sad-woman-face

Does sympathy for abortive women weaken the pro-life cause?

It’s a subject rife with debate in the pro-life community: how do we approach abortion-minded and post-abortive women? For some, the belief is that we should welcome these women, treat them with compassion, and help them to find healing.

Others, however, believe that women who have abortions are murderers who are evil, beyond redemption, and undeserving of our love and compassion. One such person espousing that attitude is a blogger for Doug Giles’ website, Clash Daily, who argues that women who have abortions are heartless, and sympathizing with them weakens the pro-life cause.

Owing to sympathy for the woman who so heartlessly chooses to murder her child who treats it as a parasite fit only for the incinerator, the pro-life movement has failed to stand against what abortion truly is – child murder. As a result, it has failed to attack the pervasive abortion ideology that abortion is wrong only because it harms the woman, despite recognising that abortion is killing of a person.


Abortion is not merely a physical act; it is an ideology of its own that is the twin sister of the “god” of sexual liberalism. The act of abortion itself is despicable, and the cries of sympathy for women who seek abortions are naive and misguided. People call a person who molests a molester, a person who rapes a rapist, a people who steals a thief, a person who tortures a torturer. However, people do not call a woman who aborts her unborn baby a murderer. Why does society, including the pro-life community, not call women who have abortions murderers? Fear. This fear is one that cares for one’s own reputation, while at the same time trying to fight abortion and wondering why women still love to seek abortions.

One may argue that the sympathy for women who seek abortions is needed for one is to reach out to these women. How misguided! The one who seeks an abortion feels that she is entitled to sympathy from others, because she is evil, wicked and perverse. She is the harlot who seduces men to serve her own sexual interests. These women plan their abortion. It could not be any clearer that abortion is a pre-mediated murder. Anyone who denies this is either deluded or depraved of all integrity.

… It is the very sympathy that people show to women who abort their babies that not only weakens the pro-life stance, thus defeating its real purposing, but ridicules and blinds the people of the pro-life movement. Such blindness has taken away discernment of the true Church: the only one that is able to discern spiritual and moral issues.

The ideology of abortion is a beast that has successfully blinded the church into fighting abortion to protect the murderers of children, like the siren who lulls the unknowing man who sympathises with her apparent loneliness, into the depths of Hell. By supporting such women, one is supporting the devil from whom murder comes.

If this is how the pro-life movement has to move forward in order to succeed, then we might as well just pack it up and go home, and let the abortion industry declare victory. Such open contempt towards women who have had an abortion, or are considering having one, does nothing but severely hurt our cause.

If absolutely for no other reason, we should avoid such hateful language towards women who have had abortions because it plays right into pro-abortion rhetoric. Abortion activists constantly accuse pro-lifers of caring only for the baby, and not at all for the woman, that we want to save the baby during pregnancy and then abandon both mother and baby as soon as the baby is born. In what world would it ever be a good tactic to be the very people abortion activists accuse of us being?

According to the CDC, most women who have abortions are in their early twenties. They are almost all unmarried. She is not likely to be a cheerleader for abortion, enthusiastically signing up to murder her unborn child because she is a heartless witch. She is someone who almost surely feels that she has no choice, that it’s either her life or her baby’s. She goes to an abortion clinic, probably Planned Parenthood, where she’s given false information and manipulated into have the abortion.

If she isn’t being outright coerced by her partner or her family, then there’s a very good chance she’s under an extraordinary amount of pressure to have the abortion done. And the abortion clinic isn’t going to tell her about all of the organizations that exist that will gladly help her with keeping her baby, or that will facilitate an adoption, even an adoption that will allow her to still be in her baby’s life.

As pro-lifers, we should be there to welcome her. But if we’re snarling at her that she’s a murderer, or a potential murderer, then why on earth would she trust us to help her? To find healing? Many women who have abortions suffer from guilt and regret. They’re more likely to be depressed and suicidal after an abortion. The last thing they need is to come to so-called pro-lifers seeking help, only to find judgment and shame.

Far from weakening the pro-life cause, compassion and sympathy for post-abortive women strengthens us all. This kind of thinking is something that should never be associated with the pro-life movement. We become caricatures of evil, hateful lunatics who embody every negative stereotype that abortion activists paint of us.

No matter what reasons a woman has for having an abortion, she still deserves our mercy and our love. We will never be able to change anyone’s hearts and minds if our own hearts and minds are filled with hate. All that will do is drive the women we claim to want to help right back into the poisonous arms of the abortion industry.

Live Action News relies completely on the generosity of our donors to keep us going. Please donate today!

  • Cauchy

    Really!? Has Doug Giles forgotten that Lord Christ forgives those who have committed sins? Don’t those women who performed abortions deserve as much mercy and forgiveness as the adulteress woman?

    Looks like Doug Giles is more of a pharisee than a Disciple of Christ.

  • Basset_Hound

    Short answer to above question…

    Nope.

    This is sad because I’ve liked Doug Giles’ writing in the past.

    • john lind

      Actually, Giles did not write the article. It was written by T.B. Chiles, a blogger. Ms. Chiles seems to have a problem with capitalism. Kind of odd that she would post on Giles website as it is very capatalistic.

      • Basset_Hound

        Then Giles should do the right thing! That would be to yank it down immediately and apologize.

  • Mary Lee

    We must have compassion for them. His article is an embarrassment to the pro-life movement. We can have righteous anger towards those who constantly lie to women about it; those who make a living off of it……but abortive women deserve compassion and forgiveness. We all do; none of us is without blemish.

