No 5k for the biggest killer — so does anyone really believe it’s a killer?

October is a busy time of year for those who hit the streets for charity.

This month, in my area, there’s a 5k for multiple myeloma, a walk for breast cancer, a 5k AIDS run, a 5k for Lupus, a 5k for juvenile diabetes, a 5k for carcinoid, two separate 5ks for kids with cancer, a 10k for multiple sclerosis, a 5k for ALS and a 5k for children with physical disabilities.

Name a disease and there’s a charitable research foundation committed to finding a cure, and for just about every such foundation there’s a corresponding 5k race or walkathon, lemonade stand, bake sale, golf tournament, banquet, concert, gala or festival to raise funds.

But for the biggest killer of them all, there’s nothing.

No 5k or 10k. No walkathon. No foundation promoting research. No research.

The deadly scourge that claims half of all human lives ever conceived is completely ignored.

Here’s Jonathan Dudley discussing this killer in his book Broken Words:

Due to hormone imbalances, genetic anomalies, and a number of unknown factors, between 50 percent and 75 percent of embryos fail to implant in the uterus and are passed with the monthly menstrual flow. If we agree with pro-life advocates that every embryo is as morally valuable as an adult human, this means that more than half of humans immediately die. This fact provides pro-life advocates with an opportunity to follow through on their convictions. Surely, a moral response to a pandemic of this magnitude would be to rally the scientific community to devote the vast majority of its efforts to better understanding why this happens and trying to stop it. Yet the same pro-life leaders who declare that every embryo is morally equivalent to a fully developed child have done nothing to advocate such research. … Even if medicine could save only 10 percent of these embryos — and we don’t know because no one has cared enough to ask — it would be saving more lives than curing HIV, diabetes, and malaria combined. One could say that this massive loss of human life is natural, and therefore, humans are under no obligation to end it. But it is not clear why the same argument could not be used to justify complacency in the face of AIDS, cancer, heart disease, and other natural causes of human death.

For anyone who genuinely believes the pro-life argument that “every embryo is morally equivalent to a fully developed child,” the sort of research Dudley describes ought to be an inescapable obligation.

And yet there are no charitable events to support the foundations funding such research. No such foundations exist to be supported. No such research exists to be funded.

That suggests one of two things. Either these pro-life advocates are complacent monsters every bit as callously unconcerned with saving unborn babies as those they oppose. Or else, just like those they oppose, these folks do not really believe that “every embryo is morally equivalent to a fully developed child.”

Perhaps there is some third explanation. There must be, right?

I mean there are millions of Americans who insist that every embryo, from the “moment” of conception, is a human person — the full moral equivalent of any other human person. That belief, more than any other, shapes our national politics, frames our national elections, and determines our national government. Because of that belief, millions of Americans will vote for Mitt Romney, regarding it as unthinkable to do otherwise.

Millions of votes will be cast based on this belief. Tens of millions of votes have been cast based on this belief. But there has not been even a glimmer of a notion of a thought in the direction of the sort of human-life-saving research that Dudley describes above.

Why not?

  • MaryKaye

    At least TWO things go into supporting a charity:  (1) do I think that what they’re trying to accomplish is good? (2) do I think my money can help them accomplish it?

    Anti-miscarriage research founders, in my opinion, on (2), no matter what you may feel about (1).  A very substantial proportion of those pregnancies miscarry before the woman has any way to know she’s pregnant, meaning that the target population would have to be “all women of childbearing age.”  This is going to lead to crappy cost/benefit ratios.  Also, a very substantial proportion of those pregnancies involve gross chromosome-count abnormalities.  We have no hint that we can save such fetuses.  Triploid babies are occasionally born alive, for example, but they don’t ever thrive or develop, they always die before they’re a year old, and we have no clue what to do about it–there are gross abnormalities in almost every bodily system.  The same is true for all the missing-chromosome syndromes except Turner’s, and all the extra-chromosome syndromes except Downs’ and Klinefelter’s.

