women to live by them?”

                  Actually I do live by them. And I support women to have complete say as to what happens to their body. I’m not sure how you are not seeing that.

                  You said, “You keep saying shit that just plain is not true.”
                  and then you continued with, “No, science does not say what you want it to.”

                  So here are some quotes taking from science textbook on the subject of embryology:

                  “Zygote: this cell results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo). Human development begins at fertilization… This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual. [Moore, K. and T.V.N. Persaud, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology (6th ed.), (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998), pp 2-18.]”

                  and another:

                  “The development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.[Sadler, T.W. Langman's Medical Embryology. 7th edition. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins 1995, p. 3]”

                  So this is what I consider experts in their field. If you believe this is not valid scientific evidence can you show me where science shows that a human being begins like at another point in time, such as at birth, like many people seem to want to believe?

                  You said, ” No, setting foot in a car does not mean you have no recourse if you’re in a car crash.”

                  What other recourse are you suggesting you have if you hit someone with your car? Are you going to explain another way to get out of the responsibility of paying for the other persons car?

                  You said, “No, consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy.”

                  I gave you reasons why it is and instead of showing how my argument is false, you state the same thing again. You can’t just say I’m wrong, you have to show how I’m wrong.

                  It cracks me up that you get so upset because you seem to think that I want to say what happens to other peoples bodies and yet you keep demanding that I give you my address so that you can come harvest my organs.
                  For you to insist I do that is such a contradiction to the position you keep fighting for!

                  This is a free speech forum. And though you might not like it, I am free to speak my mind just as you are.

                  YOU REALLY WANT TO SHUT ME UP????
                  I’ll give you a hint how to do it — All you have to do is show me that science backs up your claim that a human being does NOT begin at conception and not my view that it does.
                  I have shown you quotes from textbooks used to teach students that those in the field believe this is true. What are your references?

                  Then, instead of us being on opposite sides of this argument I would have no choice but to follow where the truth leads.

                  As I have said before, if if is a human being from conception then no justification for abortion is enough. If it isn’t a human being then no justification is needed.

                  So show me it is not a human. That would end the argument.

                • phantomreader42

                  The truth leads straight away from you. YOU are the one who keeps screeching that a fetus is a human being, but a woman somehow isn’t, so YOU prove it, or vivisect yourself.

                • Albert

                  Okay, you keep misunderstanding my view.

                  You said, “YOU are the one who keeps screeching that a fetus is a human being,”

                  Actually no it is not. Do you remember the two quotes I posted in my last comment to you? Those quotes are not from me, but from experts in the field of embryology. They are the ones that keep “screeching” that a fetus, even an embryo and a zygote is a human being. I just happen to accept their scientific view as valid.

                  Based on the view that a human being begins life at conception, then the obvious conclusion is that I DO hold that women of all ages are human beings. The fact that you want to continue to believe differently is nothing more than you ignoring what I’m saying to simply assert your claims that so far seemed to be based more on opinion than anything else.

                  Now, are you able to show me an alternate view of when science says that a human being starts?

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

                • Albert

                  That’s your opinion. but that did nothing to show that would I presented was not true.

                • phantomreader42

                  A zygote is a single cell, not a human being. It may be the beginning of a nine month long process that SOMETIMES results in a human being (but more often results in a miscarriage before the pregnancy is even detected), but it is not yet a human being. Similarly, and embryo or fetus is not a human being. They may be part of a development process that sometimes produces a human being, but they are not yet a developed human being.

                  Is a human being ever required to surrender control of the organs in its body for the use of another human being? According to sane people and the law, no, there is never a time that a human being is ever required to surrender their organs for any reason, not if someone’s life is in danger, not if they previously agreed to it and then changed their mind, not even if the donor is ALREADY DEAD. According to YOU, pregnant women must be forced to surrender all control of their bodies for a “developing human being” (not even an actually developed human being, just a cluster of embryonic cells that doesn’t even have a brain yet). So, you either consider an embryo to have MORE rights than an actual living breathing human being, or you consider a woman to NOT be a human being, or you think human beings in general should be forced to donate organs, but somehow you yourself are exempt from this because that would be inconvenient for you. So, Albert, why do you think a single-celled zygote is more of a human being than you or I, but a living, breathing woman is less of a human being than a corpse?

                • Albert

                  You said, “A zygote is a single cell, not a human being. It may be thebeginning of …”

                  That is a nice long statement you made there. And without any scientific facts to back up your claim.

                  I provided you quotes from textbooks that explain that it IS a human being from conception. These were from Embryologists, professionals in that field of science study.

                  What scientific evidence do you have to back up your claim?

                  You asked yourself a question, “Is a human being ever required to surrender control of the organs in its body for the use of another human being?”

                  I agree. No one is EVERY required to do so. BUT, and this is the issue here, IF they someone DID surrender their organ, say a kidney, for someone else to use, that person that surrendered it can not change their mind once it has been implanted into the other person, would you agree?

                  In the case of pregnancy, the point you keep missing is that the woman DID give consent to the newly created human being when she chose to have sexual intercourse. She and her partner DO know that there is always a chance that this could happen, so when they go through with the deed, they have accepted this as a possible outcome. Therefore, she has given consent to the newly created human being because she has consented and gone through with intercourse.

                  I agree that this was probably not the outcome she or her partner were really wanting to have happen, but being hopeful does not negate your consent to continue.

                  If I was in a casino, my hope is to win big and walk out with more money than I went in with. And losing it all is not the outcome that I would rather have, but I do know that it is one of the possibilities that I have accepted when I gamble.

                  You said, “…cluster of embryonic cells that doesn’t even have a brain yet…”

                  Did you know that every human being is a cluster of cells? Some have even been born without a brain. Some without legs, arms some with extra parts. Are you saying that they are not human beings?

                  No, we are all clusters of cells. Some more than others. But to say this is all an embryo is, doesn’t show scientific evidence that it is not a human being.

                  Do you have evidence to show that what is created at conception is not a human being?

                  You asked me the following question, “So, Albert, why do you think a single-celled zygote is more of a human being than you or I, but a living, breathing woman is less of a human being than a corpse?”

                  I don’t.
                  I don’t consider it more of a human being than you or I, and I don’t consider it less of a human being than you or I.

                  I don’t even consider a dead human corpse any more or less a human being than a living breathing woman either.

                  I consider them all equally human beings. You either are a human being or you are not.

                  So now, what is your scientific evidence to show that what is created at conception is not a human being?

                • tsara

                  You’ve provided quotes from two textbooks published in the ’90s. It’s possible that I’d find your argument somewhat more convincing if you provided quotes from more and more recent textbooks, but it’s highly unlikely.
                  Again: moral value is not a scientific question, but a philosophical one. I grant moral value based on brain function and cognition, such that an adult dolphin carries more moral weight than a human fetus and an ant carries more moral weight than a human zygote.
                  You are taking the less-than-scrupulous wording in those textbooks to an irrational extreme (and in doing so, demonstrating a fundamental misunderstanding of what science is), and I suspect that your thinking is motivated by less-than-wholesome prejudices.

                • Albert

                  You know your comment about the quote really made me start to think. Not that the quote was wrong, but that if I’m going to present data, I should make it as current as possible. So I went through and found a newer edition textbook that they use. So here is the most current quote I can find:

                  “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 had said, ” It’s possible that I’d find your argument somewhat more convincing if you provided quotes from more and more recent textbooks, but it’s highly unlikely.”

                  So, I have a textbook from 2013, our current year. I can’t get any more recent than that, right?

                  So now you need to ask yourself, do you look at what science is saying or do you ignore it and continue just to believe what you want to believe?

                  And I’m more than open if you find contradictory science data. I’m all for seeking the truth, how about you?

                  You said, “Again: moral value is not a scientific question, but a philosophical one. I grant moral value based on brain function and cognition, such that an adult dolphin carries more moral weight than a human fetus and an ant carries more moral weight than a human zygote.”

                  You are correct. Science has nothing to do with morality.
                  However, you indicated that you base moral value on brain function and cognition. To that I say so what? Who are you to say this is what we base it on? Is there anything you have to back up your view and say this is what we should be doing?

                  If not, this is a relativistic view and you will put yourself in a position you really don’t want to be in.

                  If you have no moral grounding then anything goes. That means there is no reason to give women say to what happens to their bodies regardless if you think they should have that.
                  Since this is a moral issue for you more than a scientific one, where is your moral grounding or in other words where does it reside from?

                • tsara

                  My morality comes from the same place yours does. I can’t parse your comment beyond that; I’m about 90% nonverbal today.

                • Albert

                  Please take your time and read my comment over when you are in a more verbal state.
                  I am not sure what you mean by your “morality comes from the same place” mine does without further explanation.

                  But, I did provide you a newer quote from one of the most recent textbooks. So we can at least now see that the statements made in the 90′s has not changed.

                  I look forward to your assessment of my comments and the quote.

                • phantomreader42

                  Albert, are you physically capable of comprehending that the BEGINNING of development is not the same as the END of development? The vast majority of zygotes never even come close to becoming human beings, they get flushed out before implantation. If you consider all of those human, then that’s far, far more “people” dying than all abortions that have ever occurred. But you don’t even pretend to care about them, because they’re not in a place where you can use them to deny women rights and basic humanity. If you really think a zygote is human, why are you so eager to criminalize abortion, but haven’t even said ONE SINGLE WORD about miscarriages? OH, yeah, because you’re a lying sack of shit, and all you care about is finding an excuse to control women.

                • phantomreader42

                  A sperm is also part of the process of human development. Therefore…

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

                  Thanks, now it’s stuck in my head.

                • Albert

                  Very funny song!

                  Though it is true that a sperm is also a part of the process of human development( The same for an egg), as separate elements they are just a part of that human being that releases them.

                  The key though, is when they come together, at the point of conception.
                  Then is when the separate elements come together and create a new unique individual human being separate from the mother.

                  Which has been my stance from the start of this conversation.

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

                  Okay. I may, at some point in the future, need a liver or kidneys. I’ll just pop on over and take yours.

                  What? You don’t want someone taking control of your body?

                  Think for a bit about that, and you might understand the reasons a woman might want an abortion…

                • Albert

                  “Okay. I may, at some point in the future, need a liver or kidneys. I’ll just pop on over and take yours.”

                  Doesn’t this go against your argument that other people should be able to take control of your own body, doesn’t it? Are you saying this is only for certain people or all people? If it’s not for all people, isn’t that discrimination?

                  You said, “Think for a bit about that, and you might understand the reasons a woman might want an abortion..”

                  I have thought about it. And if what embryologists, professionals in their field of science, say is true, then what is created at conception is an individual human being separate from the mother.

                  If the woman gave consent to have consensual sex, then she has given this newly created human approval to grow for 9 months inside her body as a separate human being in control of their own body.

                  And by the way, women don’t want abortions because they are being attacked, they are doing it to absolve themselves of any responsibility from their own actions.

                • tsara

                  “And by the way, women don’t want abortions because they are being attacked, they are doing it to absolve themselves of any responsibility from their own actions.”
                  Ahaha hahaha ha *sob*.

                • Albert

                  You can’t be attacked by something that is a natural result of actions you chose to give consent to.
                  Being attacked is something that you chose not to be a part of, like rape. But consensual sex means you are a willing party to the deed. That means you have accepted every and all consequences for that action. No attack.

                  Termination of the newly created human being is murder and done so that your life doesn’t change even though your actions dictated differently. That is called absolving yourself of responsibilities you are obligated to.

                  How that is laughable to you proves my point. It’s not about doing what is right, but what is right for you. If other humans suffer and die in the process, then so be it.

                • tsara

                  “You can’t be attacked by something that is a natural result of actions you chose to give consent to.”
                  What, so the people who tell me that waking up getting fucked by a stranger after going out and drinking a bit is only to be expected and therefore rape didn’t happen are right? Well, fuck.
                  /snark
                  EDIT: Did not happen to me, but one of my close friends. And she got that response.

                  It’s self-defence, asshole. I’m also asexual and genderqueer, and have a hell of a lot of psychological issues associated with my body doing things that I don’t want it to. Don’t presume to know why I would get an abortion, when I still have scars from how much getting my period freaked me out for eight solid years before I got skinny enough that I stopped getting it. Reading and participating in this comments thread has made me cry several times and throw up several times. That’s just from reading about pregnancy without the possibility of abortion. So fuck off.

                • Albert

                  Huh? You are describing a rape. I’m very sorry that your friend went through that. I wish that on nobody.

                  But I’m not talking about rape. I’m talking about consensual sex. That means the man involved and the woman involved are both accepting the situation and are willing to go through with sexual intercourse. Rape is totally different.

                  I’m sorry that you are also having to deal with things your body is doing that you don’t want it to.

                  I’m presented a specific argument. That argument is that when a couple of people engage in consensual sex they are accepting ALL outcomes from that action including, but not limited to, pregnancy.

                  The majority of abortions are not caused because someone was raped or had a life threatening medical issue where continuing with the pregnancy would end their own life. They are because it was “a mistake” or “they didn’t want to be pregnant”.

                  These types of abortions are from women that have should be held responsible for the actions they chose to participate in.
                  Rape, is not the same thing. In fact, in many of my posts I have been clear that in that case, I would make the concession to allow an abortion because the woman was not a consenting party to the sexual intercourse.

                  Abortions to at least two things. 1) If science is correct, it takes the life of an individual human being that did not have a say in what happened to their own body, which goes against everything people are saying women should be allowed to have control over. 2) It removes responsibility from human beings that are supposed to be responsible because their actions caused the consequences to happen.
                  The new life should not be paying for the mistakes of the parents. But that is exactly what happens when you have an abortion. You are passing responsibilities from the parents to the child.

                  A mother and her 3 year old child are driving down the road, the mother sees someone she hates, deliberately runs into them, gets out of the car, produces a gun and shoots the person in the head, thus killing them.
                  In a court of law the judgement would be that the mother would be convicted of the crime because she was responsible for what happened.
                  But in the case of abortion, the child is punished for the actions of the parents. This is inconsistent with all moral laws about killing human beings. It is actually inconsistent with many other laws and situations, such as the analogies I have been showing as examples.

                  -We keep hearing that human beings are important.
                  -We hear that they are in charge of their own bodies.
                  -We hear that others don’t have a say in what happens to other peoples bodies.
                  But if what Embryologists, professionals in their field, are correct in saying that a new human being is created at conception, then in the case of a woman getting pregnant, then is exactly what does NOT happen for the newly created individual human being.

                  -Instead, the parents deem the newly created human being as unimportant.
                  -The parents take charge of another human beings body without their consent.

                  - The parents ignore the human beings rights and terminate that life without it’s consent.

                  This is completely backwards to equal rights for all human beings.

                  Now here is the thing, I said IF what embryologists say is true, then these human beings are being murdered. None of you have shown me that this is incorrect. Can you?

                  I’m sorry you are crying and throwing up, but if these really are human beings, then people are losing their lives over someone else choosing to kill them against their will.

                  Shouldn’t that be upsetting as well?

                • tsara

                  “Huh? You are describing a rape.”
                  Do you not understand analogy? I do not subscribe to the idea that by consenting to sex someone is thereby consenting to carry a pregnancy to term any more than I subscribe to the idea that by drinking enough alcohol to cause me to pass out I am consenting to sex with anybody who happens to walk by. (There are people, by the way, who say that both of those ideas are true.)

                  “I’m sorry that you are also having to deal with things your body is doing that you don’t want it to.”
                  And yet you don’t seem to connect that to the idea of a pregnancy.

                  “1) If science is correct, it takes the life of an individual human being that did not have a say in what happened to their own body, which goes against everything people are saying women should be allowed to have control over.”
                  Nope. Science doesn’t say that. Science is very, very clear that life is continuous. Science is also very, very clear that it is human beings, not science, who make value judgments. Personhood is a value judgment. So I give the right to decide the value of the z/e/f to the pregnant person (please note the gender neutrality there), in large part because I consider moral weight to be dependent on brain development (srsly, do not give a single fuck about human zygotes; chuck ‘em in the biohazard bin for all I care) and in large part because the z/e/f is completely dependent on and physically inside of the pregnant person; its personhood is dependent on and subsumed into hirs.
                  A fetus has value if and only if the pregnant person gives it value.

                  “2) It removes responsibility from human beings that are supposed to be responsible because their actions caused the consequences to happen.”
                  IDGAF about responsibility. I do not accept that we should not do everything we can to minimize consequences. I do not accept that sex should have consequences.

                  “The new life should not be paying for the mistakes of the parents. But that is exactly what happens when you have an abortion.”
                  This is a really fucked up way of looking at it. It isn’t about punishment (which, for the record, I don’t believe in). It’s about ending an unbearable situation. I would expect that a study done on the effects of preventing people from obtaining abortions would find psychological effects comparable to those of rape or torture. (btw, people don’t do things for just one reason.)