    • Basset_Hound

      “For all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God”, Romans 3:23…

      Basset’s corollary – Given the right circumstances, anyone is capable of anything.

      Believe me, there but for the grace of God go I.

      • MamaBear

        “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy.” Matthew 5:7

        Basset, you are so right. We all need mercy. We all need forgiveness. Therefore, God expects that we should extend it to others.

        God took a murderer and turned him into the lawgiver Moses. King David was guilty of both murder and adultery. The thief on the cross was promised Paradise. God took a persecutor and turned him into the Apostle Paul.

        Who are we to limit what God can do with anyone?

        • Basset_Hound

          “God took a murderer and turned him into the lawgiver Moses. King David was guilty of both murder and adultery. The thief on the cross was promised Paradise. God took a persecutor and turned him into the Apostle Paul.”

          And He’s not done, by any means. If the story I’ve heard about Jeffrey Dahmer is true, he is in Paradise right now, along with the thief on the cross.

          • DianaG2

            What story did you hear about Jeffrey Dahmer?

          • Basset_Hound

            Apparently he became a Christian right before he was killed. I heard about it from a podcast I listen to from a church in New Jersey. Here’s a link to a book written about it…

            http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/september/34.125.html

            Christianity Today is a reputable publication.

      • DianaG2

        “right circumstances” = wrong circumstances.

        Don’t forget about society itself, and the MSM, etc. How many young women do you know who were forced either directly or indirectly, by their own parents, to abort?

        I know way too many.

        • Basset_Hound

          That too. Also how many people have started down a path to an affair, addiction or to an abortion with a tiny bit of rationalization.

  • Stormii

    I cringed during Doug Giles post. I could of swore a pro-choicer wrote it to make the rest of us look bad.

  • David Eckel

    The mindset of the blogger at Clash Daily strikes me as the type who would murder an abortionist in front of his wife and children. These people are a cancer on the cause, and we should shun them instead of abortive women. That said, we are better off embracing these hateful people in order to change their hearts and minds also.

  • Cynical_Meliorist

    Just my opinion, for what it’s worth.

    Compassion, forgiveness, mercy. These are the hallmarks of emotional strength, when being angry, unforgiving, and relentless in criticism seems almost natural and easy.

    That being said, those who support abortion and those who have had one deserve the former rather than the latter. Even when they actively campaign for it, without a thought of the moral or ethical concerns, even when they spurn such niceties, should they be extended. We can disagree, even vehemently at times, but the idea that they’re welcome when and if they should choose to be different should never be removed from the picture.

    Some people never change, and sneer and show contempt for those who they oppose ideologically. That’s their right, and sometimes animosity gets the best of us despite our intentions. That they can change, and we should implore them to do so for a myriad of reasons, is worthy enough of a goal to give them the benefit of the doubt. If someone doesn’t change, then so be it. Let them be on their way, and be ready for the next person who may have second thoughts.

  • Sara

    We have to have compassion! Especially when women in this day and age are taught that abortion is just removing a clump of cells, that it isn’t really a baby yet etc. They probably didn’t realize what they did was even wrong (until after possibly, and some never at all)

    • Faye Valentine

      It doesn’t make any sense if anyone has been through high school Biology.

      • Sara

        Well, you aren’t taught in biology about the humanity of the fetus. You learn some features it has, but if you are constantly bombarded with “it’s not human, it can’t think, isn’t conscious” etc. you can be brainwashed into thinking these things. And also, not everyone learns about embryology in school (not in Norway at least).

        • Faye Valentine

          But you learn what an organism is, and you learn about the Law of Biogenesis. It’s not hard to put 2 and 2 together. I’ve never sat in on any science class that said that a human organism is anything other than human, and none of which I am aware even discussed the abilities of said human in utero.

          I guess I just got lucky with my classes. I can’t imagine being very successful in school if I had been unfortunate enough to come across a science instructor who was more interested in pushing a radical agenda than actually teaching the facts. I’ve *always* been rather outspoken in this manner.

          • MamaBear

            Sadly, we do have teachers in our high schools who are pushing agendas rather than teaching. I really believe the sex ed in my local high school is in that category, or at least it was when my kids went through and when I was teaching teens in Sunday School.
            Some high schools downplay or totally skip over embryonic development in biology because it is “controversial.”
            And then, no matter what the subject, how many students only “learn” something long enough to pass the test? A while back, one of the conservative news people sent someone out to ask basic questions about government, stuff like what are the three branches of government, nothing to do with liberal or conservative. Not a scientifically done poll, of course. But, still, it was horrifying how many people did not know certain basics, yet they are covered in every high school government class. I doubt biology would fare much better, in fact I suspect it would do worse.

          • Sara

            Actually, I have never learned that in school… I think this varies greatly from school to school, state to state etc. Not to mention that even if you learn what an organism is etc., you could be brainwashed into thinking that it does not have any value.

      • TheDingus

        Gosh, I think exactly the same thing. It makes no sense to treat a developing embryo like an individual baby whose life is more important than a sexually mature woman’s, to anyone who’s been through high school biology.

        Or did they neglect to teach you about female biology at your high school?

        • Faye Valentine

          “Gosh, I think exactly the same thing. It makes no sense to treat a developing embryo like an individual baby whose life is more important than a sexually mature woman’s, to anyone who’s been through high school biology.”