    I would find it not at all inconsistent for a person to say “I value the lives of the unborn but I think that anti-miscarriage research will not pay off and is not worth investing in as a result.”  I personally say “I value the lives of babies but I won’t support research to save triploid babies” and I find this a logical position to take. It’s not that it would be bad, it’s that I don’t think we *can*.

  • http://outshine-the-sun.blogspot.com/ Andrew G.

    With rare, movie-of-the-week-fodder exceptions, no one removes a feeding tube with the intent to kill the patient. A feeding tube is removed with the intent to allow the patient to die. IOW, for the patient to have the natural outcome of his/her health condition. Not the same thing.

    In Catholic moral logic, what matters is that the death of the patient is the intended result. The official argument is that being fed is not unnatural even if it has to be done via a tube, so they don’t consider feeding tubes as being “extraordinary” measures. (They only allow discontinuing extraordinary measures of life support if it’s clear that the patient will die soon regardless, whereas PVS patients can survive for decades as long as they’re kept fed.)

    The offsetting good is that it ends suffering and in some cases makes organs available that can save the lives of others. Or doesn’t that count as Catholic-style good since both suffering and dying of diseases that requite organ transplants is “natural”?

    The “makes organs available” part actually makes it worse in Catholic logic, since then you’re using the patient’s death as a means to an end.

    The double-effect thing means that it is sometimes permissible in their logic to, for example, administer painkillers to alleviate suffering, without actually intending that the patient die of an overdose; and likewise they don’t make it obligatory to continue extraordinary measures of life support if no good is being achieved and suffering is being prolonged.

    But to Catholics it is never licit to intend death as an escape from suffering; that is suicide (if the patient does it themselves) or euthanasia (if someone else does it), and in official church pronouncements they have written some seriously sick and twisted shit about it.

  • EllieMurasaki

    to Catholics it is never licit to intend death as an escape from suffering

    Which I can sympathize with to a certain degree. Death shouldn’t be the first choice of escape route. Probably not the fifth either. And whenever someone is contemplating or attempting suicide (assisted or otherwise), everyone else needs to assume that not all alternatives have been explored until such time as it is demonstrated that all alternatives have in fact been explored.

    But sometimes there is a point at which all alternatives save ‘live with suffering’ and ‘die’ have been exhausted. If someone in that situation prefers to live, they need to be able to make that choice. If someone in that situation prefers to stop suffering, they need to be able to make that choice too. If there’s no way of knowing the preference of someone in that situation–Terri Schiavo being a prime example–then the choice goes to next of kin to decide based on what the NoK thinks the person would want. Emphasis on choice.

  • sadie

    “…the most charitable motive that comes to mind is the clueless idea that passing a law against it will magically make it go away. At least one pro-lifer has told me that even if that law didn’t accomplish anything, it should still be passed to “stand up for the unborn.” As if criminal statutes were mere proclamations.”
    That, in my opinion, is the absolute heart of what pro-lifers believe. I do not, personally, think they are obsessed with controlling women (too many of them *are* women, and it assumes that they have thought through the consequences of anti-choice law or “personhood” law, which in my experience, most of them haven’t). They just believe that if they don’t “take a stand” against abortion, God will judge them in the afterlife. It’s all about getting off the hook with God and avoiding the judgement God will mete out on an “Godless nation” that allows abortion to take place.

  • sadie

    Which is, now that I think about it, pretty much how they think of preaching the Gospel: you just have to stand on something and shout about it, and as long as it’s been PROCLAIMED, it doesn’t matter if it’s been done well or poorly, or in the spirit of Christ. A billboard is just as good as a friend’s witness, by their math. 

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    The “makes organs available” part actually makes it worse in Catholic logic, since then you’re using the patient’s death as a means to an end.

    It is exactly this kind of tortuous sophistry that so repels me about the Catholic Church these days. Doctrinal statements like that which ignore the fact that in death can
    come life as a medical fact – that sort of thing could only have been
    dreamed up by someone more concerned with logic-chopping involving souls
    than any improvement in material well-being of people who are capable
    of living in more than a technical sense.