                  “A mother and her 3 year old child are driving down the road, the mother sees someone she hates, deliberately runs into them, gets out of the car, produces a gun and shoots the person in the head, thus killing them.”

                  You do realize that you’ve made an analogy of having consensual sex and of shooting a person in the head, right? That’s… wow.

                • phantomreader42

                  I don’t think Albert is actually capable of understanding ANYTHING. It’s like he removed his own brain and offered it as a burnt sacrifice to his imaginary god. All he’s got left is a poorly-programmed talking point repeater.

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

                  Dude, it’s like talking to a brick wall.

                • phantomreader42

                  I think a brick wall would be less likely to actively avoid information than Albert…

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

                  you’re probably right.

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

                  *headbonks*

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

                  *sigh*

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

                  “And by the way, women don’t want abortions because they are being attacked, they are doing it to absolve themselves of any responsibility from their own actions.”

                  You keep saying that.

                  I just love it when men tell me what my motivations really are… *rolleyes*

                  You’ve got how many women (or female-bodied people) telling you otherwise, and you keep insisting that somehow, you, a man, know what we “really” think and feel. You’re a colossal asshole, dude.

                • phantomreader42

                  Albert the lying sack of shit babbled:

                  And by the way, women don’t want abortions because they are being attacked, they are doing it to absolve themselves of any responsibility from their own actions.

                  So, exactly how did you get the magical power to read women’s minds? Remember, the voices in your head are not real women, even if they happen to sound female. Why should anyone believe your claims to be a psychic when you’ve been caught lying countless times?

                • Albert

                  http://www.sba-list.org/suzy-b-blog/why-do-women-really-have-abortions
                  “Over 1,200 women who recently had an abortion were asked the “most important reason for having the abortion,” and the most popular answer (25% of all responses) was the “timing is wrong.” The next most given reason (23%) was that they couldn’t “afford a baby now.”

                  The answers that groups like NAF and Planned Parenthood have told us are the main reasons for abortion, mother’s health, fetus abnormalities, and/or victim of rape, all came in at 4%, 3%, and .5% respectfully. Added to such damning statistics is the fact that, when asked to cite all reasons for having an abortion, 14% mentioned that they felt pressure from parents or significant others.”

                  What this shows me is that abortions were not used for health or rape issues for the majority of the time. Even if you added up the health and rape abortions you would still be saying that over 88% of abortions are being cause because a woman doesn’t want to have a baby right now.

                  Now what does that mean? It means she does not want her lifestyle to change. She is comfortable where she is and a child will change things. This tells me that 88% of all abortions are done because a woman is choosing to absolve herself of the responsibilities brought on by an act she chose to participate in.

                  Now, perhaps you don’t see that as a big deal. But, if this was the automotive industry we were talking about and 88% of people that caused accidents, regardless of the injuries or deaths that were caused by their hitting someone else, people would be up in arms demanding that they be held responsible for their actions!

                  If what showed is true, that science says that a new individual human being starts life at conception, then what the woman does, when she has an abortion within that 88% section is she has killed another living human being to get out of a situation that she consented to do in the first place.
                  This is called absolving yourself of any responsibility from your actions. And that is why I said what I said.
                  I wasn’t being psychic. I wasn’t using any magical powers, I was simply looking at the data and deducing that women are willing to kill other human beings so long as their own life does not change.

                  EDITED: I wanted to link to the actual findings
                  http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3711005.pdf
                  Not just leave it as a pro-life site that you could dismiss the data; though you still might anyway.

                • phantomreader42

                  Since that does not show even a single woman saying that the reason for her abortion was “to absolve myself of responsibility”, much less most or all of them, then you are a lying sack of shit, Albert.

                • Albert

                  ‘Time is wrong’ and ‘can’t afford a baby right now’ are excuses to absolve themselves of any responsibilities.

                  The fact that it does not use the words I’m using does not mean it doesn’t reflect the same sentiment.

                  As I have said, I can’t tell someone I hit with my car that, “I never intended to hit them, so I don’t have to pay for the damage.”, anymore than a woman can say, “I never intended to get pregnant, so I don’t have to give birth to this human being.”

                  Any excuse used to do so, is called “absolving yourself from the responsibility.”

                  Again, you might not like that, but that is the truth. and if what Embryologists say is true, then what they are doing is taking another human beings life just so their lifestyle can stay as it was before they had sex.

                • phantomreader42

                  So, when it’s convenient for you to demand exact words, then exact words matter. The instant your words become the slightest bit inconvenient for you, the words become irrelevant and you can change the meaning however you like. Thank you, Albert, for admitting that you never had any interest in anything remotely resembling an honest discussion. You cannot be trusted, you lie as easily as you breathe. The truth is your mortal enemy.

                • Albert

                  You said, “The instant your words become the slightest bit inconvenient for you, the words become irrelevant and you can change the meaning however you like.”

                  I don’t see how my words were inconvenient for me?

                  I am open and interested in anything remotely resembling an honest discussion, are you? Seems to me, instead of addressing my claims, which I have been clear on, you want to nit-pick my words so we go on tangents.

                  I have stated very clearly that women and men are absolving themselves of their responsibilities when they have an abortion. I have shown that 88% of abortions are not done because of serious health issues or because of rape. I have stated several times that science is on my side for when a human being is created and that is at conception.

                  If you are interested in a serious discussion, then please by all means explain to me how by view is wrong and yours is right. Because so far all I see is that you are not right, but just wanting to do as I have stated several times now, absolve yourself of any responsibility when it is convenient to do so.

                  You said, “The truth is your mortal enemy.”
                  Actually, I welcome the truth. I have nothing to fear from the truth. In fact, if the truth is shown to me, and I’m being intellectually honest, then I have no reason not to follow where the truth leads me, right?

                  So tell me, what is the truth?

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

                  Says the man who will never have to worry about his body being highjacked by a fetus….

                • Albert

                  Not sure how that has any relevance to the issue.

                  If you are a very kind and good person and would never hurt a fly; that in no way dismisses you from a conversation about murdering other human beings.

                  This isn’t an issue of experiences, but a moral issue.

                  And you are using the word highjacked incorrectly.

                  Webster’s defines hijack as:
                  1 a : to steal by stopping a vehicle on the highway
                  b : to commandeer (a flying airplane) especially by coercing the pilot at gunpoint
                  c : to stop and steal from (a vehicle in transit)
                  d : kidnap

                  2 a : to steal or rob as if by hijacking
                  b : to subject to extortion or swindling

                  A newly created individual human being is not highjacking a woman’s womb. It did not enter the body by force or wielding a gun.

                  The newly created individual human being is a natural direct result from an action the woman chose to be a part of.
                  Science shows this to be true. It is a natural progression of life.

                • tsara

                  I don’t care about whether or not the fetus is a human being (and, for the record, it comes across as pretty disingenuous for you to say that we need to prove that it ‘isn’t human’; obviously it’s human. But so is my hair, and the irregular mole I had removed a while ago.).

                  If I consent to sex right now, I can stop consenting to sex thirty seconds from now. If I tell the person I’m having sex with to stop, and that person doesn’t, it’s now rape. I can revoke my permission at any time, for any reason.

                  Similarly, I can expel an embryo or fetus from my body at any time, and for any reason. It is not relevant whether or not it is a human. It is not relevant whether or not it is there as a result of my choices. It does not matter whether or not it is completely ‘innocent’*. I can remove it from my body. The fact that it ends up dead is completely incidental.

                  If somebody came along and hooked either (or both) of my teenage siblings up to me in such a way that they would die if I disconnected them, I would have every right to disconnect them from me. They do not get to use my body without my permission.

                  “Your argument suggests that the child is an invader and is taking the organs from the mother against her will.But that is not the case.”

                  You are so completely wrong about this.
                  Excuse me, I need to go throw up.

                • Albert

                  “obviously it’s human. But so is my hair, and the irregular mole I had removed a while ago.”
                  How do you come to that conclusion that your hair or a mole is a individual human being?
                  I understand that they are part of a human being, just like an appendix, but over time, as they grow, they never become their own being; what is created from sexual intercourse, though, does.

                  “If I consent to sex right now, I can stop consenting to sex thirty seconds from now. If I tell the person I’m having sex with to stop, and that person doesn’t, it’s now rape. I can revoke my permission at any time, for any reason.”

                  Rape is rape. I agree, you do have the right to stop at any time; and your partner is supposed to honor your request. If they don’t then yes, I would say that is rape.

                  But rape is not consensual sex.

                  That was why I indicated that in the case of rape, I have said in other comments, for this article, that I would agree that abortions should be allowed if the woman chooses to do so. I offer this concession on no other grounds than that it was not consensual sex. But, I firmly believe that the child should not be punished for the actions of the father.

                  But for any situation where you don’t claim it’s rape, there was no consent revoked. Therefore, it is consensual. Which means both parties agreed to accept all consequences of their actions. Therefore, no responsibility is removed and the obligation stands once conception happens.

                  You insist that it is the only the woman’s choice as to what goes on with her body, and I completely agree.

                  But then you contradict that statement and insist that a woman is also in charge of what happens to someone else’s body.

                  You said, “It is not relevant whether or not it is a human.”

                  So then you are implying that it’s okay to kill human beings, right?

                  “It is not relevant whether or not it is there as a result of my choices.”

                  How do you come to that conclusion?

                  “If somebody came along and hooked either (or both) of my teenage siblings…”

                  You are correct. But this is not because of an action you chose to do, rather because of an action that someone else without your consent. Which if you look at this in regards to sexual intercourse it follows me concession for rape.

                  In consensual sex, you do give your permission. You know the changes of getting pregnant increase once you have sexual intercourse. If you use a condom or other contraceptives(including a tubal ligation or vasectomy), you reduce your changes, but there is still a chance to get pregnant. Therefore, that newly created human being is there now because of your agreement to accept all of the consequences of having sex.

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

                • tsara

                  “How do you come to that conclusion that your hair or a mole is a individual human being?”

                  I didn’t. There’s a difference between being human and being a human.

                  “But rape is not consensual sex.”

                  You are not understanding the analogy. If I am forced to remain pregnant when I do not want to be, I am being violated. That violation is analogous to rape. I can consent to sex without consenting to pregnancy. I can consent to pregnancy for two weeks and revoke that consent.

                  So fuck you very much.

                  Also, you still haven’t explained why conception is morally significant.

                • Albert

                  You said, “I didn’t. There’s a difference between being human and being a human.”

                  What is that difference?

                  You said, “If I am forced to remain pregnant when I do not want to be, I am being violated.”

                  I don’t think you are applying the word violated correctly. If it was used in the case of rape, it fits perfectly. In fact, that is used as an example in Webster’s definition ( http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/violate ).

                  But a human being, created from sexual intercourse that was consensual, is not violating your body, but rather a known probability of your own actions. It’s not a violation if it is a natural function and result of the act of sex.
                  I get that you might have not wanted to get pregnant. And I understand that you did everything you could to keep it from happening. But you also understood that contraceptives are not a 100% guarantee that you wont get pregnant. To still take the risk of having sexual intercourse is accepting the consequences of your actions. And not wanting to get pregnant is not justification enough to take the life of another human being.

                  “I can consent to pregnancy for two weeks and revoke that consent.”

                  As the current laws dictate, yes. But just because it’s a law, doesn’t make it morally acceptable.

                  My contention there is that abortion laws are inconsistent with how we are to treat human beings, therefore it isn’t a moral law, but one that is immoral.

                  You said, “Also, you still haven’t explained why conception is morally significant.”

                  The premise that conception is morally significant is based on the “what is it?”, question.

                  Science indicates that an individual human being starts at conception. Abortion involves killing and discarding something that’s alive. If the unborn is not a human person(which goes against science), no justification for abortion is necessary. However, if the unborn is a human person, no justification for abortion is adequate.

                  It we are not allowed to kill human beings, then this would include those that are both born and unborn. The distinction there is not if they are born or unborn, but that they are human beings.

                • tsara

                  ‘Human’, without the article in front, is an adjective. It describes nouns: Human kindness, human skin cells, etc.

                  A human is a human.

                  “As the current laws dictate, yes. But just because it’s a law, doesn’t make it morally acceptable.”

                  I’m talking about morally. If I were to get an abortion, I will have committed no moral wrong. If I do not want something inside of me, it does not get to be there.

                  “Science indicates that an individual human being starts at conception.”

                  AAAAARRRGH. NO IT DOESN’T. I’VE SAID THAT REPEATEDLY. Unless you address this, I’m not responding any further.

                  And, for the record, everything you’ve said indicates that you’re a terrible person.

                • Albert

                  Okay. Thanks for the clarification on what you mean by human and human being. I understand you now.

                  How does the fact that the law states it’s okay to perform an abortion make it moral or immoral? All that does is say that the government in the US has accepted this as something that society can do. It doesn’t make it moral. I agree with you that you don’t do anything against the law, no argument there. But the whole point of the argument in the first place is to see if the law is immoral or not.

                  I’m saying that the law is inconsistent with how we treat human beings in every other law.

                  Either a human life has value or it does not. If human beings do have value, and we are human beings(not just human) from conception, then we need to treat those unborn humans no different than any other human being. If they are not, then it doesn’t matter what we do to them.

                  I’m sorry, I am not trying to get you frustrated or upset. I have been carrying on so many conversations, I thought I already posted the scientific information that I hold as reasons why we are human beings from conception.

                  “Zygote:this cell results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo). Human development begins at fertilization… This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks
                  the beginning of each of us as a unique individual. [Moore, K. and T.V.N. Persaud, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology (6th ed.), (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998), pp 2-18.]]”

                  I have found that this is the consistent message being presented by professionals in their field.

                  Now I have had many people say this is incorrect, but I have yet to have anyone show me a different claim based on those in the field. But, I am more than open to listen and see what anyone can present.

                  You said, “And, for the record, everything you’ve said indicates that you’re a terrible person.”

                  Quite honestly, if I’m considered a terrible person because I’m doing all I can to make sure that all human beings are treated with equality, then I guess I’m a terrible person.
                  But you thinking me as such will not deter my convictions.

                • tsara

                  There is a known probability that someone will try to rape me if I bring them into my house. Does this mean that if I invite someone into my house, and they then try to rape me, that I can’t fight back for fear of hurting them?

                  If I am pregnant and I do not want to be, I am being violated. No ifs, ands, or buts. Violation is a subjective feeling, and you do not get to dictate my subjective feelings. If I were to become pregnant, I would obtain an abortion or I would die trying.

                • Albert

                  You said, “Does this mean that if I invite someone into my house, and they then try to rape me, that I can’t fight back for fear of hurting them?”

                  Not at all. A person that does that deserves what they get. They are scum and is someone that is shown as not respecting women. They not only need to be stopped from attacking you, they need to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law and labeled as a rapist. I hope that has never or ever will happen to you or any other women ever again.

                  You said, “If I am pregnant and I do not want to be, I am being violated.”

                  Again, I think you are using the word violated incorrectly. You are not being violated if you get pregnant. This is a natural occurrence of sexual intercourse not an attack on you.

                  To say you are violated would be the right word to use if you were raped. But that is not what happens during consensual sex. Webster’s definition does not fit the use of the word as you are using it.

                  “Violation is a subjective feeling, and you do not get to dictate my subjective feelings.”

                  I agree. I would never try to dictate how you should feel. I understand. If you didn’t want to get pregnant, I can see how that puts you in a difficult position. Heck, the fact that you willingly had sex with someone and then realized you shouldn’t have can be rather debilitating. Especially if you have to see them everyday.

                  I know, I felt pretty violated to when I lost my whole pay check at the casino for that one week.

                  But that does not mean I can absolve myself from the responsibilities that go along with my actions just because what happened makes me feel bad or violated.
                  I don’t think the casino would understand if I went to them and told then, “You know, I know I lost my whole pay check in your casino, but I never intended to lose it. Can I have my life back to how it was before I walked in here?”

                  This same feeling could come about when you get pregnant when you are least expecting it; and rightly so. But you can’t absolve responsibility based on how you feel about the consequences.

                  “If I were to become pregnant, I would obtain an abortion or I would die trying.”

                  That is your choice to try. And if abortion was made illegal, then it is still your choice try.
                  But you trying does not mean it’s a morally right choice. And the fact that the law states that abortions are presently legal does not make them morally right either.

                  And that is the key to my argument. To support the view that every human being is just as important as the other, we do all we can to save and protect them all. This creates an environment of equality as closely as we can possibly get it.

                • tsara

                  “Pro-life simply follows what science shows us, that life starts at conception.”
                  Actually, science shows us that life is continuous, and that it’s often as much a stream as it is a chain.

                • Spuddie

                  Its all about ignoring that the mother is an autonomous born person with a right to privacy and a right to do with her body as she wishes. You do nothing but omit consideration of the mother. Claiming rape and medical exceptions is not consideration. Its her body, not yours. Her right to privacy somehow gets completely ignored and omitted to focus on a fetus .