          1.) Nobody is making the claim that a child in utero’s life is *MORE* important than the life of his/her mother. Equality =/= superiority. Although I’m sure that’s a difficult concept to grasp for someone with a head full of the fog that modern feminism has become.

          2.) Why does it “make no sense” to treat a child at once stage of that child’s life with the same regard you would give them at *A SLIGHTLY LATER POINT* in that same child’s life? What biological knowledge did you obtain that makes this concept so outrageous to you?

          3.) My college Biology professor’s field of expertise was actually the female reproductive system. So…there’s that.

  • MamaBear

    From a young women who went to an AIDS devastated part of Africa, “At first I kind of felt like these people did this to themselves. Then I saw how far reaching the pain and hurt and suffering and I couldn’t judge anymore, I just wanted to help.”

    We need to open our eyes in the very same way to the epidemic of pain that abortion has caused here. Sadly, the deaths went with medical wastes, not even graveyards which would recognize their humanity. But the survivors, mothers, fathers, siblings, are either in pain, or worse, they have hardened their hearts as a defense against the pain. Our country needs healing and mercy.

    • TheDingus

      Got a place we can buy tiny little coffins for our used tampons? You never know when that bloody thing holds a corpse, after all.

      • MamaBear

        Thought you guys made them into earrings to wear on TV?
        You honestly sound like you need help.

  • Thomas

    Pope Francis discussed abortion on April 25, 2014, saying:

    “Abortion compounds the grief of many women who now carry with them deep physical and spiritual wounds after succumbing to the pressures of a secular culture which devalues God’s gift of sexuality and the right to life of the unborn.”

    While the Pope’s opposition to abortion is steadfast, His Eminence instructs that we treat these physical and spiritual wounds with compassion.

    The real threat to the pro-life cause (in addition to such bloggers) comes from groups such as Abolish Human Abortion, which remains in the dark ages on their views of post-abortive women and spew such hateful rhetoric toward them it’s beyond repeating.

    We have to distance ourselves as far as possible from any person or group that would demonize post-abortive women.

  • Faye Valentine

    I find it impossible to have compassion for these people. Everything sounds like an excuse. I’ve been there, and murder wasn’t on the table to solve my problems. It hurts that I have to live with so much turmoil in my life because I did the right thing instead of killing my child, and a bunch of other women can just have their kid killed, say, “Oopsies! Oh well.” and get their perfect life with their perfect partner, their desired number of children from that partner, and then bucketfuls of sympathy from the Pro-Life movement, to boot.

    I’m sorry, but this is how I feel. I will never be anything more than a seething cauldron of rage when it comes to abortion.

    • Thomas

      Compassion is very different from holding people accountable for their actions Faye. Punitive measure only work in the short term and for al lthe wrong reasons. * A child who is devlaued by his/her parents will fall in with the wrong crowd from whom they will seek what they were not granted at home. Every human deserves UNCONDITONIAL POSITIVE REGARD…

    • Ariela

      Faye – I think you can’t assume they have a ‘perfect’ life… there is a lot of pain for the mothers who realised they made such a devastating mistake. None that really regret their abortions would say “Oopsies, oh well” … they mourn for the harm they caused their own child and the loss to themselves and their families. Sometimes they hate themselves so much they want to kill themselves. Others find healing by helping prevent others from making the same mistake.

      There are a segment of women (though small) that chose abortion knowing that they are killing their child, that knowingly put their lifestyles before their preborn, that believe in their right to sexual freedom no matter the cost, that believe in their right to control their bodies, including creating and ending pregnancies as they wish (once read of a woman addicted to getting pregnant and aborting because of the control rush it gave her)… these women anger me… BUT the world we live

    • Basset_Hound

      You’ve made some valid points here. No hate here, but I’d like to bounce a few ideas off of you and the others. Forgive my rambling….

      There’s a concept called “repentance”, which I’m sure you know means being genuinely sorry for the wrong you have done, and having the desire to rectify it. It’s a very necessary part of forgiveness.

      Some have not repented. They are the ones (including some of the trolls who post here) who mock, who ridicule, and who seek to trivialize abortion. They refuse to confront the fact that what they did was wrong, and in fact encourage others to perpetrate the same evil. It is certainly justified to condemn their ACTIONS and their ATTITUDES, to counter their attitudes with very forceful terms, denouncing the evil for what it is. Not with threats, or with wishes for them to be harmed, but with very scientifically sound, logical refutations. Does this mean we don’t have sympathy for them? No. It just means we take a different course of action in responding to them.

      Some are genuinely sorry, and broken for the brutality they’ve committed on their innocent children. They realize what they did was wrong, and some don’t have a clue as to where to go for spiritual and emotional healing. They’re not looking to justify the abortion, or to minimize it. They are wondering if they can ever feel a sense of worth and value again. They do not deserve to be called “harlots”, “sluts” or “baby killers”, but need to be pointed on the path to forgiveness.

      I think it’s a very delicate balance between the image of Jesus who condemned the Pharisees, and the image of Jesus who reached out to the Samaritan woman.

      • Griffonn

        The problem is that these abortive women are being lied to.

        We have ample evidence that abortion providers go out of their way to soften the truth, knowing full well that a great many women would NOT get an abortion if they didn’t do these things to blur reality into something soft and comforting.

        Such women are more likely to have serious issues when the cognitive dissonance PP uses as a painkiller wears off.