    All the bombastic pronouncements and speeches and encyclicals and whatnot blizzarding down fail to obscure a vital, salient, basic fact:

    The Catholic Church does not take anything seriously except preserving and entrenching the power of their hierarchy and the people who inhabit it against anyone who would pierce that power to bring wrongdoers to justice, because clearly, the souls of those who inhabit the hierarchy must be kept cleansed rather than the souls of those who were harmed being healed.

  • Lunch Meat

    I hadn’t thought of it in that way before, but it makes sense to me. One
    of my “friends”* just said the other day, “I do not want to stand
    before God and tell him why I supported someone who is okay with killing
    babies.” No word yet on why she thinks God would rather she support
    people who are okay with materialism, greed, bullying, sexism, etc. When
    I tried pointing the similarities out to her, a long conversation
    ensued with her declaring that “she knew people wouldn’t like what she
    had to say, but she posted it anyway because she had to stand up for the
    truth, even if it isn’t easy or popular and doesn’t feel good. A lot of
    people have been deceived because they were lazy and apathetic in their
    faith and only want to be accountable to themselves and do what is
    right in their eyes, etc, etc.” I’m just a little frustrated with her
    right now.

    *of the facebook variety

  • banancat

    You think they don’t care about controlling women and I think you are being naive. Considering that the Bible doesn’t support their stance on abortion or when life begins, I don’t buy that they’re just concerned about God’s approval of their intentions. Even if they are just misunderstanding their own holy book, at least those at the top are obsessed with controlling women enough to convince others that their misinterpretation is correct. And maybe others are easily convinced because it’s what they already want to believe.

  • Lunch Meat

    Considering that the Bible doesn’t support their stance on abortion or
    when life begins, I don’t buy that they’re just concerned about God’s
    approval of their intentions.

    You may be underestimating the extent to which people in this group are indoctrinated into believing a) that the Bible/God says everything their leaders say it does, and b) that if they ever even consider the possibility of thinking about changing their mind, they will be in danger of hell because they didn’t trust God to know better than they do.

  • Carstonio

    Your description might be accurate for the female pro-lifers. In my experience, the male ones aren’t necessary “obsessed with controlling women” but they are focused on shaming female sexuality. They seem to believe that all women want to be mothers and that the ones who want abortions are in denial, which can be broken only by forcing the women to watch ultrasounds.

  • veejayem

    I once provided maternity cover for a young woman. She and her husband had tried to have children “naturally” but her pregnancies ended in miscarriages, so they tried again with help from “unnatural” IVF treatments. The young woman gave birth to a baby girl, her colleagues rejoiced at the news ~ and the child died a few days later. Tests subsequently carried out on the poor little thing showed a disastrous genetic incompatibility between husband and wife. I think of this young couple whenever I hear the “marriage is for the procreation of children” mantra.

    There has indeed been a lot of research into the causes of miscarriage. But as Fred and other commenters have pointed out, it’s a thorny question for some. God ~ or Nature ~ has made plenty of human beings, He can afford to be careless with them regardless of the heartbreak that may result. Such profligacy might suggest that the unborn aren’t so sacred after all, except of course to parents who lose a wanted child or must decide to abort a seriously damaged foetus.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_2CUJHSQSQYTYT4DPZSKTVESYNQ B

    So the person I dated for several years in grad school was an anti-abortion Catholic (he considered himself pro-life but didn’t actually think abortion should be made illegal in the current social climate).  In general, we respected each other’s beliefs on this topic as two reasonable people who disagreed on when a fetus gains whatever property by virtue of which it’s not OK to kill it.* 

    However, the one time I remember it caused a dispute was when I made exactly the point that Fred is making — a large percentage of fertilized eggs never implant, so shouldn’t people who believe that this property begins at conception be more concerned about it?  He felt like I was suggesting that he wasn’t really being consistent in his beliefs — which I suppose I was.

    I think there are reasonable arguments one could make about not being concerned about failure to implant despite thinking that the no-kill property starts at conception, the main one being that it’s not clear that we can actually realistically do anything about it.