                  The unborn are not people in the way ANYONE is considered as people. People are individuals with an autonomous existence.The unborn’s existence is entirely at the fiat of its mother. Its existence is the mother’s existence. Since they cannot be separated, the fetus has no independent rights of its own.

                  “Actually basic human existence is the whole point.”

                  Except for consideration for those already born, whose bodies are the sole thing keeping a fetus alive. They are ignored, insulted, denigrated and treated as if they do not exist. Its all about saying that your opinion is more important than a woman’s when it comes to what to do with her own body. That is nothing but pure arrogance.

                  Please don’t insult my intelligence by claiming that your view is rational and based on scientific ideas. It is based on notions of control of sexual relations and women.

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

                  You keep ignoring the fact that WOMEN ARE PEOPLE, TOO, AND WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO THE FINAL SAY IN WHAT HAPPENS TO OUR BODIES.

                  NOBODY — not a rapist, not a fetus, not a dying genius astrophysicist, NOBODY has the right to use another person’s body without consent.

            • tsara

              Yes. And people who aren’t women but who have female reproductive organs. Go take a look at Libby Anne’s blog.

            • RobMcCune

              Yes, I don’t see how that’s a point of contention. Look a bewildered’s comments below, they are utterly perplexed at the idea women aren’t duty bound to have babies. These are actual sentiments in the “pro-life” movement.

              • Albert

                Yeah, I definitely don’t agree with how bewildered is going about presenting his reasoning. He doesn’t paint a very good picture for a Pro-life position or any position for that matter.

                But I don’t think we can make generalizations that all Pro-lifers believe or act like bewildered does; which is what your initial statement seems to be inferring.
                I could be wrong about that, but that is how I read it.

        • baal

          Because at the end of the day, all of the pro-life peoples various political and social pushing lead to woman making a ton of babies if they want to or not and those babies getting jack all in terms of support from the State. Some of us find that outcome cruel and stupid.

          • Albert

            I’m not clear on how setting laws to make abortion illegal causes women to make tons of babies.
            Isn’t it the woman’s choice to engage in protected or unprotected sex in the first place?
            Isn’t it the woman’s choice to decide if she wants to take the risk of possibly getting pregnant?

            I don’t see how the State is forcing the woman to have sex.

            • Tainda

              Contraception is not 100%. Close, but not.

              Edited because I can…

              • Albert

                But if a woman truly doesn’t want to have children,but does want to have sex, isn’t it taking control of her body to have her tubes tied? And I say this in regards to the man as well; if he doesn’t want children then he should get a vasectomy, right?
                Then, they can have all the sex they want, they are not having unwanted babies and they are truly taking control of their bodies and being responsible for their actions, wouldn’t you agree?

                • Michael Harrison

                  Tubal ligation is a major surgical procedure.

                • Albert

                  Yes, it is. So what?

                • Michael Harrison

                  If anesthesia is used, there is always the risk of a life-threatening reaction.

                • Albert

                  Yes, it is. So what?

                  Climbing a mountain without the proper gear could lead to serious injuries. Are you taking away a persons right to make that choice as well?

                  Freedom to make their own choices about their body is freedom to make choices about their own body. The risk level involved should be presented to them so they make a knowledgeable decision, but limiting their choices because you feel it’s dangerous does not match the pro-choice argument, does it?

                • Michael Harrison

                  Um, what? I’m not the one trying to take away choices; I’m saying people shouldn’t be forced into a more dangerous option.

                • Albert

                  I’m not saying they should be forced into a more dangerous option either. I’m saying they should have the option if they believe it is for them.
                  I would never force anyone to have a procedure done on them that they did not agree with.

                • Em

                  What about the tens of thousands of people who plan to have a child later, when they can provide for it emotionally and financially? Should they be sterilized because they cannot handle a child at this moment?

                • Ella Warnock

                  Well, of course. You can darn well have kids on pro-lifers’ timetable, or not at all!

                • Albert

                  What about all those people that were emotionally and financially able to handle a child who all of a sudden lost everything; should those people be able to kill their child because they are no longer emotionally or financially stable?

                  If you can’t emotionally or financially afford a child, don’t put yourself at risk of having one.

                  This seems to favor my view more than it does yours, don’t you think?

                • Em

                  Is that hypothetical child dependent on the parents’ kidneys, bone marrow, or lungs? If so, I believe the parent has the right to not donate either, regardless of their financial situation, whether the child is pre-born or born.

                  And no, I don’t see how your circular arguments are effective. Maybe in your own head?

                • Nerdinity

                  You know, one could argue deciding to have an abortion when you do not want to or cannot raise a child is pretty damn responsible, too.

                • Albert

                  Responsible in what way?

                • Em

                  Responsible because they are making sure that their actions don’t result in the pain, the long-lasting pain, of an unwanted human being?

                • Albert

                  First of all, what long-lasting pain are you taking about?

                  Secondly, my argument best fits this scenario more than yours does. Her getting a tubal ligation aids her better in accomplishing the goal of not having an unwanted pregnancy, right?

                  The woman’s responsibility doesn’t come after she gets pregnant, but before. The obligation is what comes after she is pregnant whether the child was wanted or not.

                  That isn’t being responsible, that is be reactionary.
                  To be responsible after getting pregnant would be to say I will do all I can to protect this human life until it can live on it’s own.
                  And you know what? Many single mothers and fathers do that every single day. They struggle for their children. They love on them and make the best of a bad situation. That is being responsible. And those are the people we should be helping out, not those that want to absolve themselves of their responsibilities by discarding a human life just so they can go party with their friends and not change the life style they are accustomed to.

                • Em

                  Having an unwanted child is not responsible. You are confusing unplanned and inconvenient with unwanted.

                • dawkwin

                  So, if you argue that for carbon footprints and murder…oh never mind…

                • Tainda

                  Don’t get me started on this again.

                  Most doctors will not do a tubal ligation unless a woman is over 21 and already has children.

                  Everyone ok with how I put that one? Want to make sure I’m not being dramatic

                • tsara

                  Generally I’ve found doctors insisting that they won’t sterilize people who are younger than thirty if they don’t have children.

                • Tainda

                  I’ve found that too but got called out on it. Made the mistake of calling it a LAW instead of a fairly steadfast rule with doctors.

                  My doc still won’t do a tubal on me and I will be 40 in a few months and my daughter is 20

                • Albert

                  Why not? Isn’t it your body? Shouldn’t you be allowed to say what goes on with your body?

                • Olive Markus

                  Wow. And yet you claim a woman should be forced to donate her body and health for a pregnancy, whether she wants to or not. So, it’s her body to do with as she wills, as long as Albert wills it, as well. Otherwise, fuck what she wants.

                • Albert

                  Olive, what do you mean by donate her body and health for a pregnancy? I’m not clear what you mean.

                  How does my will come in to play here? I’m suggesting an additional option to keep her from having unwanted babies. Isn’t that what her goal is in the first place?

                  Shouldn’t a women that doesn’t want to have babies do everything humanly possible not to get pregnant? Getting her tubes tied gives her one more option to not get pregnant, doesn’t it? If she chooses to do that, shouldn’t the doctors allow her to get that done? Or is this where women draw the line on being in control of their own bodies and letting the doctors tell them what they can and can not do with their own bodies?

                • tsara

                  “what do you mean by donate her body and health for a pregnancy?”

                  wth, do you actually know that little about pregnancy? It affects the whole body. There’s some evidence that gestation continues until the person’s metabolic rate is taxed to the limit and zie cannot physically support the pregnancy any longer (and not hip/head size, as was previously thought).

                  “I’m suggesting an additional option to keep her from having unwanted babies.”
                  You’re suggesting excessively firmly an option that many people find unpalatable because it’s a major and often irreversible surgical procedure. You’ve been pushing it hard enough that it seems like you think people either should be choosing it or should be saying that they have a problem with that being an option.
                  I want all forms of sterilization to be an option. I’m working for that to be an option. But I won’t push it on people who don’t want it done.

                  “Shouldn’t a women that doesn’t want to have babies do everything humanly possible not to get pregnant?”
                  Someone who doesn’t want to have babies should take exactly as many precautions to reduce the likelihood of pregnancy as zie thinks are worth the time, effort, and physical, emotional, and financial costs. I don’t consider abortion in the embryonic stage to be morally questionable or difficult at all; no harm, no foul.

                • Albert

                  Why do you suppose that is?

                • tsara

                  Because they think they know what’s good for me better than I do, and because my mental health issues (on paper) are just the sort that make me easily dismissible, and because they’re all friends with my dad, and because I’m a conventionally attractive white almost-twenty-one-year-old, and because I’m not out as genderqueer (see: they’re all friends with my dad), and because some of them are Catholic, and because they’ve got antiquated ideas of ‘what women want’ that are probably not supported by the evidence but they don’t really care, and because of the way malpractice suits work.

                • Olive Markus

                  Because of our misogynistic culture with ideas, perpetuated by people like you, who believe that anybody with a vagina should have babies, whether that person wants to or not. That even if that person has decided they do not ever want to be pregnant, society at large has decided that a stupid person with a stupid vagina can’t possibly make up their own mind about it, because, vagina.

                • Albert

                  Well, isn’t the whole issue to give women the right to say what happens to their own body? Shouldn’t women be fighting for doctors to do these procedures?

                • tsara

                  People are fighting. As I’ve said to you already.

                • Olive Markus

                  Yes, Albert. The whole is issue is, literally, giving the women the right to say what happens to their own body. That means abortion, as well. That was my point.

                  You either give people the right to choose, or you don’t. You, by not advocating for abortion, are not giving women their right to choose.

                  But you’re simply saying, women only have a right where I say so, because I say tubal ligations are fine. But I don’t think abortions are fine, so I’m not allowing them this right. Therefore, what Albert says a woman is allowed to do, is all a woman is allowed to do.

                  Good try, though.

                  Thank you.

                • Puzzled

                  I agree. Do you support legalizing prostitution? Because, in order to advocate for some things women do with their bodies, we need to advocate for all (consentual, non-aggressive) things, right?

                • Olive Markus

                  I grew up where prostitution and gambling was legal, and I worked in a health care center that cared for the women’s weekly testing and medical care. I saw first hand that women in this business were taken care of better than most of us women, as the state required that for them to work they be completely free from drug use and any disease. If they did have problems, they were taken care of, or were required to no longer work. They made their money, received their fair share of that money and paid taxes on it. Since men looking for sex are going to find sex no matter what, I’d much rather have women who are consensually willing to be paid for sex and having a clean bill of health be the ones offering it. This also eliminates (or reduces) the rampant pimping, slavery and exploitation of women in the world of illegal prostitution, which is everywhere and extremely devastating. You see less illegal, manipulative and abusive prostitution where it is legal and in the open. The girls are protected, the businesses are legit and, as much as any business may or may not be, transparent. The women working in these places were generally very happy and healthy women.

                  I want to add that I’m sure there are problems with these business as well, as nothing is perfect, and I can’t venture to think what the motivation behind the women working in this business are. The point is, this is what they want to do, and when it is legal, they aren’t held against their will and exploited. It’s out in the open and they make good, legal money. Several in my community even opened businesses and were going to college at the same time.

                  ETA: Yes, I feel justified in advocating for legalized prostitution :). Sorry it was so long.

                • Puzzled

                  Cool. I agree.

                • Albert

                  Your point though, Olive, is based on the premise that what is being aborted is part of the woman’s body.

                  What proof do you have that this part of her body and not a separate individual human being that has their own body to decide what is done with it?

                  If you look up what pregnant means it would say something like: “containing a developing embryo, fetus, or unborn offspring within the body” ( http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pregnant #4)

                  If it is true that an offspring is a separate individual human being, created from the moment of conception, then what is growing in it’s natural environment of the woman’s womb is not her own body.

                  To say that “either give people the right to choose, or you don’t.”, should then mean that the offspring should have a say in what happens to their body, don’t you think?

                  What I’m pointing out is a flaw in the logic that what is growing inside is the woman’s body.

                  I say that science has stated that it is a separate individual human being from the moment of conception.

                  Your argument becomes a contradiction if you allow a woman to dictate what happens to another human beings body.

                  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.

                • Olive Markus

                  Are you arguing that a woman’s body isn’t necessary for the fertilized egg to become a fetus to be become a baby? Because you are attempting to erase the woman’s body in its essential role of literally being the food off of which the fetus builds itself and being the latrine that cycles the fetus’s waste products. Ever heard of a god damned umbilical cord? You think the fertilized egg just guides itself into babyhood, and the woman’s body isn’t even relevant!!??

                  And, Albert. Go fuck yourself. You will never know what it’s like to have a woman’s body invaded against her will. My body is my business. And if your’e making these arguments for the sake of your God, your God is a fucking moron for having created a reproductive system that is so dependent on a woman’s body and so lethal to it. He is also a fucking asshole for creating such a patriarchal system in which women’s bodies are routinely disrespected, invaded and erased.

                  There are no contradictions in my argument. The living, breathing, feeling woman whose body is being eaten alive is more important than what is growing inside of her. Period. If you think it’s a contradiction that a woman has a say about what happens to something inside of AND GROWING ONLY FROM her body, what does it mean for somebody like you claiming that you have a say over what happens to mine? You think you own me? Any person who believes they can force me to donate my body against my will must believe that I am their possession and that I must submit to them. Again, I say, Fuck You.

                  Until you have a new argument that isn’t just “Women don’t exist except when their body is to be used by others” and “A zygote is exactly the same as an infant” don’t bother posting to me again. It’s getting old. However, the good news is, with these ridiculous arguments of no substance, you convince nobody of your position. Good work.

                • Albert

                  Currently that is the case. But there is no reason they can’t, is there?

                  Why do you suppose they wait until a woman is 21 and already has children?

                • RobMcCune

                  You do know for women the procedure is irreversible right? Why do have such an extreme view that people should deny themselves the possibility of ever having children just because they don’t want children right now?

                • Albert

                  Actually Tubal ligation reversal is possible.

                  This doesn’t deny them the option to have children later. They would even still have the option of In Vitro fertilization if needed.

                • http://parkandbark.wordpress.com/ Houndentenor

                  Why would anyone do that instead of just using birth control? Why are you arguing for such an extreme practice when so many other options are available?

                • Albert

                  It’s another option. It might not be fore everyone, but there might be some out there that would be responsible enough to say, I don’t want kids and I will do what it takes to make sure I don’t get an unwanted pregnancy.

                  What’s wrong with adding it to the list of ways to prevent unwanted pregnancies?

                  At least this procedure, unlike abortions, are actually something the woman and man are doing to their own body, not to another humans body.

                • http://parkandbark.wordpress.com/ Houndentenor

                  You are not suggesting surgery as one of many forms of birth control. You are actually against many forms of birth control. Tubal ligation and vasectomies are options for some people, but certainly not for everyone. No one has said no one should use those options. It’s ludicrous for you to talk about options when you would restrict the options that women have, not increase them.

                • Valde

                  it’s possible but is extremeley expensive AND DANGEROUS

                  and it doesn’t always work

                • Em

                  It is not reliably reversible. Reversals are about 40% effective, cost around $5000, and require half a week off work for recovery.

                • Albert

                  Yeah, so?
                  But at least this is the woman’s body that she is in control of, right? She has to make the choice, not her doctor. It is, however, another option that allows her better security that she will not end up with an unwanted pregnancy if she is wanting to engage in sexual intercourse.
                  And don’t forget, I’m not excluding the men in this either. They too are more than welcome to get a vasectomy. I know at least three men that were married, got one after having two kids, ended up getting divorced and their next wife wanted kids so they had it reversed. Worked like a charm in all three instances. I know it might not always work out that well, but there are other means of getting pregnant now too, right?

                  So this is an option I offer up to be preventive instead of being reactionary; which is what abortions are.

                  Why such push back on something that is a win-win?

                • Em

                  I don’t see how sterilizing someone who wants children in the future is a win-win. It’s a win-win for people like you who want to push ideology on others, but A. virtually impossible in our country and B. not a great option for a woman who wants children someday.

                • phantomreader42

                  So, Albert, in your fantasy world, what options do you think should be available to a woman who became pregnant after consensual sex with a man who claimed he had had a vasectomy, but was lying?
                  How would your answer differ if the man was not lying, but the doctor had botched the surgery due to incompetence?
                  What if the vasectomy had been ineffective due to the doctor deliberately botching it because of religious fanaticism?
                  What if the vasectomy had failed due to circumstances beyond the control of either doctor or patient?
                  Again, how would your answers differ if the sex had not been consentual, or if it had been a tubal ligation that failed?
                  And why the fuck should any woman be restricted to only the options YOU decree she should have?

                • Albert

                  “…with a man who claimed he had had a vasectomy, but was lying?”

                  Court. Why should one human pay for the crimes of another?

                  “…doctor had botched the surgery due to incompetence?”