        • Faye Valentine

          But if they have had basic science classes, they should know better.

          • Griffonn

            You would think, with all the “sex ed” and “science” we keep dumping on our kids at ever-younger ages, that our out-of-wedlock rate would be lower than it was in 1954, not far, far, far higher.

          • TheDingus

            The reason it’s far far higher is that the stigma people like you attach to out of wedlock births (after the birth takes place) has largely gone away. Indeed, there’s an entire anti-choice movement that requires young teenage girls to give birth to their babies, even their babies conceived in rape; who cares about daddy? Not you, that’s for sure.

            Meanwhile in more enlightened states, the teenage birth rate has gone way down. They’re given actual knowledge of, and access to, contraception, instead of being treated to vicious propaganda about what murdering little hussies they are (while the daddy skips away)

          • Griffonn

            Where “enlightened” means that it’s uber important that kids NOT be protected from being inappropriately sexualized.

            Because nothing is worse than a parent who actually wants to protect her child from those who are committed to sexualizing young children.

            Never mind that girls who actually wait until they’re old enough to give informed consent are “empowered”. To people like you, “empowered” is like a punch line: you want to persuade girls that “empowered” means they spend their lives on their knees for you.

            And when you get the little girls pregnant, of course you want their wombs scraped, and Planned Parenthood will keep your dirty little secret. Too bad the girl herself can’t be trusted to do the same, eh?

          • TheDingus

            I’m all for not inappropriately sexualizing children. Take that up with advertisers. Also, stop and consider that children are sexual, like every other form of life on this planet. Stop shaming them for it, won’t you?

            Giving contraceptives to children in a world filled with inappropriate sexualization of them IS protecting them.
            Girls who are taught they’re not empowered to make decisions about their own bodies cannot suddenly be taught they actually are, but just SOME decisions. Their autonomy doesn’t end at the cervix.

            You’re the one who wants girls on their knees in front of you. I think they should know what’s what and make their own decisions, with input from their parents, not you.

            Amazing: this very article references the fact that most abortions are sought by women in their early twenties. Yet you call them “little girls.”

            You can bet your bottom dollar if my actual little girl were pregnant, I would get her an abortion, since unlike you I don’t relish the thought of her screaming in agony while giving birth to a baby she doesn’t want and can’t care for. I’d also know she’s too young to understand, just like you know she’s too young to give consent for the much easier process of having intercourse.

          • Griffonn

            That “children are sexual creatures” is a talking point of the pro-kiddie sex crowd.

            You’re just one of those people who can’t stand innocence, and supports Planned Parenthood when they cover up for rapists and ignore child sexual abuse.

            You know they oppose informed consent laws.

            Children are just here for people like you to use. Or kill.

          • TheDingus

            Do you deny that children are sexual? Not sexually mature, which is what people into actual kiddie sex (ask me about them; I started getting to know them before kindergarten) think they are. But having innate sexuality? Of course. Are you saying your sexuality appeared, full blown, at age 18? (“Gosh, dad, this weird thing happened to me at 20 minutes past minute on my 18th birthday; can you tell me what it is?”)

            Sexuality itself can be innocent, though heaven knows men like you do your best to screw that up for little girls ASAP. (What was the age of the youngest little girl you shamed about her sexuality, do you reckon?)

            Planned Parenthood “covers up” the private information of their patients. That’s how much you don’t care about girls: you think a medical provider exposing their patient’s confidential information is just fine (if they’re female).

            Is there some reason you don’t think the parents of a rape victim should be the ones to call the police, instead?

            Yes, I oppose “informed consent” laws too. Because, as a survivor of childhood sexual abuse, the last person I would ever want “informed” is the person who is already abusing a young girl. (Just another inconsequential detail to you folks who think girls and women aren’t actually people, I suppose.)
            As for using children, you’re doing that all day long, using them to gestate and birth babies. Charming.

            There are plenty of needy children in this world who live outside of girl’s bodies; perhaps you should concentrate on helping them. But I think there’s a darker reason you like thinking about controlling little girl’s bodies. Does it turn you on to imagine an 11 year old giving birth? (See, two can play at your little game.)

          • Griffonn

            Yes, I deny that it is normal, natural, or healthy for a society to tolerate – let alone encourage – children to enter into relationships of the sort that can pass along disease or create children.

            Why do you want them groomed? For yourself, or just to advance an ideology?

          • PJ4

            the last person I would ever want “informed” is the person who is already abusing a young girl.

            http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/11/denver-lawsuit-accuses-abortion-clinic-not-reporti/?page=all

            http://www.azpolicy.org/_blog/5_Minutes_for_Families/post/police-report-planned-parenthood-az-didnt-report-rape/

            I bet this one makes you proud of them:

            http://washingtonexaminer.com/report-racism-sex-trafficking-statutory-rape-condoned-at-planned-parenthood-facilities/article/2549009

            (Just another inconsequential detail to you folks who think girls and women aren’t actually people, I suppose.)

            But I think there’s a darker reason you like thinking about controlling little girl’s bodies. Does it turn you on to imagine an 11 year old giving birth?

            More projecting.
            (See, two can play at your little game.)

            Honestly, you have nothing without your little straw men.

          • Griffonn

            Giving contraceptives to children in a world filled with inappropriate sexualization of them IS protecting them.

            Well, sure, since you’re going to make sure their innocence is violated.

            And you’re going to shout down those of us who protect our kids. Or you’re going to try, anyway.