    However, I think it raises a deeper question, which is: If God considers a fertilized egg to have the same worth as an adult human, if God deeply loves and cares for each fertilized egg, then why do we have a system for reproduction that involves the deaths of a large number of these infinitely precious fertilized eggs?

    Not that I don’t think people could come up with arguments for that, too, but I think it poses a problem similar to the problem of evil: the idea that there’s some power in the universe that considers a fertilized egg an infinitely valuable human life doesn’t seem consistent with what we know about human reproductive biology.

    *I’m not very fond of the phrase, “when life begins” since it suggests that the sperm and egg weren’t already alive (which they were) and that it’s always wrong to kill something that’s alive (which no one except maybe raw-food vegans actually believes).  IMO, the question isn’t “when does life begin?” — about 3.8 billion years ago, but that doesn’t really help — it’s “when does the fetus aquire whatever property by virtue of which it’s wrong to kill a human being but not (according to most people) wrong to kill a chicken?”  YMMV.

  • Deborah Moore

    At least one pro-lifer has told me that even if that law didn’t accomplish anything, it should still be passed to “stand up for the unborn.”

    I think this is about right.  As our host is fond of commenting, to many Evangelical Christians (and others, see Jonathan Haidt on this), intent is more important than consequences.  Taking a maximalist stance against evil is important.  Harm mitigation strategies are seen as compromising with evil.  And, as someone above has commented, this is the same logic that opposes HPV vaccination.  And needle exchange programs.  And making contraceptives available to unmarried women.  And . . .

  • EllieMurasaki

    Harm mitigation strategies are seen as compromising with evil. [...] this is the same logic that opposes [...] needle exchange programs.

    So the solution is to make drugs illegal and do nothing to ensure that people shoot up with sterile needles, thus permitting people to die of infections transmitted by dirty needles. Letting people die is evil, surely. So wouldn’t the actual compromise with evil be the one that ends with letting people die?

  • Deborah Moore

    These seems a reasonable viewpoint, but I suspect a lot of the really hardcore pro-life types would disagree.  I am thinking about, say, Rick Santorum and his wife.  They have a trisomy 18 daughter who is almost certainly destined to suffering and untimely death, and they very strongly oppose abortion in such cases, regardless. 

    I would not be surprised if they would donate to an anti-miscarriage fund if it became available, well aware that it would lead to the birth of many triploid babies who would only suffer and die.

  • http://lliira.dreamwidth.org/ Lliira

    It’s because you don’t live in the U.S. It is different here. This post is not talking about you — not one bit. Because you are not lobbying to take away a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion or to use birth control. In America, that means you’re a feminist, far left, etc. Because you respect the fact that women are human beings.

    It is so so different here. I cannot tell you how much I envy women in other countries. Countries where getting an abortion doesn’t mean running a gauntlet of people screaming that you’re a baby killer for not choosing to risk everything to bear a child. Countries where the idea of birth control being made illegal is laughable. Did you know that in many U.S. states, there is only one place to get an abortion in the entire state? 

  • http://lliira.dreamwidth.org/ Lliira

    I do not, personally, think they are obsessed with controlling women (too many of them *are* women

    Women can be awfully obsessed with controlling other women. AWFULLY obsessed.

    The worst rape-cheerleading, victim-blaming stuff regarding women being raped I’ve ever seen has come from other women. Sucking up to the biggest bully in the room is a gender-neutral trait.

  • http://dpolicar.livejournal.com/ Dave

    A different argument one could make, if one wanted to make arguments about this subject, is that because people are valuable interfering with the process whereby people come to exist in the future is lowering the value of that future, which is a bad thing to do.

    Of course, this depends on believing that people are uniquely valuable… that I can’t make the future more valuable while at the same time causing it to have fewer people, for example. I mostly don’t believe that, but I don’t think it’s a ridiculous belief either. I know people who do seem to believe it, and while I don’t agree with them, we can usually find common ground.