                  That is part of the risks. Just like contraceptives of other kinds, nothing is 100%. To expect that is to be ignorant.

                  “What if the vasectomy had been ineffective due to the doctor deliberately botching it because of religious fanaticism?”

                  Good luck proving that.

                  “What if the vasectomy had failed due to circumstances beyond the control of either doctor or patient?”

                  Again, not all contraceptive options are 100%.

                  “Again, how would your answers differ if the sex had not been consentual, or if it had been a tubal ligation that failed?”

                  These are two different issues. If the tubal ligation failed, that is the same answer I would give for any contraceptive option, they are not 100%. It’s a risk that people are willing to take if they have sexual intercourse.

                  In the case of it not being consensual sex, that is called rape.

                  I have said in other comments on this article, that though I don’t believe the child should ever pay for the crimes of the father, I do give the concession that in the case of rape, if the mother wanted to abort, then she can do so. Not for any other reason than it was forced upon her against her will.

                  “And why the fuck should any woman be restricted to only the options YOU decree she should have?”

                  I never said that are restricted to these options I have presented. I said they are options.

                  These opinions, I believe, give a person, male or female, the best possible options available to them to prevent having an unwanted pregnancy.

                  Beyond that, it is no longer a matter of prevention, but obligation to care for the newly created human being.
                  If they get pregnant, that is a consequence of their actions. And because they understood the risks before engaging in consensual sex, they bear the burden and the obligations that come with that choice.

                  No one is absolved of their responsibilities in any situation.

                • phantomreader42

                  So, Albert, if (and ONLY if) a woman is able to convince YOU (and ONLY you) that she was a victim of a (in the immortal words of Todd Akin) “legitimate rape”, then (and ONLY then) would you grudgingly permit her to end the pregnancy and regain provisional ownership of her own organs. But not under any other circumstances.

                  Albert, you are scum. You demand that actual living breathing women be denied any and all human rights in order to “protect” fetuses that you only pretend to give a flying fuck about when you can use them as an excuse to abuse women. You are not even a human being, just a wad of excrement poorly sculpted into a crude mockery of a human form.

                • bb

                  “Court. Why should one human pay for the crimes of another?”

                  But you seem to be entirely OK with the idea that the woman should pay for the crime of another by carrying a child she did not want or plan.

                  Reading through your posts, I just can’t help thinking that you are being deliberately and willfully obtuse.

                • Albert

                  You said, “But you seem to be entirely OK with the idea that the woman should pay for the crime of another by carrying a child she did not want or plan.”

                  I agree that a man should never lie about him getting a vasectomy just so he can have sex. But him lying doesn’t take away the woman’s responsibilities.

                  The woman is responsible for her body, right?
                  It is her choice to do what she wants with her body. If she puts her body out there to allow a man to enter into her, then this is consensual sex.
                  That means she is just as responsible as the man for the consequences of that action.

                  The fact that she didn’t verify her partners situation is her fault. The fact that she didn’t chose to use other types of protection is her fault.
                  Even if she did use other contraceptives and also had her tubes tied, she chose to have sexual intercourse therefore the consequences of that action are hers to deal with. (it is also the mans responsibility too)
                  If she gets pregnant, then that is a consequence of the action she chose to be a part of.
                  It is now her duty to sue the man for false disclosure or something like that. Perhaps she can get the courts to make him pay 100% for the care of the child; even to demand that he adopt the child once born. Maybe even pain and suffering for the child birth.

                  But to make a innocent human being pay for the crimes of their father is not consistent with how we judge punishment for crimes.

                  If science is true in stating that a new individual human being starts life at conception, then we can’t allow a human life to be terminated just because people are inconvenienced by their own actions.

                  You said, “Reading through your posts, I just can’t help thinking that you are being deliberately and willfully obtuse.”

                  Why do you say that? How have I shown that I’m either slow to understand or deliberately playing dumb?

                • http://parkandbark.wordpress.com/ Houndentenor

                  That’s stupid. What if they don’t want children yet but might at some later date? Some people try to be responsible and wait to have children when they can afford them or are in a position to care for them properly. That’s being responsible. They are on birth control, go off to have a child, go back on and maybe repeat that as they wish. That’s what most people do in the Western world these days. Just because I don’t want children right now doesn’t mean I should have an operation that requires another operation if I change my mind. What utter nonsense.

                • Albert

                  You said, “What if they don’t want children yet but might at some later date?”
                  A Vasectomy and a Tubal ligation are reversible.

                  You said, “Some people try to be responsible and wait to have children when they can afford them or are in a position to care for them properly. That’s being responsible.”
                  I agree. Wouldn’t a vasectomy or getting the tubes tied aid in this endeavor?

                  You said, ” Just because I don’t want children right now doesn’t mean I should have an operation that requires another operation if I change my mind. What utter nonsense.”

                  An abortion is an operation. Why don’t you consider that utter nonsense?

                • tsara

                  Most abortions are actually medication abortions. Not surgery. A major operation like tubal litigation requires a lot of time and money and is not safe for many people, not feasible for probably most, carries a significant possibility of infection, physician error, irreversibility, and/or causing complications in future pregnancies (e.g., people who’ve had tubal litigations are more likely to have ectopic pregnancies).

                • Valde

                  And forced birthers are trying their damndest to keep medication abortions out of reach for most women.

                • tsara

                  Sadistic fuckers.

                • http://parkandbark.wordpress.com/ Houndentenor

                  First of all, a vasectomy is potentially reversible. there are no guarantees when it comes to surgery. Others have pointed out that tubal ligations are not reversible. I have no expertise so I’ll leave that alone but there is always a risk that it might not be. So instead I would recommend condoms for men and various forms of birth control for women. There are a number of options and those wishing to have sex but not risk pregnancy should consult with their physician about their options. There are also any number of organizations that provide free or low-cost counseling on such matters. I doubt any of them would recommend surgery for a temporary form of birth control. That would only be advisable for people who are certain that they never want to have children. (It might be advisable, for example, for a woman with health issues making pregnancy dangerous for her.) I am in favor of people using good judgment to prevent unwanted pregnancies AND the spread of STDs. If more people did that there would be far fewer abortions because there would be far fewer unplanned pregnancies. Perhaps we could work together to provide better education and access to family planning services, rather than offer extreme non-solutions like outlawing abortions or unnecessary surgeries.

                • Albert

                  Actually, tubal ligation is reversible. http://www.epigee.org/is-tubal-ligation-reversal-possible.html

                  Are their concerns and risks with it? Sure, no different than having sexual intercourse with protection. There are known risks there as well.
                  I have no problem with birth control that prevents the sperm fertilizing the egg. But, if science indicates that a new individual life starts at conception, then after that, it is no longer prevention, but obligation to keep that new human life alive.

                  I agree, that better prevention would reduce the number of abortions, but that doesn’t go far enough. We need to teach not only sex ed, but also responsibility and obligation in regards to choices and consequences. Currently, this is what abortion does is cover up those smart choices with a plan-B solution. And in the process, a life is taken.

                  I don’t see outlawing abortions as a non-solution. I see it as the basis for the rest of the solutions. Educate, yes, but educate fully what is being done during an abortion. A human life is lost. Would people tolerate a mother killing her 3 year old child because she decided it was unwanted or that she didn’t expect the change in her lifestyle?
                  No, the education should start with all we know about what goes on in the woman’s body from conception and even before that.
                  If science says that a new human individual life starts at conception, then we need to make sure we protect those human lives.

                • tsara

                  “Are their concerns and risks with it? Sure, no different than having sexual intercourse with protection. There are known risks there as well.”
                  They’re not even remotely comparable.

                  “Educate, yes, but educate fully what is being done during an abortion.”
                  We do this. Or try, anyway. The information you get from a lot of pro-life sources is flat-out wrong. Try ACOG.

                  “A human life is lost.”
                  This is relevant only if the pregnant person believes it is.

                  “If science says that a new human individual life starts at conception, then we need to make sure we protect those human lives.”

                  But science doesn’t say this. Science says that life is continuous, and often more of a stream than a chain; there is almost never a clear dividing line.

                • http://parkandbark.wordpress.com/ Houndentenor

                  If? Does “science” actually say that? Science is a methodology not a person or an institution.

                • ass masterson

                  It is simpler to just use protection and abort as needed when that fails. There is no reason to outlaw abortion.

                  The crazy ass clinic bombers are the only honest anti abortionists anyways – the rest of them are either liars who are caught up in the social aspects of being ‘pro life’ or horrible people who *really do believe* abortion is murder and refuse to put their lives at risk to stop it. Most of them CANNOT honestly think it is murder, or they’d be fighting tooth and nail to save these ‘babies’ as would anyone if say, infants in a park were being threatened with death.

                • Albert

                  Well if a new human life does start at conception it would see that, in itself, is a good reason to stop abortions.

                  If not, then why stop at the womb? Why not let them continue to those women that have decided after a year of birth that they don’t want to anymore and then just end that life as well?
                  If this is not right, why not? What would be the difference?

                  Because quite honestly, that is the basis of your argument that if is not a human so there is no reason you can’t terminate it, right?

                • Valde

                  You idiots always have to take it to infanticide.

                  here’s a hint, genius: a born child can be given up for adoption. An embryo cannot.

                • Puzzled

                  1. For me, the basis for accepting abortion rights is the woman’s control of her own body. This does not apply to infanticide. An infant is not making use of her body in an inseparable way. If we could, without additional harm, remove a fetus and raise it without her further involvement, I’d say that’s better than abortion, but it’s not even a theoretical possibility.
                  2. We generally see killing children as worse than killing adults because we see the value of a life as, in part, coming from the different causal chains that life has open to it – the child has the potential for very many things, as time passes, options become closed off, so you’re not destroying as much potential with an adult as with a child. This reasoning can extend right to birth, but not before it. All options are not open to a fetus, since the fetus has no will and no options can be attributed to it.

                • phantomreader42

                  Albert, since you clearly believe it’s acceptable to force a woman to give use of her organs to a parasitic being without her consent, at great risk to her own life and health, then why don’t you post your address and blood type? I know someone who needs a kidney transplant. Your consent is not required, since you don’t think anyone else’s consent to use of their organs is required. And if you’re not a match for my needs, I’m sure someone else can find a suitable recipient for your organs.

                • Albert

                  This is a non sequitur.

                  The pregnancy happened because the mother chose to have sexual intercourse. The child is not an intruder, but a result from the mothers choices. The mother’s womb is the natural environment for the child, not a place it chose to occupy.
                  Therefore, because of the mothers actions, the child is not in there without her consent. She knew the risks that she could get pregnant, and she decided to do it anyway.

                  You can’t dismiss the responsibility of the mother for the consequences of her actions.

                  If you choose to drive a car, you have also chosen to accept all the consequences for driving that car. If you so happen to be going to the store and wreck into someone. You can’t say, “I didn’t intend to crash into them so I’m not obligated to pay.”

                  It’s the same with sexual intercourse. If you chose to have sex, you accept all of the consequences that go along with that type of behavior. You can not simply absolve yourself of your responsibilities.

                • RowanVT

                  A vet I worked for just got a hysterectomy. She’s in her mid 40s.

                  Her original doctor would not get her in contact with a surgeon because, and I quote, “You are still young and might want to have children!”

                  So it’s not easy to get your tubes tied, or a hysterectomy, or anything like that for the woman. PLUS…tubal ligations and vasectomies are NOT 100% effective.

                • Albert

                  Shouldn’t this be something women should be screaming about if they are saying that doctors can’t tell them what to do with this bodies?

                  Almost sounds like making the argument that women should have the choice about what the do with their bodies would include this procedure too, don’t you?

                  The fact that they are not 100% effective is a moot point, isn’t it? They risk of sexual intercourse is pregnancy. The point of a tubal ligation, vasectomy or contraceptives, is to reduce the risk as much as possible, right?
                  Then by taking control of your own body, having a procedure done that reduces your risk would, to me, make perfect sense if the goal is to prevent unwanted pregnancies, right?

                • tsara

                  “Shouldn’t this be something women should be screaming about if they are saying that doctors can’t tell them what to do with this bodies?”
                  People are fucking angry about this. This should be much more accessible. People are fighting. I don’t understand what you’re trying to insinuate, but it sounds like you’re trying to insinuate something.

                • Valde

                  consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy
                  no more than consent to eating is consent to choking
                  or consent to skiing is consent to a broken leg
                  or consent to driving is consent to an accident

                  when people engage in risky behaviour and injure themselves we don’t deny them medical treatment because they should just ‘live with the consequences of their actions’

                • tsara

                  Also, consent to sleeping in someone’s apartment is not consent to sex. Consent to making out is not consent to sex. Consent to oral sex is not consent to penetrative sex. Consent to protected sex is not consent to unprotected sex. Consent to sex right now is not consent to sex tomorrow. Consent to sex right now is not necessarily consent to sex thirty seconds from now. As soon as I want it to stop, it has to stop; I’m no longer consenting.

                • RowanVT

                  It’s something we got tired of screaming about, because people, often those in possession of a penis, told us to stop being so silly and we’d totally regret it because *every* woman just can’t wait to pop out children and we’d be miserable forever if we removed that ability to soon. Or we were ignored. Or it was treated as a “women’s issue” and sidelined into oblivion.

                  And…. in those cases where an unwanted pregnancy still results, I should be able to take control of my own body… and end the pregnancy.

                  I did everything I could to avoid getting appendicitis. I still ended up getting it. It’s the risk of having an appendix. When it did something I did not want it to do, I removed it.

                • Albert

                  Really; you got tired of screaming about it? When was all this screaming happening? Is it documents in the news anywhere? I don’t ever remember women or law makers complaining or putting bills in place to give women the right to have their tubes tied whenever they wanted to, do you?

                  I agree that you should be able to take control of your own body, but the newly created human life inside of your womb is not your body, but a newly created separate human being. Why do you think you have a right to terminate that human life just because you don’t want to take responsibility for your actions?

                  Just curious, what all did you do to avoid getting appendicitis?
                  It is my understanding that appendicitis is not the intended function of an appendix, is it?
                  Because pregnancy is one of the intended functions of sex.
                  Which if we look at that, this means your appendix malfunctioned, but your uterus did not.
                  Lets not forget the fact that an appendix is, and has always been, a part of your body. But when you get pregnant, you are creating a new individual human that has not always been, or ever is, a part of your body. It is separate as a whole connected only to be supplied with the stuff it needs to grow and develop. An appendix and a separate individual human being are do different things, wouldn’t you agree?

                • Tainda

                  We ARE “screaming” about it. We just don’t get heard as well as men do. Probably because of people like you

                • Albert

                  So then are you in favor of making tubal ligation and vasectomies as viable birth control options in an effort to end unwanted pregnancies?

                  And again, your generalization, ‘people like you’, is including me in a group I am not a part of.

                  If I’m for these types of procedures and for doctors allowing woman and men to be in control of their own bodies, then I’m not in that group of people you are suggesting are stifling your options, am I?

                • tsara

                  I think ‘people like you’ refers to ‘obtuse and paternalistically misogynistic asshats’. As far as I’ve seen, you do belong in that group.

                • Albert

                  I don’t believe I’m obtuse as I have understood everything everyone has written. I might ask for clarifications, but that is only to reduce confusion so that I’m not assuming I know what you are intending to express. If that makes me obtuse, then so be it.

                  How am I being paternalistic if I’m supporting a woman’s right to choose what happens to her own body?
                  My suggestion for other options other than contraceptives, I believe, opens up women (and men) to be in more control of their own bodies than anyone controlling them, don’t you?

                  You keep insisting that I’m misogynistic. I’m not. I don’t hate women. In fact, I support them in their endeavors to be able to be in control of their own bodies. I would like nothing more than to see them have options like tubal ligation open to them instead of resorting to reactionary methods like abortions to solve their problems. In fact I’m married to a wonderful woman that I love with all my heart. This, I believe, you are saying simply because you disagree with my arguments and instead of refuting anything I say, would rather throw insults, right?

                  Asshat? How could I type this much if that was the case? :)

                • phantomreader42

                  You’re allegedly supporting the rights of a very small number of purely theoretical women to select what happens to their own bodies from a very short list of options chosen by you in a world that exists only in your diseased imagination. You’re not supporting actual real wormen making actual real choices about their actual real bodies in the actual real world. You’re treating wormen as NPCs in a poorly-written video game that doesn’t run on any system except the one you hacked together from broken bits of junk in your garage, and even then it crashes every five seconds and you’re too stupid to notice.

                • phantomreader42

                  Women ARE screaming about this. You’re just too much of a self-centered, delusional, misogynistic asshat to listen to them.

                • Spuddie

                  Are you speaking from experience as a woman who has had her tubes tied? From the sound of it, you don’t really seem well informed on the subject.

                • Albert

                  The experience I have is my wife’s experience.
                  How am I not well informed?
                  What am I missing?