            Having killed your own, you can’t stand other people having healthy. loved children. Who knows why.

          • TheDingus

            Shout you down? Why? If you think leaving your kids in the dark about how to prevent pregnancy and STDs is “protecting” them, that’s your affair. The result is likely that they will become parents, but you don’t mind your little girl popping out babies before she gets out of high school, I would venture to guess. You can tell her she deserves it for being sexual. (That’ll really “protect” her psyche.)

            Hey, you know what works really well for some societies? They carve little girl’s clitoris’s out without anesthesia right at puberty, the neurological equivalent of taking off a boy’s penis without anesthesia, while telling them that sexual pleasure for females is evil. Have you considered that? I understand it’s quite effective at scaring them off sex.

            I think children should always be healthy and loved. That takes thinking, planning, and care. To you, it just takes ejaculating.

            One of us is far removed from reality, and it isn’t me. Grandpa.

          • Griffonn

            I also don’t teach them how to handle a car on ice until they’re old enough to drive.

            Until then, it is enough for them to know that it is an adult activity, and that they are neither required nor allowed to try it themselves because if they did, they could get hurt.

            You want to see the public schools teach every five year old taught how to drive on ice, on the premise that it’s normal and natural for little kids to steal cars. You want to see every little kid taught how to inject heroin safely, because everyone knows that if a little kid isn’t shooting up by the time he’s in middle school, there is obviously something wrong with him.

            The public schools are the most dangerous place for a child to be. There are molesters everywhere, but only in the public schools are they protected by the unions, covered for by the other teachers, and given children pre-groomed and ready to exploit.

            The question is, why are you so attached to cultivating a culture where children are losing their virginity (and in the overwhelming majority of cases, to adults well older than themselves)? Are you a pedophile yourself? If not, why do you want children to be taught how to be responsible for protecting their molester, at the direct expense of being taught how to not be molested?

          • Basset_Hound

            No, not by “leaving them in the dark”, but by teaching them how to set personal boundaries, and to channel their energy into doing well in school, and into extracurricular activities such as band or sports. This is a far cry from your baseless suggestions that we should consider female genital mutilation.

          • Griffonn

            Are you still insisting that all kids must be protected from you pro-kiddie-sex crowd types or else we’re negligent?

          • Griffonn

            Normal healthy people get depressed after an abortion.

            There’s nothing healthy about killing one’s own son or daughter.

            I believe the only people who don’t get depressed are people who are still in shock from whatever happened to them before the abortion. Sometimes abuse takes decades to get over.

          • Basset_Hound

            Stereotype much????

            Never mind that over a third of families headed by single parents are in poverty versus 6% of families where parents are married. Never mind that children without fathers are more likely to suffer from emotional and behavioral problems. Everything bad in the world even toenail fungus is because of people like us. It’s gotta be true because Dingus sez so and she’s smart’r dan us.

            Meanwhile The Enlightened Ones who trot out those pesky teenage pregnancy stats for red states fail to mention that ALL teenagers are lumped together….from the seventh grader who turned 13 yesterday to the young woman who will turn 20 tomorrow. If we break the stats down into age groups, for young teens, the pregnancy rate went down and for the middle years they state roughly the same. For 18-19 year olds (who are out of reach of abstinence programs is where the birth rates went up. In some cases the births were to married women. But also there is a parallel increase in out of wedlock birth rates to poor and uneducated women in their late teens and early 20s which can be seen as the result of the breakdown in marriage among certain cultures rather than the failure of abstinence programs.

          • Griffonn

            It’s right to stigmatize out-of-wedlock births. CHildren born out-of-wedlock suffer all sorts of pain and all sorts of problems.

            Every child should be born into a healthy, intact family – which is yet another reason why everyone would be better off if we went back to teaching our kids to wait til they are adult and ready for adult relationships.

            Why was it again that you’re so in favor of little kids having sex?

          • Greg

            See it’s been proven by studies that Abstinence Only programs don’t work. In other industrialized nations where there are comprehensive sex education programs their teen birth rates are lower. Heck take a look at states like Texas that have higher teen pregnancy rates than other states with more comprehensive sex education classes.

          • PJ4

            Good thing he’s not advocating for abstinence only then, isn’t it?

          • Griffonn

            I wanted my kids raised ‘abstinence-only’ because in the home one girl stayed at before staying with me, there were sexual boundary issues. I do not know if she was abused, but it is documented that there were issues to be concerned about.

            I do not believe it is possible for a kid who has experienced these sorts of boundary issues to have a “healthy” relationship prior to becoming an adult.

            In my capacity as legal guardian, I thought I knew what was best for this kid – and I spent a lot of time researching, I talked to experts, I spent a lot of time thinking about it.

            The schools overrode my beliefs and promoted what I believe were unhealthy behaviors. They felt that the child needed to be rescued from me, but of course they didn’t go before a judge and say that because they didn’t want responsibility for this girl, they just wanted what they wanted which included encouraging her to defy my rules, but didn’t include cleaning up the mess.

            It’s also worth noting that the last time any kid got a consistent message regarding “abstinence only” was before the “sex ed” crowd started using and abusing the notion of “teaching health” to advance their agenda.

          • PJ4

            I myself was raised with “abstinence only”.
            I attended an all girl school.
            We had a brother all boys school right next door.
            We’d get together socially at times.

            Interesting that we had no teen pregnancies while we learned abstinence only; but the public school down the street from us, that taught comprehensive sex ed and gave out birth control on demand had at least 5 teen pregnancies a year.