    It also depends on believing that the value of people in the future can meaningfully be compared to the value of people in the present. I kinda-sorta believe this… e.g., I mostly endorse being willing to undergo unpleasantness now in order to avoid unpleasantness in the future, like going to work today to earn a paycheck next week… but it’s not straightforward.

    I recognize that this whole way of framing the question is not the way most people think about human development, though.

  • EllieMurasaki

    Of course, this depends on believing that people are uniquely valuable… that I can’t make the future more valuable while at the same time causing it to have fewer people, for example.

    Surely quality of life is a factor. Overpopulation’s much less of a concern if our goal is maximum lives, rather than maximum lives the planet can support at all or with a moderate or high standard of living.

  • reynard61

    “But with attempts to ban abortion, the most charitable motive that comes to mind is the clueless idea that passing a law against it will magically make it go away. At least one pro-lifer has told me that even if that law didn’t accomplish anything, it should still be passed to ‘stand for the unborn.’ As if criminal statutes were mere proclamations.”

    So if someone, say, robbed (or worse) that person, couldn’t the robber (or worse) theoretically argue that he should not be prosecuted on the grounds that the law against robbery (or worse) is merely a “proclamation” meant only to “stand for the robbery (or worse) victim” even if it doesn’t actually stop any robberies (or worse)?

    That so-called “pro-lifer” needs a clue-by-four upside the head in regards to how the Law *actually* works.

  • http://dpolicar.livejournal.com/ Dave

     (nods) Yup, this is one of the reasons I don’t believe it.

    OTOH, I don’t endorse eliminating N% of the human race so that the surviving (1-N)% can have a higher standard of living, either, so it’s moderately clear to me that my own value judgment here is not as simple as “quality trumps quantity,” either.

  • EllieMurasaki

    I don’t endorse eliminating N% of the human race so that the surviving (1-N)% can have a higher standard of living, either

    Nobody does. Everybody who’s alive has the same rights to adequate nourishment and health and shelter and so forth as everyone else. Contraception (and abortion where necessary) to reduce the birth rate, that’s perfectly fine, or should be. But if the goal were to maximize lives, they wouldn’t be.

  • Lunch Meat

    I can imagine a science fiction/dystopian future which is committed to creating as many people as possible, so every woman has all of her eggs removed at puberty so they can each be matched with sperm. The overpopulation problem would be addressed by freezing the embryos and implanting one every time a person dies. Of course, there would be a huge (and increasing) backlog of embryos. I’m not sure where I’m going with this, it’s just a random thought.

  • EllieMurasaki

    I think such a scenario would be desperately looking for more human-habitable planets and more efficient ways of getting people to them. Beyond that I’ve no clue either.

  • EllieMurasaki

    Off-topic but pertinent; quoth MaddowBlog: CNN ran a piecetoday with this headline: “Do hormones drive women’s votes?” Here’s the lede: “While the campaigns eagerly pursue female voters, there’s something that may raise the chances for both presidential candidates that’s totally out of their control: women’s ovulation cycles.” I’m not making this up; CNN actually published this today, on purpose. http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/24/do-hormones-drive-womens-votes/

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    More like maybe women actually can decide for themselves what policies they’d like. Y u do this, CNN?

    women (57/39), men (48/45) [ Obama/Romney ]

    http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/10/obama-wins-debate-by-11-points-in-swing-states.html

    Clearly, Obama has made his case for women that he would better protect their legal rights in the workplace and secure the option for them to get an abortion if they want one.

  • http://dpolicar.livejournal.com/ Dave

    Agreed that if the goal were to maximize lives without consideration for quality, birth control would not be OK. And agreed that it’s extremely rare for anyone to endorse reducing existing lives in order to maximize quality of life for the survivors.

  • Joshua

    I liked your post. I think you are correct, and for myself I agree.

    But, having done this before here, I am not going to get into an argument about it again, and will see the rest of you in the next post.

    I just didn’t want to watch a dog pile and remain silent in a cowardly fashion.