                • Tainda

                  What are you missing? A uterus.

                • Albert

                  As a matter of fact, Tainda, I you’re right!

                  More specifically in line with the discussion though, I was actually asking Spuddie, if there was something more to the comment made as to what I might have been not well informed about.
                  I was hoping to have some clarification if that was the case.

                • Spuddie

                  Yet at least a couple of posters have indicated you are full of crap. Go figure.

                  I didn’t find your argument to be valid from the outset.

                  Ultimately it is none of your business how people go through sexual relations. Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. You may not like such ideas, but nobody asked you for input as to how to engage in relations with others. Nor is your input actually welcomed.

                • Albert

                  That’s fine if people think I’m full of crap. They are more than welcome to say so. This is simply their opinion.

                  You said, “I didn’t find your argument to be valid from the outset.”

                  Really, and how didn’t you find my argument to be valid from the outset?

                  You said, “Ultimately it is none of your business how people go through sexual relations.”

                  You are correct. What’s your point?

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

                  That is like saying consent to climb a rock is not consent to fall and break your leg.

                  1) It’s nonsensical. You can’t consent to something you have no real control over.

                  2) Pregnancy is a consequence of sex that requires no consent from the parties involved.

                  3) Though you would require someone to hold to their responsibilities of paying you back money they borrowed from you, you seem to hold that people should be exempt from this responsibility. Yet you give no good reason for this exemption.
                  Basically this is simply a special pleading fallacy.

                  You said, “You may not like such ideas, but nobody asked you for input as to how to engage in relations with others.”

                  You’re right. So?

                  You said, “Nor is your input actually welcomed.”

                  These are simply your opinions on an open forum where anyone, including me, can come and post whatever I want to post. If you are not liking what I say, or don’t agree with it, you are more than welcome to tell me how you feel(which you have), or you can leave, right? So what’s your point?

                • Spuddie

                  Obviously you do feel its your business to tell people how to go through their sexual relations.You proclaim your opinions on the matter have to be accepted by all to the point of attacking basic rights concerning a woman’s body.

                  Your take on what consent to sexual relations and pregnancy is not one that has to be taken seriously. Just because you consider a pregnancy to be the punishment for loose relations doesn’t mean anyone else has to.

                  Obviously your rationale concerning consent to pregnancy would only apply to relations involving yourself.

                  “That is like saying consent to climb a rock is not consent to fall and break your leg.”

                  Yet you are saying that people should saw their legs off pre-emptively if they want to climb rocks. =)

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

                  What about “I don’t want babies right now, but I will in the future”? I became sexually active in college, but no way in hell did I want a baby yet. I’ve now been married for 4 1/2 years and we’re starting to talk kids- getting my tubes tied would have been a terrible decision for me.

                • Albert

                  You might be right; it could be the wrong decision for you.

                  But for other women, it could be the right choice.

                  Shouldn’t the doctors allow women to make that choice regarding their own body, instead of restricting them from doing so?

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

                  Yes, doctors absolutely should allow women to make that choice for themselves. There’s a lot of people who are very angry about this (myself included) and are trying to get it changed. Abortion rights, unfortunately, are a bigger issue for most people because they are under direct attack and because the consequences of not being able to get an abortion are so very dire. We perform triage- while I am furious about women being denied sterilization because men think they know better, it’s on down the list of things to get to when the biggest issues are resolved.

                  That, however, is entirely besides the point. You suggested sterilization as a means of birth control. It is not. It is right for some women, but frankly, it is a minority of women who are quite sure they never want children. Access to birth control and abortion are absolutely critical in ensuring every woman can control her own body and when she makes children out of it.

                • Valde

                  it is incredibly difficult to get a tubal ligation, most women under 30 without 2 kids will be denied one

                  also, low income women cannot afford a 5-8k tubal ligation

                • Em

                  Women cannot have their tubes tied at will. Conservatives have made sure they need to meet certain qualifications first, including having other children.

                • Albert

                  Where are you facts to back up your statement?

                • Spuddie

                  What do you mean by “facts to back up”?

                  Do you have links to support your opinions or do you merely expect it of others?

                  More importantly, why would it even come up in the conversation in the first place except in a general sense?

                  Are we clear you mean to say that non-procreative sexual relations can only be performed if one partner has been sterilized?

                  What do you have to support your opinion that this is even a viable option for most couples?

                • Albert

                  Facts, evidence, proof that the statement is true. You know proof?

                  “Do you have links to support your opinions or do you merely expect it of others?”

                  I don’t. They are my opinions. Why do I need proof to back up my opinions?

                  You see, Em said, “Women cannot have their tubes tied at will.”

                  That is a statement. This requires proof that they can not have their tubes tied at will. Which is an interesting thing to say from a woman who believes that women should have the choice what to do with their own bodies, don’t you think?

                  What statements have I made that you require evidence(facts to back up)? I would be glad to do so.

                  “More importantly, why would it even come up in the conversation in the first place except in a general sense?”

                  What would what come up? I’m not sure exactly what you are referring to.

                  “Are we clear you mean to say that non-procreative sexual relations can only be performed if one partner has been sterilized?”

                  Huh? Where did I say that?

                  “What do you have to support your opinion that this is even a viable option for most couples?”

                  If you are meaning by ‘viable option’ a man getting a vasectomy or a woman getting a tubal ligation, then I don’t have and statistics as my support. Remember, this is an opinion of mine, not a statement of fact.

                  No, if you asked me the logic behind it, I can provide you that in spades.

                  You see, when a man gets a vasectomy or a woman gets a tubal ligation, it becomes rather difficult(not impossible) for them to pass either sperm or an egg to a position where they will end up producing a fertilized egg.

                  And then, if you add on top of the contraceptives, such as a condom or spermicide jellies, you reduce the changes of getting an unwanted pregnancy 10 fold.

                  This is in no way scientific, but rather looking at the natural functionality of the human bodies and how they respond to each other during sexual intercourse.

                  If we are to say we are being responsible then shouldn’t we do everything we can( preventatively ) to stop unwanted pregnancies?

                • enuma

                  No only do I not want kids, medically speaking I shouldn’t have kids. No one will sterilize me. One doctor told me that basically her financial liability should I change my mind about wanting kids is higher than her liability should I die from pregnancy complications. Malpractice insurers see my fertility as being worth more than my life.

                  I had to get a note from my neurologist saying that birth control pills could kill me (I’m in a high risk group for stroke) before I could get a fucking IUD.

                • Puzzled

                  I think that part of the problem here is that many surgeries are not technically ‘treating an illness’ and it is rather illogical that they are the sole domain of a profession whose ethics are entirely tied to treating illnesses. If a doctor insisted on not providing treatment (any treatment) for high blood pressure, because God wants it high or whatever, they’d face consequences. Yet with elective procedures, they can deny it, since nothing in the description of their profession mandates it. I’d suggest we need another profession to provide these sorts of surgeries, with oversight boards and ethics policies that mandate providing treatment.

                • baal

                  Or we could have single payer and the incentive for insurance companies to get in the way of paying for health care would go away.

                • Puzzled

                  Assuming we never elect social conservatives who want to use government to control people’s personal choices. In any case, yes, that might deal with the insurance problem, but not with the problem that doctors are entitled to say “I don’t want to do it” and we can’t make them.

                • baal

                  We have the real world example of medicare. It’s funding gets wrenched to hell and back regularly but so long as you defer to the medical community (and medicare does outside of the total compensation level) the governmental interference has been historically limited.

                • Puzzled

                  Ok, good point, although I wonder to what extent this has been the case because there was an outside market. But that’s not the point. I’m not objecting to single-payer (I’m semi-supportive) but I’m objecting to it being offered as a solution to the problem I mentioned. Suppose we had single-payer – are you implying that we’d also require doctors to do requested procedures? That’s the crux of the matter, for me. There are procedures, such as this one, that don’t treat some disease, and I’m not sure how to compel doctors to do such procedures without it being “you have to do whatever the patient asks for” – which, with single-payer, can mean the treasury paying for piercings, tattoos, body modifications, etc. I proposed to get around that by saying that medicine persay doesn’t have a monopoly on procedures that don’t treat disease, and forming a parallel profession just to do such things. This is entirely separate from the funding question – you can have it or not, with any funding arrangement. So what I’m wondering is how your comment addresses the problem I meant to address.

                • baal

                  Ok, I re-read your posts and mine. I see no reason to limit a for-profit fee for service model for health care. I’ll amend my proposition to a single-payer system that covers the majority (or even all) need based medical care and allow for a secondary for profit market for body mods, experimental health care, elective surgeries etc. I’d like, however, limits on profitability or mandated splits in the two sets of service providers. We don’t want to end up regenerating the system we have now and they two types of services would have some but not total over lap (so it’s not all that wasteful a split). The big goal is to get out the useless (other than providing employment) middle tier of the insurance industry as well as get health care out of corporate control.

                • Puzzled

                  So we have a single-payer model for health care that treats a disease, and an outside system (along with, I assume, the new degree and profession I proposed) for other things. I’m ok with that, although I’d add that preventative care, while it doesn’t treat diseases, should be put into the single-payer side, with some limitations – and you can get around those limitations by going to the other system (if you’re claiming that your stretched earlobes are preventative, the system needs a way to say that they aren’t, without prohibiting you from getting them.) I would certainly favor that proposal over our current system, and over the ACA. I agree with your description of the insurance companies (in our current system) and with the need to get rid of corporate control – except that I want everything out of corporate control by eliminating corpore personhood. I can’t say it’s exactly what I want, but I’d like it better than what we’ve got.

                • baal

                  The founding fathers had an interesting view on corporations. They largely hated them as much as the king and viewed them as an authoritarian bastion with too much control over the lives of the workers. Absent the current SCOTUS, there was never a question that corps are not persons in a bill of rights sense and the legal fiction of personhood was for business contracts only.

                • Albert

                  enuma, you are a prime example why I brought this point up.

                  The reason I’m suggesting this is what women and men should be fighting for rather than resorting to abortions after the fact. That is not preventative medicine, that is reactionary.

                  These types of procedures would give you more control over your own body, right? Then shouldn’t this be what women are fighting for?

                  The fact is, the doctor’s liability would go down drastically if the control is given to the individual.

                  You, being able to do this procedure would give yourself the ability to rest a bit easier about not getting pregnant.

                • enuma

                  1. What makes you think we aren’t? This isn’t an either/ or situation, and the people who fight for abortion right do far more to increase access to contraception than your side of the debate.

                  2. No contraception is perfection. Abortion will abortion will abortion will always be needed.

                  3. Why don’t YOU do something fix this problem, you sanctimonious, woman-hating piece of shit?

                • enuma

                  4. I think you’re lying when you say I’m a prime example of why you brought this point up. I think the real reason was so you could slut-shame women for making choices you don’t like, because you can’t stand the fact that you don’t get to make those choices for them.

                  But Jesus fuck it would be nice if you assholes weren’t constantly trying to pass new TRAP laws or defunding Planned Parenthood while simultaneously chiding us for not doing enough to increase use of contraceptives. It’s like getting screamed at for not bailing out the boat fast enough by a guy who’s running around drilling new holes in the hull.

            • Nerdinity

              Nor is all sex consensual. Try again.

              • Albert

                Are you referring to rape? I’m not clear on your statement.

                • Nerdinity

                  No shit I am. Are you actually this stupid?

                  Additionally, birth control sabotage is actually a huge issue in abusive relationships. A woman may consent to protected sex, but if her partner sabotages her birth control, that’s also non-consensual sex.

                • Olive Markus

                  Thank you. I’d also like to add that many women in abusive relationships don’t always connect the dots that what they are enduring is rape and abuse. A lot of consent can happen in abusive relationships, but the consent comes from a place of fear and trying to avoid having the shit beat out of you. Being forced to give birth to an abuser’s baby in these situations is grotesque.

                • Albert

                  So you confirmed you were meaning rape.

                  I agree, not all sex is consensual. What’s your point?

                  ” A woman may consent to protected sex, but if her partner sabotages her birth control, that’s also non-consensual sex.”

                  And? Again, What’s your point?

                • hidden101

                  Stop trolling. You know what the point is. You just don’t want to admit that you want women that are impregnated from a rape to have the baby when most people would agree it takes a sick mind to force that on a traumatized woman.

                • Albert

                  I’m not trolling.

                  I have actually indicated that if we make all abortions from consensual sex as illegal, I would make the concession for women who became pregnant brought about from rape to be given the choice if they want to abort or not.
                  Not because the child in this situation is less valuable, but because the sex was not consensual so the woman’s concerns were not a part of the action taken.

                  Though personally, I would say that we should not punish the child for the crimes of the father, I do understand the trauma and agree that it is not easy for a woman to deal with this situation.

                • BB

                  So you would punish the mother instead by having her at minimum go through a pregnancy she did not choose that resulted from a sexual encounter she also did not choose and possibly having to raise the child and be constantly reminded of the violence that was done to her?

                • Albert

                  You said, “… from a sexual encounter she also did not choose…”

                  Are you meaning from rape?I think you might want to read my statement again because it is rather simply spelled out there.

                  Consensual sex is different than rape.
                  In rape cases, I said I would give the concession to be given the choice if they want to abort or not.
                  But in the case of consensual sex, there is to not be allowed any abortions as this is a new life created by the actions of the two parties involved. The fact that they didn’t want to get pregnant is irrelevant. They know it’s a possible consequence of that action. So because of that, if they still choose to engage in sexual intercourse they are accepting every and all scenarios from that action.

                • Hanna Wenk

                  And that’s the reason that you and your group can’t be taken seriously. Too bad you can’t penetrate through the fog you create with your word salad to have it fed back to you in such a way that you can experience the full measure of embarrassment your contribution deserves. A bit of self-consciousness in your case would do you a lot of good.

                • Albert

                  You said, “And that’s the reason that you and your group can’t be taken seriously.”

                  What’s the reason?

                  “Too bad you can’t penetrate through the fog you create with your word salad to have it fed back to you in such a way that you can experience the full measure of embarrassment your contribution deserves.”

                  What do you mean by that?

                • Hanna Wenk

                  Not gonna even start with your ridiculous games. Here’s where critical thinking and self-consciousness would help you. But you have none of that.

                • Albert

                  How is asking for clarification of your statements a game?

                  You claim there is no critical thinking going on and yet that is exactly what I’m doing when I ask you to clarify your comments. I am attempting to understand what you are saying without making assumptions.

                  You say stuff like, “And that’s the reason…” and yet you don’t post what the reason is. This makes no sense. I could assume a lot by reading above it, but then I’m just making assumptions, right? Instead, I’m asking you to clarify so that I understand what you are saying.

                  You want me to take you seriously and when I do, by wanting to understand what you are meaning, you dismiss me.

                  You say things like ” self-consciousness would help you”

                  And yet, I’m very self aware.

                  Your assertion that I’m not is based on what?

                • Albert

                  “ridiculous games”
                  What games? Is asking questions for you to clarify your points a game? Seems to me that isn’t a game but rather asking you to back up your belief’s.

                  You say things like “And that’s the reason…” but never explain what that means. What reason?

                  You mention “fog”, and yet when pressed for clarity in your comments you dismiss and wobble. Seems you are causing the fog, not me.

                  I have a clear stance on this issue and it is stated many times over on this page.
                  Your view, on the other hand, is currently non existent; or should I say a bit foggy.

            • Michael Harrison

              If you make laws without considering human nature, you might as well endorse communism.

              • Albert

                Are you meaning that if it is human nature it’s okay to do and we should make laws that protect our human nature to do what we feel?
                Please clarify your stance for me.

                • Michael Harrison

                  Laws are not made in a vacuum, but in the biological, psychological, sociological, and historical context of the culture that adopts these laws. What I am saying is that people will want to have sex, and that laws which do not take this fact into account are poorly crafted.

                  This is why I made the comparison with communism. It would be wonderful if we could all share the resources so that no one goes wanting. Some would say it borders on criminal that people might be allowed to starve to death. But any laws aiming at feeding the hungry must be written with consideration of the paranoia, neuroses, and distrust of strangers that people exhibit.

                • Albert

                  Michael, Interesting comment. I’m going to have to ponder that one for a while. Thanks for making it.

                • Valde

                  The highest rates of teen pregnancy are in abstinence only states – Texas, MS, Georgia.

                  Clearly, people are going to have sex, whether you religious freaks like it or not.

                  That is REALITY.

            • Beth

              Having sex is part of human nature, denying a woman (or any person) from having consensual sex is denying they a human right. So by saying that a woman is not allowed to have sex because she might become pregnant is ridiculous.
              And then there is the whole rape thing…making a woman have sex then forcing her to go through the birth…yuck.
              Trust women to do what is right for them.

              • Albert

                How does making abortion illegal deny a woman from having sex?

                Beth, what would you say if Pro-lifers took the stance that they would allow abortions for rape victims and for ectopic pregnancies, which would cause the woman to die, but make any other situations illegal?