          • Griffonn

            The most dishonest talking point ever.

            First: because there have been abstinence-only programs that “work” (that is, that have lasting statistically relevant positive results), and the same media that report this continue to report that “abstinence-only doesn’t work”. It’s the same dishonesty that led them to doctor tapes to make it sound like George Zimmerman was saying something racist when he wasn’t.

            Second: because we know (from the studies that do work) that the distinction between abstinence-only that works and those that don’t is a single variable: the demonization of the Religious Right. You guys WORK to make children sexualized. (“It takes a village to destroy a child – one to destroy the child, and the rest to loudly taunt the child’s parent as a prude”).

            Third: because sex ed teaches dishonestly. They claim to teach “all” the facts, but they in fact teach a highly dishonest, biased view – one that leads to the belief that there is such a thing as “safe sex”, that somehow use of condoms can magically transform a high risk activity into a “safe” one.

            Fourth: because Planned Parenthood – an organization that formally opposes age of consent laws – puts out propaganda literature in middle schools and high schools (if my kids hadn’t given me what they got, I would never have known about this), where children are actually encouraged to distrust parents. Teachers appear to be doing this as well.

            Fifth: the correct standard of comparison (given that science requires us to hold other variables equal) is before the introduction of sex ed. Is unwed pregnancy higher or lower than it was in the 1950s?

            Abstinence-only education “doesn’t work” because the people who claim to be concerned for the kids’ welfare are actually actively pushing premature sexualization – and actively demonizing those who really do care about the kids. Studies have shown that kids who wait are healthier, do better, and are better off than kids who enter into adult relationships before they’re adults.

            And we also know that most of these kids are taking ‘lovers’ who are significantly older than yourself.

        • TheDingus

          Good grief: you think I don’t know why I had an abortion, or what it was like to have an abortion? You think I’m so mentally deficient I can’t figure things out for myself?

          How brainless do you people actually think women are? So brainless, that you folks neglecting to mention little things like possible life-threatening complications of pregnancy and childbirth isn’t “soft and comforting.”

          Get your head out of women’s uteri and look a few feet up, once in a while.

          • Griffonn

            LOL you had an abortion?

            No wonder you’re so hot on defending the predation of children.

            You killed your own kid!

          • TheDingus

            Nope, just chose not to create a child. Kind of like you choose not to create a child every time you masturbate in the shower. (It’s ok, your secret is safe with me.)

          • Griffonn

            You did create a kid.

            Killing the living person did not undo the pregnancy.

          • PJ4

            You think I’m so mentally deficient I can’t figure things out for myself?

            Yes. But that’s giving you the benefit of the doubt.
            You’ve shown yourself to be much much worse.

      • TheDingus

        Question for you. Is it “evil” when a man masturbates into a tissue?

        Why not? isn’t he choosing not to make a child, even though he could?

        • Basset_Hound

          Because often the fantasies that accompany the act are deeply problematic.

          Is he comparing a loving partner to the Photoshopped images on a porn site?
          Is he wishing that he were violating children, or brutalizing a woman who has no choice?
          Is he avoiding interacting with other people and spending more and more time in a fantasy world with fantasy partners?

          So notice, none of these have anything to do with the fact that the man is “wasting his sperm” by not impregnating a woman.

        • PJ4

          you’ve officially convinced everyone that pro aborts don’t understand basic biology.
          Good for you.
          You’re an asset to the pro life cause.
          At this point I just want you to keep exposing your side for the callous ignorant dehumanizing bunch you people are.
          As a matter of fact, don’t pick up a biology book.
          I enjoy and appreciate you like this much much more.
          Please, as a favor to me, stay this ignorant.
          You’re doing my work for me right now and I wish to thank you from the bottom of my heart for helping the pro life cause.

          I’m in your debt.
          The forum is all yours.

    • Cynical_Meliorist

      “I find it impossible to have compassion for these people.”

      Honestly, part of me doesn’t blame you. But the same style of lacking compassion is what drives and instills in pro-abortion supporters with the mentality they display towards their own offspring (or children if you prefer, just to see Ignorance_isn’t_Curable’s head implode for a moment). In this case, it would make us no different mentally that those with whom we disagree.

      “Everything sounds like an excuse. I’ve been there, and murder wasn’t on the table to solve my problems.”

      That’s not how it’s positioned. Places like PP, NARAL, and other such organizations have tried to make the entire issue seem benign. It’s just “a clump of cells”, or another new entry being where they “remove your late menstration/period”. When the public is being given details about it from sources that have an incentive to be deceitful and are told by those same sources that they can be trusted (which is terribly circular), you’ll find all manner of people, sometimes even well informed, falling for what amounts to nothing more than a good PR campaign. If someone lies to another person (which we can wholesale prove is being done by said groups above), convinces a woman that what she’s doing is ok (that its normal, that it’s no big deal, that it’s a simple thing to do, that there’s no moral, religious, or ethical items to deal with etc) and she finds herself deceived after the fact…would that not illicit something other than anger? There is a noticable shift towards pro-life in the US going on, as younger generations are taking up that cause, but we can’t expect everyone to have the same mentality as Amanda Marcotte or a NARAL spokesperson.

      Of course, not everyone is naive. Some know what they’re doing and rationalize it away. There is still something to be said, however, when that person comes to grips with the complexity of the issue and changes their mind. They deserve at least some compassion, and a chance to help make things better, sans continual condemnation.