  • http://politicsproseotherthings.blogspot.com/ Nathaniel

    And now of course all my posts on the Catholic blogs about this issue are now forever in moderation. Par for the course for these people. 

  • Carstonio

    I suspect the cause isn’t sucking up but denial. They would rather blame the victims than admit that they themselves could be victims.

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com Ross

     I think this is one of those “stance” things: it doesn’t matter to them that their position has the effect of suffering women and “dying” embryos, nor does it matter that comprehensive sex ed would reduce teen pregnancies or anything like that, because the *consequences* don’t matter. WHat matters is maintaining the proper “stance”. So no teaching kids about contraception, not, as they claim, because it will encourage children to have sex they otherwise wouldn’t (because this is demonstrably untrue), but because, whatever the outcome, it proceeds from a pro-sex *stance*. Sure, it’ll cause girls to get cancer, but denying them the HPV vaccine is the right *stance* about premarital sex.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    With all these “stances” one wonders if they’re just eager to get to their golf games.

  • Wednesday

    @ Worthless Beast
    I definitely wish we had magic baby trees like in Twelve Kingdoms. Or opt-in fertility and Summon Baby spells like Sherwood Smith’s Inda books.

  • EllieMurasaki

    In Rick Riordan’s Percy Jackson books, Athena produces children via purely mental gymnastics with the mortal babydaddy. This, one, would be a hella cool trick if the rest of us could do it, and two, leads me to believe that she can and does make babies where the mortal parent is also female.

  • Worthless Beast

    I didn’t want to get into a big anime-gush. Glad to know someone knows what I’m talking about!  I (had) the first three light novels, too… I leant the first two to my now-ex boss and don’t expect to ever get them back.

    I suppose God or Nature or Whatever didn’t give us baby-trees because early man might not have been interested in using them if sex came for “free.” They’d make sense in our modern world, though. Kids come to those who can take care of them and want them. The only major problems with it are the once in a while loss via shouku-cross-world portal and the occasional kid who comes out half-animal (Rakashun and Taiki are my favorite characters of that series, though…)  What I always wondered about 12 Kingdoms with that, though, is whether or not the baby trees grant the wishes of same-sex couples or of single people desiring a child.  What I’ve read of the books so far has not answered that. 

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com Ross

     It may be important to remember that in among the people like you describe — and  I’d imagine those are the ones who gravitate to the positions of prominence in the forced birth movement — there are quite a lot of people who haven’t really thought about it all that deeply and don’t understand or appreciate the consequences of their positions. You can tell, for instance, when you say “If abortion is murder, what punishment should women getting abortions get?” and it becomes clear that it *never even occurred to them*. (and this is not always explainable in terms of “They don’t think of women as people”).

    I point this out not because it excuses them, but because it speaks to how we interpret and deal with their action

  • Carstonio

     Slate posed that question to readers two years ago. Themes in the answers were that “women don’t know what they’re doing, that they’re all coerced, that they’re just occasional users” of abortion.

    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2010/09/fetal_exception.single.html

  • Shilohbluerabbit

     I’ve been looking at the posts, and came on to give [u]my opinion[/u].  Since I am a strident pro-lifer, I hope to answer your question.  If I am reading Fred’s idea correctly, we strident pro-lifers are callous and do not care when people die.  Any people, whenever.  The difference I see is the difference of intervention.  When a spontaneous abortion happens, it’s the same as if you died suddenly from a stroke or heart attack – no one could know that would happen.  When an abortion happens, another person has intervened in the baby/embryo and the woman’s life.  Should we investigate why spontaneous abortions happen?  Absolutely.  Do I have the money to fund such research?  No, I do not.  So saying that all pro-lifers (strident or not) are callous and do not care when people die is really an idea that does not make sense to me. 

  • EllieMurasaki

    So it’s all right to let a woman die of pregnancy complications, her fetus with her, because at least no one intervened to kill the poor innocent baby? And you don’t need to be able to singlehandedly fund research into preventing spontaneous abortion, you just need to be able to put $25 in the appropriate foundation’s pot every now and again.