                What this does is then takes away your concern of a woman who got pregnant from non-consensual sex as well as taking into consideration the health and life of the woman who could die from the pregnancy, would that be an acceptable compromise?

                • Nerdinity

                  Because it’s a form of slut-shaming. It implies that only a “certain” kind of woman deserves an abortion, but if you had consensual sex, you must be punished with a pregnancy. Additionally, how would you prove rape for exceptions? The vast majority of rapes go unreported, and of those that are reported, even fewer go to court, and an even smaller amount result in a conviction.

                • Albert

                  Getting pregnant for having consensual sex is not a punishment, it is a consequence of your actions.

                  If I choose to take my hard earn paycheck and blow it all at the casino, I’m not being punished, I is a consequence of my actions. I can’t walk back to the casino boss and say, I thought I was being safe, I didn’t mean to lose it all, give me back my money so I don’t struggle and can’t afford my bills. I knew the risks going in the door, just like people know the risks when they have sex.And quite honestly, if I didn’t know the risks when I walked into a casino and lost all my money, that is my dumb luck now isn’t it?

                  Why should it be any different for two people that chose to have sex?

                • hidden101

                  So, just to be clear, you are saying that no woman should have sex unless the intended result is pregnancy?

                • Olive Markus

                  Why is the life of a “baby” within a rape victim less sacred than the “baby” within a woman who consented to sex?

                  If you believe in rape exemptions, then you are admitting that you don’t really care about the precious “baby,” you only think that women who’ve consented to sex are dirty whores who deserve to be punished by donating their body for a pregnancy they don’t want. Well done.

                • Albert

                  That is definitely one way to look at it, I’m sure. But it’s not how I see it.

                  The concession is not something I would choose to do if I was the one making the law, but it is means to and end.
                  If abortions, caused by rapes and medical issues, are around 1-2% of the total abortions done, then what this does is help to save as many lives as possible. It eliminates those arguments from the playing field and then we just have to deal with those abortions that come from consensual sex.

                  And again, a pregnancy is not a punishment that people are forcing on a women that has consensual sex. It is a consequence for an action she chose to engage in, knowing the risks involved.

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

                  Shorter Albert: Gotta make sure those whores pay for having sex I disapprove of.

            • baal

              “Isn’t it the woman’s choice to engage in protected or unprotected sex in the first place?”
              In an ideal world, yes. Reality doesn’t work that way, however.

              There are unplanned pregnancies. Worse, there are planned pregnancies that are a terrible idea to bring to term (such as life of the mother or the octo-mom).

              Why should the State step in and create the back ally abortion problem (real suffering) absent a legitimate State interest to do so?

              • Albert

                So this whole thing for you is an economic issue, right?

                Isn’t there economic issues with reducing future workforce for generations?

                • Valde

                  New people should not be created just to exploit them.

                • phantomreader42

                  Albert babbled:

                  Isn’t there economic issues with reducing future workforce for generations?

                  Yeah, because all the problems with the economy now are due to there being too many jobs and too few workers…</sarcasm>
                  What color is the sky on your planet, Albert?

                • Albert

                  If what you said is sarcasm, I miss your point.

                  Are you suggesting that you see abortion as euthanasia?

            • Carpinions

              Albert, you’re a troll. All you do is ask questions to clarify clarifications of points that have been clarified. You never understand anything, you don’t offer counter-arguments; you are just here playing poor man’s Socrates. At this point you’re worse than an anti-choicer in this forum because at least they would be providing a response rather than playing verbal keep-away.

              Abortion is one of the biggest flashpoint political issues in modern American history. We’re not all going to just sit here and accept that you know how to use the Internet, but know nothing about this issue or how to research it. If you are being 100% honest in your lack of knowledge, you sure are struggling to find ways to come off as dishonest and evasive.

              • Albert

                Well Carpinions, My lack of knowledge is not based on the data or information that is out there in the internet world, but the data and information that is coming from the people making the statements.

                You see, it’s one thing to make a claim. It’s another for me to assume that they person making the claim understand the data as I do. So instead of assuming we are discussing the same data, I ask the person making the claim to provide the information and data they used to come to their conclusions.

                Take for instance someone saying, “You are intolerant!”
                In one sense, they might mean that I’m to closed minded and will not accept other peoples point of views, when that is what they are wanting me to do; to be open minded and accept their view as true.
                But, if we look up the definition of tolerant we find that it means “Showing willingness to allow the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with.”
                Which doesn’t mean I accept their view, but allow them to hold it.
                Once I ask them what they mean by tolerant, I can understand what they mean, not what I believe they mean.

                So instead of assuming I know what the person means, I asked questions to get a better understanding of what they are meaning.

                Does that make sense?”

                If this makes me sound dishonest and evasive, then that is more your perception of what I’m doing instead of what I’m actually doing.
                Which is exactly the reason I ask the questions I do; to better understand instead of assuming I already know.

            • hidden101

              So you are saying women should not be allow to have sex unless they intend to have a baby?

              If you are saying protected sex is ok, then you must remember that there is not a contraceptive on the planet that is 100% effective.

              How do you feel in cases of rape? If you had a daughter and she was raped, would you want to force her to bring the child to term?

              It kind of sounds like you are saying women should only have sex if they intent to get pregnant. That is controlling a woman’s sexuality and it is immoral within a free society, PERIOD.

              • Albert

                When did I say women should not have sex unless the intend to have a baby?

                No, I am saying that if they are going to be in control of their bodies, like everybody says they want to be, then they should be allowed, if they want to, to get a tubal. And men, likewise, should be allowed to get a vasectomy.

                What I’m saying is that everyone knows that one of the risks of sexual intercourse is the woman could possibly get pregnant. So because of that, they should take every precaution they have available to them to prevent an unwanted pregnancy if that is what their goal is. then, if they do get pregnant, regardless of what they did to prevent it, they birth that baby as a consequence of their actions. There is no reason to abortion a child if the people having consensual sex understand the risks.

                I do have a daughter, and I actually would hope that she would go through with the pregnancy for the fact that she is carrying a human life that shouldn’t be punished for the crimes of the father.

                But, I know that is not always an easy thing to do or to cope with so I make this concession for rape and medical life/death issues:
                In the case of rape and even in health issues, I would say we go ahead and make a concession only because the sex was either not consensual.
                And in the case of an ectopic pregnancy the likelihood that the child would survive if the mother died is almost nil, we would abort the child to save the mother. Not because one is more valuable than the other, but because the goal is to save as many lives as possible. Does that make sense?

                • Obazervazi

                  Problem is, pro-life groups consistently oppose contraception, so if you support them…

                • Albert

                  You are correct. But that doesn’t mean that every person that takes a Pro-life stance takes the same stance on contraception.
                  To say they all do, is making a generalization.

                • Obazervazi

                  So, what, you intend to switch sides and oppose the pro-life majority’s anti-conception agenda once abortion is illegal? Seems like it’d be to late by then.

                • Japooh

                  Let’s start here – everyone DOESN’T know the risks, thanks to the watering down of comprehensive sex ed with AO “education” programs. Nothing you say after that is even relevant since you start with an incorrect assumption.

            • wombat

              And you’re wondering why people say that the rhetoric you use is about punishing women? ‘If women don’t want to be pregnant they shouldn’t have sex’ = pregnancy is a punishment for having sex.

              • EvolutionKills

                That’s kind of what I was getting at. He’s clearly more interested in punishing women than he is in lowering the rate of abortion. It strikes me as a bit sadomasochistic.

                • wombat

                  He’ll keep framing is as ‘consequences’ rather than ‘punishment’. Did your parents ever do that? The ‘consequences’ were exactly the same as the old ‘punishment’ (more chores, no dinner, a spanking, whatever) but the term was more politically correct. Or something.

                • EvolutionKills

                  It’s still born of an inordinate focus on punishment, rather than rehabilitation or actual results. It’s ironic that the best way to prevent abortions is to adopt the policies of the Pro-Choice side. We have the statistics and the evidence, the Pro-Choice agenda will lower the rate of abortions. But they’re not really concerned with lowering abortion rates, they’d rather usurp the role of their own god and judge other’s actions in his place. Their primary drive is not saving life, but punishing ‘deviant’ or ‘promiscuous’ woman. Because heaven forbid a woman gets an orgasm outside of making a baby. It’s hypocritical and sick in the head.

                • wombat

                  Reason? Evidence? Statistics? What is this madness you speak? We’ve got the Good Book, we’ve got God on our side, and if God is for us, who can be against us?

                  *puke*

                • EvolutionKills

                  *passes Wombat a clean towel, empty bucket, and a glass of water*

                • Valde

                  Morality trumps reality.

                  /snark

                • EvolutionKills

                  Perceived morality, built around a selective interpretation of a 2000+ year old man made fairy tale, itself a selectively edited and translated collection of hearsay upon hearsay by non-eyewitnesses.

                  Yeah, that sounds legitimate.

                • Valde

                  Totes!

                • Em

                  Shouldn’t morality be based in reality?

                • Valde

                  You’d think!

                • Valde

                  I actually had a pro-lifer argue that ‘consequences’ was not at all meant in a negative way. No no no no. For example, ‘consequences’ can be a ‘happy’ thing!

                • Ella Warnock

                  Why, it’s almost as if they’re perfectly aware that a baby isn’t always an unalloyed joy . . .

              • Albert

                When did I say that a women should not have sex if she doesn’t want to get pregnant?

                My argument has been that we need to open up the option for her to have her tubes tied, or for the guy to have a vasectomy so that they are better protected from having an unwanted pregnancy.

                If they choose to take the risk to have sex, they also take on the responsibility that goes with that action. Have all the sex you want, but also be held to be responsible for the consequences.

                And pregnancy is not a punishment for having sex, it is a consequence of having sex.

                Saying it is a punishment is like me saying that when I took my hard earn paycheck to the casino and blew all my money I was being punished. No, sorry, that doesn’t work because I understood the risks of gambling and those that engage in sex understand that they might be pregnant.

                It would be interesting if I lost all my money at the casino and trying to use your argument that it’s a punishment. I wonder if the casino would say, “You’re right. Here is all your money back.” Please continue life as it was before you engaged in that action of gambling.

            • Valde

              You’re right, men have no role in unwanted pregnancy.

            • Em

              Sex is natural and people have it regardless of the consequences because the need for it is part of our DNA.

              Prolifers work hard to make contraception unknown and unavailable.

              • Albert

                Em, you said, “Sex is natural and people have it regardless of the consequences because the need for it is part of our DNA.”

                And? What’s your point?

                You said, “Prolifers work hard to make contraception unknown and unavailable.”

                Again, this is a generalization. Not ALL pro-lifers work hard to make this unavailable. Plus even if it was all Pro-lifers, what is your point?

                • tsara

                  The point is that pro-lifers’ (in general, if you insist) actions to reduce abortion fail to take reality into account, and so to people who do take reality into account, their actions seem to have the goal of getting those who are capable of getting pregnant out of the public sphere and back to barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. And their actions seem to have that goal because their actions, if they succeed, will have that effect.
                  And that’s just nightmarish.

            • Japooh

              Visit http://www.guttmacher.org and learn a little about the realities of who gets abortions and why. Go ahead, a mind is a terrible thing to waste and you will benefit from some factual information.

              Once you are basing your posts on facts, you might be able to have an actual discussion about things you appear to not understand yet. For instance, do you realize that from 1945 forward, 90% of women have had pre-marital sex – that would indicate that there are men having sex with them – so come to terms with reality. People have sex, always have and always will. Not just women, men participate as well – we have a different word for solo sex. You seem to fall into the slut-shaming camp with your focus on women’s sexual behavior.

              Screw being polite: grow up and learn to mind your own business about sex you are not directly involved in Albert – if your genitals are not participating, your opinions have nothing to do with it. Educate yourself.

        • Miss_Beara

          That is the most ridiculous thing I have heard today.

          Congrats.

          • Albert

            Ridiculous in what way? I’m not sure what you mean.

            • ShoeUnited

              Ridiculous.

              Noun: Something that deserves ridicule.

              Ridicule.

              Noun: The act of mocking. Derision. Mockery.

              Mockery.

              Noun: The act of making fun of something.

              Something.

              Noun: Do you not speak English? Is http://translate.google.com broken? Is http://www.merriam-webster.com/ broken?

              Don’t play stupid for stupid fucking mind games. Otherwise you’ll just end up looking stupid. Stupid.

              • Albert

                Thank you so much for the definition. I did, however, understand what the word meant.

                What I didn’t understand was how Miss_Beara saw it as ridiculous.

                You see, viaten indicating that all Pro-life people are wanting to do is make women into broodmares requires an explanation on how they come to that conclusion. And for Miss_Beara to say, “That is the most ridiculous thing I have heard today.”, requires a clarification.

                Perhaps since you understand all of this, and think I’m just playing stupid mind games(though I fail to see how that is being done), you could speak for Miss_Beara and explain why it’s ridiculous to ask viaten for evidence to support the claim he made?

        • Japooh

          By reading what they write and listening to what they say. Painful, and often sickening, yes, but necessary.

          What conclusion have you drawn about what pro-life people are wanting to make women?

          • Albert

            Well, I try not to speak for other people so I can tell you what I think, if that is acceptable to you?

            As for me, I don’t try to make women be or do anything that is against their own choices for their own bodies. I wouldn’t want them to do that to me, so I see no reason for me to do that to them.

            That being said, I also do believe that men or women should be absolved of their responsibilities simply because something happened that was not intended, regardless the circumstances.

            I get hit by someone in their car, I expect them to take responsibility to fix for the repair on my car. If they tell me they never intended to hit my car, that doesn’t make a difference. They knew the risks when they got behind the wheel and chose to drive.

            I see sex in the same manor. The fact that you chose to have sex means you are accepting all of the consequences that goes along with that behavior.

            If you can’t accept the possible outcomes, then you don’t get behind the wheel.

            • Japooh

              All fine and good. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we lived in a world were that vision was the reality?

              But we don’t. The biggest difference I can see between your approach and mine is that we see the root of the problem differently. I work on comprehensive sex ed, access to birth control, and with a couple of organizations that help teen mothers. Your approach seems to me to be attacking a symptom rather than solving the actual problem – unwanted pregnancies. Fewer unwanted pregnancies by default leads to fewer abortions.

              Same end result, different approaches. Oh, and also different motivations.

  • viaten

    When I see how much pro-lifers “care” about the baby inside the womb versus outside the womb, it makes me wonder what pro-lifers or anti-abortionists are really pro or anti about. It doesn’t seem to have much to do with the baby itself.

    Do they think it’s big, easy points with God, a good opportunity to look morally superior over others, a step toward women having more (and too much) say about their own lives? Probably all of those and more.

    Abortion is such a decisive irrevocable action compared to child neglect or abuse which can have fuzzy lines, (and is someone else’s problem). There’s nothing fuzzy about the moment of conception and being pregnant. Ideal and very convenient for people who like absolute morality and things to be black and white.

    • Valde

      Yes, I do believe that a large part of it is about feeling morally superior. I was recently banned from LiveActionNews, and two of the posters let me know how much they held me in contempt. For being a vicious murderer, no less. UTTER CONTEMPT.

      • Ella Warnock

        I’d consider being banned by the Live Action crazies a badge of honor.

        • Em

          I have been banned from most prolife sites. All it takes is posting a single statistic. They are not open to facts and reality.

          • Valde

            I posted a photo of a zygote on newsbusters, a libertarian site, and the comment was deleted.

  • onamission5

    I’m be super curious to see the stats on how many of these same people think it’s perfectly fine to deny an existing child healthcare for religious reasons even if it risks that child’s life, and how many of them would adamantly defend parents like the people whose two kids died from pneumonia after getting a treatment of prayer. My suspicion is that they value unborn zygotes and fetuses as “god’s precious miracles” but the second a fetus is born, that infant becomes property, which is pretty backwards if you ask me.

    • GCT

      Libby Anne has a post on that today over on Love, Joy, Feminism. It’s a good read.

      http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2013/08/on-bad-logic-abortion-and-childrens-rights.html

    • Em

      Prolifers consistently vote against help for poor children by voting Republican. They also vote against contraception.

    • Valde

      They use the ‘responsiblity’ argument.

      Basically..if a woman chose to ‘spread her legs’ she must:

      1) take responsiblity by enduring the pregnancy against her will

      2) take even more responsiblity by trying to feed and raise a child she can’t afford (which is one of the reasons she may have wanted an abortion in the first place)

  • Amil Zola

    I’d like to see legitimate pro life groups start calling these idiots on the fringe to task, but it’s not gonna happen. In the mean time please take the time to visit Life Begins at Conception and offer your opinion. Your post wont last long before it’s deleted, but remember these folks are protesting net censorship too.