      ” and then bucketfuls of sympathy from the Pro-Life movement, to boot.”

      I think, at least for my own opinion, that buckets full is too much. We should still be mindful of the past, without having to dredge it up and use it as a bludgeoning device. Forgive, but not forget, as it were.

      “I’m sorry, but this is how I feel. I will never be anything more than a seething cauldron of rage when it comes to abortion.”

      Personally, I think you have a right to be angry, especially at people who are purposely obtuse, who purposely push an abortion agenda and don’t care. The important part, in my opinion, is to direct that anger effectively and proportionally, and knowing when you’re dealing with just someone who is a mindless cheerleading drone, and to be mindful when you’re dealing with someone who has become a victim of dishonesty.

      “FLAME ON! I’ve become comfortable about this aspect of myself and my feelings, and I’m perfectly willing to take the hate I’m certain to receive as a consequence.”

      Ironically, flaming you would be the very opposite of what is being discussed, especially since there’s no need to do so. Each of us, for whatever reason, support the same cause. Religious or not, male and female, across all cultures, people can rally to this as something important, and tearing down those who would be agreeable otherwise is the same sort of backstabbing one would expect from our opponents.

      As a final thought, anger is exhausting, and rage even more so. It’s appropriate to be angry at times, even “righteously” so, but it’s knowing how to harness it and make it into something productive that is always helpful to me. Don’t let it consume you and define you. :)

      • TheDingus

        I knew exactly what I was doing. Choosing not to create a baby I didn’t want and couldn’t care for. Didn’t want and couldn’t care for to such a degree it was a near thing I didn’t jump off a bridge instead of seek out the compassionate care of Planned Parenthood. Had abortion been hard to get, the bridge would’ve won. (“Pro life” my eye.)

        There’s more than one way for a desperate woman to end a pregnancy, you see. In a world that thinks you’re only good for gestation, what’s the point of sticking around as a whole person, do you think? (That’s the question Faye is desperately trying to avoid, and the real root of her anger.)

        Well, you folks’ “righteous” anger is nothing more than your egos getting the better of you. You don’t know me, you don’t know my life, you don’t know my circumstances, and all protestations to the contrary, you don’t care, either.

        All you really care about is how much shame you think you can induce in me for being a person with rights and a modicum of self regard. It’s just attempted coercion to say “Yes, I care: as long as you produce babies no matter what.” That’s you caring about my uterus, not me. Then, after working really hard to shame me as much as possible, you “kindly” offer me “forgiveness.”

        Such egos.

        • Cynical_Meliorist

          Since it’s been over a month, I didn’t brush up on this much.

          “I knew exactly what I was doing. Choosing not to create a baby I didn’t want and couldn’t care for. Didn’t want and couldn’t care for to such a degree it was a near thing I didn’t jump off a bridge instead of seek out the compassionate care of Planned Parenthood. Had abortion been hard to get, the bridge would’ve won. (“Pro life” my eye.)”

          For this next part, I’m having to guess you’re post abortive.

          In hindsight, i suppose not making a baby to start with, much less having to abort one, would have been too much trouble? It’s amazing that you make a comment about not wanting to make a life, but (again, given that you could be post abortive) you did. You made one and then destroyed it. Had the “bridge won”, it would have been a result of your choice to let it. Let’s at least be honest about your end of it.

          “Well, you folks’ “righteous” anger is nothing more than your egos getting the better of you. You don’t know me, you don’t know my life, you don’t know my circumstances, and all protestations to the contrary, you don’t care, either.”

          I don’t really know where all of this misdirected anger comes from, and really I can’t identify why you choose to take it out on people online. That’s your call, I guess, but there’s really no need for it. I disagree with your statement that it’s all about ego. It’s really not. If you drill down to the base ethical and moral concerns, it’s not my ego at all, much less *any* real ego (when someone is being honest about it). You can choose to say it is, but that does not make it so. You’re correct though. I don’t know you, or any of those things. It’s incorrect to state that I don’t care, but it’s also hard to care about something before you tell me about it, or if you conceal it. If you’ve had bad experiences with people before, I’m sorry to hear it, but the generalizations you’re making are simply untrue.

          “All you really care about is how much shame you think you can induce in me for being a person with rights and a modicum of self regard.”

          Not at all. Not once have I said something meant to degrade or shame you. You already pointed out that i don’t know you, so there’s that. Otherwise, I’m simply approaching an issue with my views, as you are. As a matter of statement between you and I, i absolutely don’t want you to feel either of those things. Again, why assume I do?

          ” It’s just attempted coercion to say “Yes, I care: as long as you produce babies no matter what.” ”

          Incorrect. If you want zero children, then by all means live that way. If you want 10 or more, then have fun. It’s not about forcing women to be “brood mares”, or that your purpose is to stay home and have kids. Far from it. That’s not even what the debate itself is about.

          “That’s you caring about my uterus, not me.”

          Addressed previously.

          “Then, after working really hard to shame me as much as possible, you “kindly” offer me “forgiveness.”

          Several points here, other than what’s addressed previously.

          I’m not one who offers, or can give, forgiveness. I also am not here to condemn you, or to be spiteful towards you. Those are not my departments. If you wish to have, feel the need to get, or are interested, then a member of the clergy, or someone else, is going to be who you should speak with about such things. I’m here offering my viewpoint about it. If you want to talk, we can talk. I won’t judge you, but understand that I base my view on a great many things, none of which are about shame/misogyny/broodmare acquisition.