  • Lunch Meat

    If fetuses are people with souls, does it bother you at all that half of all souls created by God never see the light of day? Why would God create a reproductive system so faulty?

  • Shilohbluerabbit

     I’ll run with this a little.  Addressing the huge and increasing backlog of embryos.  When the eggs are removed at puberty, the woman is genetically tested for genetic anomalies that may occur in her children and her medical history is taken into account.  If any MAJOR things that would be genetically transmitted show up (i.e. cystic fibrosis, Down’s syndrome, etc.), then the eggs would be destroyed. 

    I do NOT know whether harvesting all the eggs would put all women into menopause, but that might be a consideration. 

  • Shilohbluerabbit

     I do not know of any complications other than ectopic pregnancies, and even those turn into abdominal pregnancies.  So I’m not sure what complications you are talking about.

  • Shilohbluerabbit

     To your first question, does it bother me?  No…. I don’t think it does.  To your unasked question of why doesn’t it bother me: Because as the Creator, God owns the world and all that is in it and we are just stewards – even of our souls.  Why should I be upset when He wants one person one place and another person another place?

    To your second question: He didn’t create the system faulty.  Adam and Eve messed it up.

  • P J Evans

     There are a lot of possible complications, many of which will kill either the fetus or both mother and fetus. And that’s without getting into the stuff that can happen after the 5th month..

  • EllieMurasaki

    Oh Jesus God. Google ‘eclampsia’. Google what happens when an ectopic pregnancy stays in the fallopian tube and the mother doesn’t use a lifetime’s supply of luck on surviving the pregnancy. Google multiple pregnancies where one fetus dies and what happens to the other fetus(es) if there isn’t a nearby doctor who’s trained in the technique for extracting the dead fetus on the grounds that the hospital won’t employ anyone trained in techniques used for abortion. Google…actually I can’t remember the word for it, but the thing where the fetus is perfectly normal except for the absence of most of the brain. Google ‘died in childbirth’, for fuck’s sake! Pregnancy is historically the number one killer of people with vaginas! Pregnancy can go wrong in LOTS AND LOTS OF WAYS, and many of those ways kill.

  • EllieMurasaki

    What was in that apple that it so profoundly changed Eve’s reproductive system? And if it doesn’t bother you that an embryo that dies before implantation has a soul that goes straight to heaven, how can it possibly bother you that an aborted fetus has a soul that goes straight to heaven?

  • http://www.facebook.com/jrandyowens Randy Owens

    Sounds like these are the same magic women’s uteri that have ways of dealing with real, forcible rape.

  • http://www.facebook.com/jrandyowens Randy Owens

    If I am reading Fred’s idea correctly, we strident pro-lifers are callous and do not care when people die.

    Well, now see, there’s your mistake.  You must’ve been reading the StrawSlacktivist site, and gotten it mixed up with Slacktivist.  I don’t know how you ended up commenting here, though.

  • Lori

     

    No word yet on why she thinks God would rather she support
    people who are okay with materialism, greed, bullying, sexism, etc. When
    I tried pointing the similarities out to her, a long conversation
    ensued with her declaring that “she knew people wouldn’t like what she
    had to say, but she posted it anyway because she had to stand up for the
    truth, even if it isn’t easy or popular and doesn’t feel good. A lot of
    people have been deceived because they were lazy and apathetic in their
    faith and only want to be accountable to themselves and do what is
    right in their eyes, etc, etc.”   

    Oh yeah, “standing up” for treating women as less than fully human while ignoring the greed of the powerful, that takes some real courage. I’m sure that she’s the only forced pregnancy advocate in her social circle, making her the lone voice, crying in the wilderness. She is indeed a brave soul and I’m sure God will be super impressed by her efforts. [eyeroll]

    Which is to say, funny how she doesn’t consider that attacking women while ignoring things like economic injustice may be lazy & apathetic on her part.

  • Lori

     

    Google…actually I can’t remember the word for it, but the thing where
    the fetus is perfectly normal except for the absence of most of the
    brain.

    Anencephaly

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anencephaly


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X