    • Michael Harrison

      So when does conception happen? According to Merriam-Webster, we have “the process of becoming pregnant involving fertilization or implantation or both.” Now, I remember seeing something on Discovery Health that said fertilization doesn’t happen for one or two days after conception, and yet many anti-abortion groups oppose Plan B, even though according to the fertilization definition, conception may not have even happened yet!

      • http://twitter.com/carelessriver Caterina Maria

        You’re misremembering about fertilization. It must have been implantation that didn’t occur until after conception, because fertilization is specifically what happens when sperm hits egg.

        • Michael Harrison

          Ugh. Used the wrong word. Should have written, “. . . for one or two days after sex.” Looking around, it seems that the main point here is that the time delay is due to sperm still being viable up to three days after the act. Apologies for the confusion.

          • Valde

            The process of fertilization can take up to 4 days. Plan B prevents ovulation – but if a woman has already ovulated, it won’t do a thing.

            • Guest

              I have heard it also prevents implantation of the fertilized egg.

              Edit: And it would appear my information on this point is a few months out of date.

          • Em

            When life begins is of less consequence than when bodily rights end. For prolifers, the rights end at birth, especially if you are female.

    • Anna

      Are there actually legitimate pro-life groups out there? I was under the impression that they were all on the fringe. I think pretty much all of them are in cahoots with the extreme anti-abortion factions, to the extent that none of the major organizations will even take a stand in favor of birth control.

      • amil zola

        I was being generous.

  • viaten

    I’ve heard a few Christians say that abortion is wrong, in addition to the often stated reasons, because it eliminates God’s “intrinsic” punishment for a woman’s promiscuity. She should be forced to at least have the baby and perhaps even raise it. No mention of the father’s responsibility of course.

    • EvolutionKills

      And how many of those Christians support universal healthcare? Or food stamps? Or government assisted housing?

      So many of them seem intent to ‘slut shame for Jesus’, because I guess they aren’t happy with letting God do his own judging. Regardless of the quality of life for the child or the mother (and possibly her other children as well). Nope, they’re more concerned with retribution in the name of their religious belief, than they are with empathy and reducing human suffering.

      “If you’re pre-born, you’re fine, if you’re pre-schooled, you’re fucked.”
      -George Carlin

      • amil zola

        I was banned from that page for posing the same questions.

    • Christopher Borum

      Not his problem, or his fault. Just like in Genesis, it’s presumed he got tricked.

  • Thorn

    One of them says the woman should be forced to wear the little body around her neck for a year. What the actual heck??

    • wombat

      1. That’s fucking weird. And sick.
      2. They have absolutely no idea what the typical abortion looks like.

    • C.L. Honeycutt

      I… guess we could buy those little photo lockets in bulk? They’re big enough to contain most “bodies”.

      Note that the poster you cite believes in treating women like dogs. More specifically, he wants to treat women in a way that we don’t even treat dogs anymore.

      • Valde

        Hehe, I have actually argued with anti-choicers who actively refer to women who have abortions as ‘dogs’.

  • Rationalist1

    I’ve occasionally had discussions online with people who advocate making abortion illegal but when pressed with that question equivocate and talk about going after the doctor or the man who pressures her into an abortion but are extremely reluctant to suggest any penalty against the woman. I never trusted them that they would maintain that position were they ever in a position to make abortion illegal. At least these responders are being honest about their intentions.

  • SeekerLancer

    The real face of, “thou shalt not kill.”

  • dawkwin

    why is the choice of keeping a child treated as if it isn’t a choice at all.
    very hypocritical…
    And why is killing a “fetus” celebrated as the highest level of intelligence when even a hunter is told to be sure that what you are killing is exactly what is in season and that you have a license to hunt for?

    • TurelieTelcontar

      Only pro-life groups treat it as not a choice – because they want to take the choice away. No one is talking about the choice to keep it, because no one is actually trying to take this option away. (Well, there are pro-life people who try to argue woman into birthing, and also talk them into letting someone adopt. But no one is trying to take the option of birthing a child away.

      No one is celebrating killing a fetus. People are glad that they have the option to get an abortion, especially in case it turns out one of the parents dies or loses their job, and the child, once born, would go hungry more often than not. Or it wouldn’t survive the first few breaths. Or it would forever tie a rape victim to its rapist, because the rapist was either never convicted – or he lives somewhere that actually gives parental rights to rapists.

      • amil zola

        Groups such as this one are comprised of very young people who know little of life pre rvwade.

        • Nerdinity

          Amil is correct. These are the same people who claim that with modern medicine, a pregnancy can never kill a woman. Few of them have anything more than a high school education, yet they are making medical proclamations. I hope no one takes them seriously, but I do believe they themselves believe their medical “facts.”

    • EvolutionKills

      Both are choices, and I support a woman’s right to make that choice, whether she chooses to abort the pregnancy or carry it to term. That is why I also support comprehensive sex education and easy access to contraception, as they are the best ways to prevent unwanted pregnancies (and thus abortions). I also support the social safety nets to help women raise children, like universal healthcare, government assisted housing, food stamps, and the like.

      If the woman chooses to have an abortion, I support her choice.

      If the woman chooses to carry the pregnancy to term, I support her choice.

      I am pro-choice.

    • Michael Harrison

      Who is celebrating abortion? I have never heard of an abortion party; has anyone else here? GCT: either present evidence that people are celebrating abortion, or else stop misrepresenting reality.

      • C.L. Honeycutt

        The abortion party is right after the Atheist Circle-Jerk recently mentioned. Your confusion is understandable, as the fliers have become strangely illegible.

    • RobMcCune

      Why are christians dishonest liars who make things up.

    • Gus Snarp

      Why are you incapable of even making a comment that makes sense, let alone a coherent argument?

      • RobMcCune

        Well, he’s an Inconsistent Theist, what do you expect?

    • Mario Strada

      Where do you get these ideas? Why would you think that a mother would not consider keeping the baby as the main choice? The reality is that it is your unbending extremism that prevents you from thinking this through. Of course mothers first choice is to keep their babies.

      If there are mothers that can have abortions for sport, as you seem to think I certainly would not want a woman like that to have children. I would think everyone would be better off if they didn’t.

      “And why is killing a “fetus” celebrated as the highest level of intelligence”

      I don’t even know what that means. Who considers abortions as any indicator of “intelligence”. How would that even work?

      Obviously your mental state is very confused. You have built this idea of your opponents as blood thirsty monsters intent on killing babies for the fun of it that has no correlation with reality. You are also ill equipped to express your own thoughts, so maybe you want to try to put them in order before you blurt them out in a public forum.

      The people you are arguing with do not exist. The people you directed your brain fart are a lot more nuanced that you give them credit for.

      For instance, I am in principal anti- abortion as well as pro-choice. To me abortion is the very last resort after every other possibility has been exhausted.
      The only way that I would agree to OK an abortion if my wife was involved would be if her health was at issue, or if the health of the fetus.

      As a matter of fact, my wife did have an abortion very early in our marriage and the reason was that she had a greater than acceptable risk to her own health if she continued with her pregnancy.
      We are both still very sad that had to happen because it would have been our first child. A v ery wanted one, but we made the decision that having both my wife and the child dead was not an acceptable outcome. Especially since a future pregnancy would have been much safer if planned ahead.

      See? No monsters. Just life happens. If I were you, I would look at why so many in the anti abortion movement support the death penalty so militantly and why once those fetus become babies you do so little to help them.

      • Valde

        You have built this idea of your opponents as blood thirsty monsters
        intent on killing babies for the fun of it that has no correlation with
        reality

        They have to. Because otherwise, they might have to think of women as actual people, people who can suffer.

        • Em

          Women suffer more with pregnancy and birth than with abortion. Something prolifers never want to address. The PTSD rates are almost 100% with adoption and in the single digits for abortion.

          • Valde

            Yeah, and they trot out the old line ‘pregnancy is not a disease’.

            • C.L. Honeycutt

              If I was feeling snarky (you know, awake), I might respond with, “Appendixes are more natural and less dangerous than fetuses.”

      • Japooh

        Great post, and well stated. Thank you for being so reasonable, and for sharing your personal story.

    • Sally Strange

      why is the choice of keeping a child treated as if it isn’t a choice at all.

      Interestingly, nobody on the pro-choice side is arguing for government-mandated abortions.

      You, on the other hand, are arguing for government-mandated labor and birth.

      We’re pro-choice; you’re anti-choice. That’s the only accurate label.

  • Mitch

    With all the scripture getting thrown around in the comments on the facebook page, I continue to find it deplorable that such ideas are given any consideration.

  • guest

    We need more abortions and more capital punishment. The Earth is already over populated. Unwanted kids are being abused, neglected and starving all over the world. Too many prisoners that are not able to be rehabilitated are serving life sentences on our dime. Kill ‘em all!

    • Mario Strada

      Don’t be silly. Controlling overpopulation with abortions and death penalties is just as bad a line of thought as being 100% anti abortion.

    • baal

      The solution to overpopulation is less inequality; more coconut tree less mustard seed.

      • wombat

        What do you mean by ‘more coconut tree less mustard seed’? I’ve never heard that saying before, and a quick google didn’t give me any clues.

        • Valde

          The Parable of the Mustard Seed is one of the shorter parables of Jesus. It appears in three of the Canonical gospels of the New Testament. The differences between Gospels of Matthew (13:31–32), Mark (4:30–32), and Luke (13:18–19), are minor. In the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, it is immediately followed by the Parable of the Leaven, which shares this parable’s theme of the Kingdom of Heaven growing from small beginnings.

        • baal

          Oh, I don’t think it’s a saying really so much as a difference in the two species of plants life style. Mustard plants make hundred or thousands of tiny seeds. The energy cost of 1 seed is really low so if it doesn’t sprout or gets eaten, the parent plant has lost very little. The coconut is about a big a seed as there is. It’s huge. The coconut tree makes a handful of the seeds and invests heavily in each one. The relative energy cost to the parent coconut tree is very high for the loss of each. Other species show similar differences.

          I’m essentially saying that we should not create lots of human children and babies but resource them poorly (i.e. let many wither or not flourish). Instead, we should have fewer babies and treat each as special. If you’re a sci/fantasy geek, it’s the difference between elves and orcs. Or an example from other mammels, elephants vs mice.

  • Crazy Russian

    “Death! Kill them! ” — cheered pro-life crowd.

  • Mario Strada

    It always amuses me to see “pro life” people dish out the death penalty, or even life in prison, without even the smallest moral qualm.

    It is really true that once their precious fetus is born they either don’t give a shit or can’t wait to put it to death in 20 years or so.

  • The Captain

    Frankly these are the only types of anti-abortionist I think really believe their own shit anymore. If you actually think “babies” are being “murdered” then yes, the woman should go to jail, just like if they hired a hit man to kill their 5 year old. That’s IF you stupidly consider a fetus to be the same as a 5 year old which is what many anti-abortionist claim. The rest of them that scream “murder” but strangely don’t think any punishment for actual “murder” should happen are the ones that need to fess up and stop being drama queens and stop using words like “murder” and “baby”.

    • Miss_Beara

      That’s IF you stupidly consider a fetus to be the same as a 5 year old which is what many anti-abortionist claim.

      This little tidbit reared its ugly head after the school shooting. Anti choicers were saying why would people be upset about the killings of these schoolchildren and they aren’t upset about the “murders of millions of unborn children.” Grotesque. Same with comparing abortion to the holocaust.

  • http://parkandbark.wordpress.com/ Houndentenor

    I’ve asked this question of pro-lifers for years now and only once have I ever gotten an answer (and it was about like this). If abortion is murder and you have or perform an abortion that would make you a murderer. Since it would be premeditated, that would make it first degree murder. the punishment would then depend on the state but it would be life or capital punishment. At least they are being honest about their objectives. there’s a reason why they usually avoid saying this out loud because it’s a political problem if we advocate for executing every woman who has had an abortion. (And straight men take note: that’s a LOT of women. You might want to think about that.)

    • Carpinions

      I’ve noticed that only recently have they begun to actually answer questions like yours, and of course, only recently have they said that women who abort should face the highest levels of punishment as is reserved for murderers. Which means that this is yet another way they have radicalized and are continuing down that path, and another reason why they must be fought ever harder at all levels. Anti-choice zealotry is a key facet of some very oppressive societies in this world, especially all the ones in which it’s summarily awful in terms of legal stature to live as a woman.

  • ShoeUnited

    I’m sorry, but not only have I always felt that “pro-life” was a B.S. term, I concocted in my head a different one.

    See, anti-choice people have started calling pro-choice people “pro-abortion”. As if to denigrate.

    They don’t seem to care about circumstances. They don’t seem to try to understand others. They don’t want to forgive and all they seem to want to do is slut shame. If they are going to call me “pro-abortion” I should have the right to rename them. So, clearly from my text you can already guess what I’m going to call their side:

    pro-rape

    • baal

      I usually think of them as the pro-suffering contingent.

    • Tainda

      Their “pro-abortion” term really pisses me off as well.

      I would NEVER have an abortion unless my life depended on it but that is my CHOICE! I’m not pro-abortion by any means.

    • Sally Strange

      They’re the Forced Birth Brigade. To them, children are not people, they’re punishments.

    • phantomreader42

      I call them fetus-fetishists.

  • Dave

    This article reminded me of the 9 year old who was raped by her stepfather and became pregnant with twins. Her choice is abortion or death. The mother and daughter were excommunicated from the church for a ‘heinous crime’ of abortion. But not the father for child rape. Their logic is flawed to say the least.
    http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1883598,00.html

    • Valde

      Yeah, because pedophilia is a lesser crime than abortion. And the rapist could repent – problem solved.

    • phantomreader42

      Well, it WAS that catholic cult. They really don’t have a history of opposition to the rape of children…

  • dawkwin

    Young Atheists/Old Atheists…survival…guide
    without being saved…you won’t.
    There is only 1 Guide….follow Him.

    • ShoeUnited

      You mean “Go with Him” right? I know a guy named Al Bundy who had trouble remembering it too, so don’t sweat it, here’s a link! :D

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihsfVEFvrxA

    • http://absurdlypointless.blogspot.com/ TBJ

      Which him are we talking ’bout here?

    • C.L. Honeycutt

      Please, do what you want with us, take me as a hostage if you must, but don’t abuse the innocent ellipses anymore! They’ve done nothing to you!

  • Nerdinity

    The page founder/moderator is now saying she doesn’t want any woman to be punished if she has an abortion, should they become illegal. Right. I know a few people linked this post on her page, but were banned for being “trolls.” You think she’d want to know that us evil atheist libruls were paying attention!

    • Em

      To the page creator, Sam, anyone who disagrees with her is a troll. Never mind that Sam has to have 10 different profiles on FB because so many are banned at any given time.

  • Mike

    I find it interesting that they think that both the women and the doctors should go to jail for life. In their “abortion is illegal” scenario why do they think that doctors would be the one’s performing illegal abortion? Maybe they just think that anyone who performs a medical procedure is automatically a doctor.

    • tsara

      From the conversations I’ve had, they think that every abortion is performed by Kermit Gosnell.

    • ShoeUnited

      Maybe they’ll make special jail cells for wire hangers.
      It’s disgusting, but a sad practice that occurred before abortions were made legal. I won’t go into it, but I think you can guess what is involved with a straightened wire hanger.

      • Carpinions

        And the pro-choice crowd points this out often when they protest. That kind of blood in the streets will be the fault of the anti-choice crowd, though, because they will have forced that situation. And the other sick thing about the anti-choice version of the world is, even if we assume every pregnant woman can have their child without live-threatening complications, there will be floods of babies put up for adoption, only a small percentage of which will be adopted. The rest will languish as wards of the state as the GOP continues ad infinitum to defund those programs because they “just cost too damn much”, which feeds juvenile crime, mentally ill people on the streets, etc.

  • Kaylen913

    There’s that quality chrisitan kindness shining through. I wonder what they’ll demand as punishment for women that miscarry?

    • Theodore (Tugs) Njáll McCowan

      That would only carry aggravated assault charges.

    • Valde

      I was utterly disgusted one day when an anti-choicer told a woman that if she were to commit suicide, and the fetus were to die as a result, that she should do life in prison for murder.

      What the fuck is wrong with these people!@?

      • tsara

        I hate that, because pregnant!me would be a significant suicide risk. I’ve been following the Bei Bei Shuai case pretty closely, and it’s all very scary.

        • Albert

          Scary? How do you mean?

      • Albert

        If she committed suicide wouldn’t she herself be dead as well? Did she happen to mean attempt suicide?

        • Valde

          yes

    • Albert

      Abortions are not a natural occurrence. it requires human intervention of a pregnancy that is naturally progressing. Miscarriages are something different.

      Why would they want to punish a woman for something that happens naturally?

  • http://star-www.st-and.ac.uk/~pr33/ Paul Rimmer

    @disqus_AUX3RR06eO:disqus @6c9af538798595a52ffe519e352b847b:disqus @Miss_Beara:disqus @disqus_ymOi9la8Zb:disqus @spuddie:disqus et al.

    Thank you for your many responses, too many now to reply to individually. I’ll be reading through them and refining my views. For most of you who responded to me, thank you for keeping it friendly and for responding so passionately and so much! I got over 100 responses to my initial and followup comments. I cannot reply to them all. So for each of you, if there was one question you felt I failed to address, if you could reply to this message with that one question, I’ll be grateful. It may be I won’t know how to answer your question (although if I do, I’ll respond). In any case, you’ve given me some great things to think about.

    Thanks again!

    Paul

  • Hector

    Hey pro-lifers wanna reduce abortions then stop screwing around with sex-ed and make contraceptives more accessible. But you don’t want that because it make mythological Jesus cry.

    • Albert

      I’m a Christian and I have no problem with people using contraceptives that prevent the sperm from fertilizing the egg. I have even suggested on other comments here that if people are really not wanting to have children, then they should be pressing the issue that they can get either a vasectomy or a tubal ligation. It’s not 100% effective, but that in conjunction with contraceptives they should be as safe as humanly possible of not getting pregnant. Do you agree?

  • amil zola

    The owner of the page is a former teen mom. IIRC her mother had her at 15 and abandoned her to grandparents. Most of the posters on the page are other teen moms struggling but not recognizing that the rest of the pro life movement can give a darn about their poverty or lack of education. Something to think about.

    • Sally Strange

      I don’t understand what the relevance is. Plenty of people have rough childhoods without turning into vindictive woman-haters.

      • amil zola

        They do not realize that the conservative politicians they oft quote don’t care if they have SNAP or WIC to rely on, or that those same politicians want to cut medical benefits to children living in poverty.

        • Sally Strange

          Or, they do, and they’re convinced that destitution could not happen to THEM because they are special, loved by God for doing His good work.

          There are many possible explanations for their horrendous behavior. I am not inclined to puzzle out their motivations. They need to stop.

  • Sally Strange

    I prefer the out-and-out punitive messages. It accurately conveys the impact of banning abortion. Even without the death penalty, banning abortion causes women to die. I find their honest endorsement of misogyny so extreme that the mass death of women is quite acceptable to them, to be far more palatable than the outright lying (or depressing naivete and gullability) of those who claim they want to ban abortion out of concern for women and “babies.”

    • Valde

      They lose when they show their true colours. I am all for it. Let the ugliness shine, for the whole world to see!

    • Albert

      The problem is that the question, “When abortion is made illegal, what do you think the punishment for getting one should be?” needs clarification before it can be answered.

      I can’t answer the question unless I know if the unborn is a human being or not. Did we make abortion illegal because it is the killing of an innocent
      human being, or for some other reason?

      Based on the clarifications makes a difference in how you answer the initial question.

  • Ryan Hite

    Anti-Choice Hypocrites

  • Nancy Shrew

    Pregnant people are either too stupid to know what abortions are (thus vaginal ultrasounds and spiels disguised as “information”) or are vicious murderers knowingly snuffing their babby’s life. Which is it? You can’t have it both ways, shitdicks.

    • EvolutionKills

      Can it survive outside of the woman’s body? No? then it’s not a baby, you ignorant shitdick.

      *Please ignore, I jumped the gun and missed the satire, and made myself look like an ass.*

      • Michael Harrison

        I think Nancy was calling pro-lifers out on a rusty kettle argument. (“I don’t have your kettle! Besides, it doesn’t even work.”)

        • Albert

          Never heard of the rusty kettle argument. What is that?

          • Michael Harrison

            Making an argument that contradicts itself factually. In the example, the person is claiming not to have the kettle, but a different claim reveals knowledge it doesn’t work, which suggests the person is lying about not having it.

      • Nancy Shrew

        I’m unsure if you meant the general “you” or not, but just in case, I’m on your side.

        • EvolutionKills

          Sorry, if you were using satire and are actually Pro-Choice and I didn’t manage to catch it. This article has turned into the trenches, and I apologize if I grazed you with some friendly-fire.

          • Nancy Shrew

            No problem. :)

            • EvolutionKills

              Danke

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

        Pretty sure Nancy Shrew was being sarcastic …

      • ceruleanblue777

        Of course it’s not a baby. It’s an early stage human being. It’s known as a fetus.

    • Albert

      Those two options are both incorrect in part.

      Imagine if we defined abortion as something else. Lets say instead of it meaning the of taking unborn life, it involves killing kids on a little league team. The coach goes and pulls a couple of kids over to left field and starts beating them with a bat. All of a sudden, people would be in an uproar. They would be protesting and fighting against abortion because they now have a visual. Abortions would be outlawed in a heartbeat.

      The point of the ultrasounds is not that the women getting abortions are too stupid, but that they have no visual of what really is growing inside of them. Without a visual, it’s easier to continue to abort.

      And women are also not vicious murders. I don’t agree that they are knowingly snuffing their baby’s life, even though that is actually what is happening.
      No, the problem is they don’t understand that it is a baby. The consider it to be something else for some reason that is not based on truth.

      If what science says, that the unborn is a new individual unique human being from conception, then we need to be consistent in how we treat those human beings like we do every other human being.

      • Nancy Shrew

        No.

        • Albert

          No, what?

  • Ian Glazko

    “Let them suffer like they did their kid!”
    Are you kidding me? The point of abortion is often to PREVENT the kid from suffering!

    • Valde

      They see non-existence as suffering. The fact that an embryo didn’t get to be born = torture.

      • Ella Warnock

        An “abolitionist” on FB was bemoaning the unknown status of a fetus that was due to be aborted. He didn’t know if said fetus had “gone to be with Jesus” that morning. If it’s with Jesus now, then what’s the actual problem?

        • Valde

          I listen to the Reasonable Doubts podcast over on FB and they have a series where they pick out many of the logical inconsistencies in the bible. And one of them is, if you are to take the bible literally – parents would be doing the BEST for their children if they were to kill them right after birth – before they can sin – that way they are guaranteed a trip to heaven.

          • Ella Warnock

            There are christians who claim that the starvation of all the little heathen (brown) babies is actually a good thing because they die before they have a chance to believe in fill-in-the-blank-wrong-thing. Pro-life, my warty white ass.

  • Valde

    Whenever I inform various pro-lifers of this, they tell me that it’s only the minority that are so bloodthirsty, that they aren’t actually s1ut-shamers etc etc.

    • Ella Warnock

      Yeah, they only pray quietly outside clinics, and everyone around them is also only praying quietly. Not a one of them has ever known anyone who bullies or yells, yada yada yada . . .

      • Valde

        One particular secular pro-lifer on another blog is demanding that I ‘prove’ that s1ut-shaming even exists. He asks this idiotic question:

        “OK, but this still does not answer my question–if they truly supported punished women for having non-procreative sex, then why don’t they support punishing all women who have non-procreative sex in some way, regardless of whether or not these women got pregnant?”

        “But if punishing women for having sex is the real motive for some people to push for anti-abortion laws, then why don’t these people support punishing all women in some way for having sex? If one genuinely had this position, then one would support punishing all women for having sex, regardless of whether or not they got pregnant. So far, I have not heard any anti-abortion person either privately or publicly arguing in favour of punishing all women for having sex.”

        • Ella Warnock

          Many of them ARE trying to punish women by supporting limitation or outright banning of contraception. Who does he think he’s fooling?

          • EvolutionKills

            Himself apparently.

          • Valde

            He’s an asshole MRA. He also came out with this shit:

            “The secular anti-abortion argument that I find the most appealing is that we give human infants legal personhood despite the fact that we do
            not give legal personhood to non-human animals with greater or equal intelligence to human infants. Thus, in order to be more consent, we should either give embryos and fetuses legal personhood (since the
            infants’ future abilities argument also applies to embryos and fetuses) or we should deny legal personhood to infants. Personally, I find the first position more appealing, which is why I lean politically
            anti-abortion.”

            And he thinks he can get around the s1ut shaming rape exception:

            “Actually, the fetus’s right to life would be superior to the woman’s right to bodily autonomy in cases of consensual sex, but not in cases of rape. This would be similar to how the child’s right to financial support would be superior to his father’s right to his income in cases
            where his father had consensual sex but not in cases where his father was the victim of rape (and Yes, males can get raped as well). Fetuses created through consensual sex and through rape both have equal
            value. However, due to the differences in the women’s responsibilities for the creation of these fetuses in the cases of consensual sex and rape, fetuses created through rape are not able to exercise the right to
            life that they should have at the expense of the woman’s right to bodily autonomy.”

            “Some pro-lifers think that it is morally justifiable for the fetus to exercise the right to life/not to be killed which they think it/he/she should have at the expense of the woman’s right to bodily autonomy in cases of consensual sex (which can be a loveless one-night stand–it
            does not have to be a happy marriage) but not think that it is morally justifiable for the fetus to exercise this right at the expense of the woman’s rights in cases of rape (since the woman was not responsible for the creation of the fetus in cases where she was raped). This is
            similar to supporting forcing males who had legally consensual sex to pay child support but not forcing male victims of rape to do the same. Thus, one can be morally consistent and still support a rape exception
            for abortion.”

            ———-

            I am pasting this here because I feel compelled to share the stupidity. I couldn’t even adequately answer him because it’s so fucking absurd. The mental gymnastics required to come up with this bullshit…

            Basically, he appears to be saying that all fetii do in fact have equal value, but if the woman ‘put it there’ the fetus suddenly has less moral value because it is ‘unlucky’ due to being created by rape. Boggle!

            • Ella Warnock

              He’s essentially full of shit. And I mean that in the nicest possible way.

      • Em

        I know many prolifers; few are ‘kind and gentle’. Most are aggressive and feel that any action is justified if they get to put their point across.

    • C.L. Honeycutt

      Everyone’s the rational centrist hero in their own minds, after all.

  • Itsrealfunnythat

    I think the theists would be surprised to learn how many of their own women have had abortions secretly.

    • Nerdinity

      Hey, they can still have their abortion, they just need to repent and feel back about it afterwards, claim they were tricked, etc. Then they’ll be embraced back into the fold. Win-win!

      • Olive Markus

        Exactly. No matter who is having the abortion, it is, without exception, the “rabid atheist” who is responsible for it.

        • Nerdinity

          The ebil abortion industry TRICKS WOMEN. The abortion provider is in it for the MONEY (because abortions are super lucrative…?)! Honestly, they see women as either stupid or malicious, and I’m not sure which is worse.

          • Olive Markus

            I have to wonder how much money abortion really makes for anybody. If Planned Parenthood is the number one provider, and they see people based on a sliding scale payment AND nearly half of all women seeking abortions live below the poverty line… seriously? Unless abortions don’t work on sliding scale, which is possible. I’m not sure. Either way, nothing lucrative about it.

            • Nerdinity

              PP doesn’t do abortions on a sliding scale, unfortunately, it’s just not financially feasible. Anyway, actually carrying to term and giving birth is a much bigger paycheck for medical personnel. Think about it, a $500 abortion v. a $10,000 gestation and delivery (without complications).

  • compl3x

    I’m so pro-life I’ll kill people to prove it!

    • Nerdinity

      Many of them justify their desire to kill by saying “I’m pro-INNOCENT LIFE!” Because their morality is what determines innocence.

  • Dave The Sandman

    “I
    just want to remind everyone this is my page. I am going to keep
    pro-abort/pro-choice crap off here. This is 100% no exceptions pro-life
    page. If you are not 100% pro-life this page is not for you. This page
    isn’t a debate page whether abortion is right or wrong, because here
    abortion is always wrong. Thanks”

    Because allowing people to post opposing opinions makes baby Jeebus cry……

    • Nerdinity

      I have been following LBAC for months, and this is par for the course. She occasionally says she welcomes polite debate, but in actuality, doesn’t. Doing anything but agreeing will get you the ban hammer.

  • James

    As a Christian, I actually agree with you on this particular issue. My guess is that we may disagree on abortion generally. I happen to believe it is wrong, and I think it puts us on a dangerous “slippery slope.” For example, there are many on the extreme fringes of the left who argue that, not only should abortion be legal, but that I should have a right to “abort” my child up to and until the point at which they become a “productive member of society.” When asked to define this term, they will tell you that I should have this right until the child is 3-4 years old, and longer if he is severely handicapped. I recognize that these are the fringes, but so, too, were the people who argued for late-term abortions three decades ago.

    Anyway, that is not the reason I am posting. My point of agreement is in the inconsistency on display among many who share my belief in opposition to abortion. It is inconsistent, and Biblically incompatible to claim to be pro-life with regard to an unborn baby, and then be so callous with regard to the person who killed him. Should that person be punished? Perhaps. If it were illegal, and you chose to break the law, then I suppose the government would have to decide what the punishment should be. But the proper Christian response, as with any sin, is forgiveness.

    • MineApostasy

      Glad to see you disagree with the inconsistency — it’s always nice to see those from another point of view agree regarding hypocrisy — but as a member of the “extreme fringe” of the left I’d like to see sources regarding your assertion that we say abortion should be legal until three or four years old.

  • Kristi

    Pro Life indeed. My ass. Let’s kill the people who have abortions because we are pro-life all the way!

  • Jonathan

    I agree that abortion is effectively murder in the first degree and the penalty, if we were fortunate enough to have it illegal, would be the same as murder 1. So the women who obtains an abortion – conviction with special circumstances..death penalty. Doctor who performs it is guilty of accessory to murder (same as an assassin hired to kill for money)…death penalty. It’s horrifying that women, who have the unique ability to bring forth life would wantonly murder their own defenseless children and just as horrifying are the doctors whose first duty is to ‘first do no harm’ would go from preserving life..healing..to ending life and doing great harm. At least one of the humans who enters an abortion clinic never leaves alive. This isn’t about keeping women down or making them chatel but when any society devalues the humanity of anyone then it’s easy to justify murdering them..just as the Nazi who murdered 6 million of them by declaring them sub-human. The abortion industry (which profits greatly from the act) has outperformed the Nazi, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot combined beyond their wildest dreams. Life of anyone, even the unborn, cannot be taken without due process and a society that allows abortion is unworthy of survival and deserves to go extinct.

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

      How do you feel about women who will die from heart failure, infection, hemorrhage, diabetes, high blood pressure leading to stroke, auto-immune disorders, and depression if forced to remain pregnant? Can the baby be charged with Murder I for killing its mother and put to death? How about the doctors who sat by and watched a person die because they wouldn’t give her an abortion?

      What do you think the penalty should be for someone who kidnaps someone, cuts them open, and surgically removes a liver lobe against their will? It’s to save a life, after all, so obviously any sort of bodily autonomy concerns must be discarded immediately. I assume you don’t see such activity as a crime at all.

    • Amber

      What about the man who gets her pregnant and accompanies her to the abortion? Should he get the death penalty for being an accomplice?

    • Carmelita Spats

      Fuck you. A NINE YEAR OLD rape victim should NEVER be legally obligated to carry to term her attacker’s semen demon. This third grader was raped in Brazil and was allowed to obtain a LEGAL abortion even if the usual parade of perverted Eucharist munchers tried to force her vagina into a livestock version of compulsory breeding. Anyone who believes that a NINE YEAR OLD should squat and squirt her attacker’s crotch droppings needs to have a grappling hook shoved right smack up his nether parts with NO Astroglide. If you want to hoard and protect fertilized eggs, you would also have to PROHIBIT the use of chemical contraception such as the IUD and the pill since they can cause miscarriages which in your fertility fetish would be akin to CHILD ENDANGERMENT. I have used the IUD for ten years and I have NO IDEA how many “potential people” have been “starved” or flushed down the toilet or ended up on a menstrual pad. If you would like a collection of my used tampons so that you can cry over the genocidal loss, feel free to contact me. Hell, I’m just plumb puckered out from all the fake crying I do in public over miscarriages. If you want to “save babies”, please feel free to offer up your wife’s/girlfriend’s/daughter’s vagina to a wild and wacky “Snowflake Baby” adoption where they will use IVF treatments to impregnate them with the fertilized eggs that are stockpiled at clinics.

      The Pill Kills:
      http://thepillkills.org/

      Al Mohler is against chemical contraception:
      http://www.albertmohler.com/2011/11/17/were-all-harry-blackmun-now-the-lessons-of-mississippi/

      Adopt a Snowflake Baby:
      http://www.nightlight.org/snowflakes-embryo-donation-adoption/
      Georgia Republican wants Death Penalty for MISCARRIAGES…A freak, just like you:
      http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/02/26/949116/-Georgia-Republican-wants-death-penalty-for-miscarriages

  • Mikenna MacLachlan

    I’ve got a couple to add to your list.
    http://imgur.com/pncqAux
    Where a man says that he WOULD force a woman to remain pregnant and give birth against her will, even knowing she would die.

    http://imgur.com/8XYT7eu

    Where the same guy says that rape is irrelevant and shouldn’t come into the abortion debate.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X