          • TheDingus

            First, let me thank you for your thoughtful post.

            “In hindsight, i suppose not making a baby to start with, much less having to abort one, would have been too much trouble?”

            Read my statement again, because it’s quite literal: I chose not to create a baby. Conception doesn’t create a baby; gestation creates a baby. Babies are created in women’s bodies, by women’s bodies; it takes longer and is more complex than a roll in the hay. That you believe men create babies by precipitating conception is fine; that you insist I must also believe what is plainly, factually untrue is not.

            Write what you really mean: why was I having unprotected sex if I didn’t want to have a baby? (An assumption, of course; women do conceive having protected sex.) Well, unless you have just about as many children as times you’ve had intercourse, you already know the answer to that, so stop being disingenuous. But I will explain.

            In hindsight? No. Hind sight is 20/20. At the time? Yes. I’m the survivor of childhood sex abuse. It began when I was four years old. Like many such people I became sexually precocious and promiscuous, and spent a lot of my teenage and young adult years seeking out sexual encounters. Normally I used birth control, because indeed it’s not too much trouble. But I’m a human being, not a robot. This one time, I didn’t leave the room to get my diaphragm. That’s it. I’m sorry I didn’t, but I’m not sorry I didn’t have a baby because of it. I was not seeking to have a baby.

            I forgive myself for my behavior at the time, as well. I understand the reasons I sought out sexual encounters: I was taught that’s what made people who (supposedly) cared for me happy with me. There’s comfort in touch, and in being wanted, as well. In hindsight, I realized that I also did it as a form of challenge: will this person NOT think I’m just there for sex? (Stupid, really, especially when we’re talking about pubescent boys and young men… but there it is again: I’m a human being, not a robot. We learn, eventually.)

            As for your contention that had I killed myself that would’ve been my choice, sure. Perhaps you need to understand that people do that when they feel helpless and trapped and the suffering has become too much. Deliberately putting them in situations where they are even more helpless and trapped, literally saying that their pain is just an “inconvenience,” is inciting those people to suicide, frankly.

            Here’s another thing you won’t like hearing, I imagine: it wasn’t much trouble to have an abortion. It was a phone call, a trip to a clinic, and a kind doctor. After his gentle (yes, gentle) care, I stopped being promiscuous and sought out other men like him, quite soon finding my kind and gentle husband. I got treatment for my PTSD and depression, too. Because I came to have regard for myself, like he did. He saw me as a worthy human being, even if I didn’t want to have a baby; a worthy human being, not a sexual object. (See how it all comes together?) He saw my body as being my own, not someone else’s, a lesson I desperately needed.

            I bless that doctor for saving my life to this day, and yes, I become angry when I think about people who would slander him and others like him.

            It would be even less trouble these days, with medication abortion, which I would certainly have availed myself of if it had been available then. Actually, I’d have taken Plan B the very next day, if it had been available. IUDs were less safe and effective then, or I would’ve had one of those. But my choices were limited.

            Watching people do their utmost to limit women’s safe choices today is the opposite of meliorist. So your question, while containing inaccuracies and implied judgement, is close to the mark: why don’t those opposed to abortion simply work to lessen the occurrence of unwanted pregnancies? Too much trouble?

            Now you know where the anger comes from. (It seems from your writing you knew, already.) That you find it misdirected, I find interesting. I direct it where it belongs: at people who dehumanize women, every day, and congratulate themselves for doing so. Dehumanizing as in, pretending we think there are no no moral, religious, or ethical items to deal with. There are. One is, are women people with inalienable rights? The answer from the anti-choice is an inescapable and very loud “no.” They even pretend that understanding how reproduction actually works is “deceitful.”

            What’s deceitful is pretending women have every right not to be pregnant as long as they’re not pregnant – a useless and cruel “right” if ever there was one. Might as well say I have every right to stitches as long as I haven’t cut myself. One can avoid cutting oneself, right?

            I already talked to someone about my life. She was also nonjudgmental (got paid good money to be that way, heh) and I gave her my explicit and implicit permission to concern herself with my life. Yes, it is about egos: the number of people who think it’s their business to concern themselves with the intimate details of other people’s lives without the slightest permission, because they’re female, is unbelievable hubris.

            I avoid most clergy like the plague; a great many of them are steeped in the misogyny that overtook the Christian faith many hundreds of years ago. Instead, I look to my own faith, where I find that Jesus was nonjudgmental, even towards women adulterers and (putative) prostitutes who didn’t have lots and lots of children (by magic, I suppose).

            God made me a human being with agency, not an incubator.

          • Cynical_Meliorist

            “First, let me thank you for your thoughtful post.”

            You’re most welcome. But I didn’t even open the window all of the way to notice you’re still coming across as angry and sarcastic. It’s not necessary, I assure you. This is likely going to be a long reply, based on yours.

            “Read my statement again, because it’s quite literal: I chose not to create a baby. Conception doesn’t create a baby; gestation creates a baby. Babies are created in women’s bodies, by women’s bodies; it takes longer and is more complex than a roll in the hay. That you believe men create babies by precipitating conception is fine; that you insist I must also believe what is plainly, factually untrue is not.”

            Conception creates a new life. I noticed that you said one thing, but what I was having to guess at (you being post-abortive or not) isn’t what you answered. You simply beat around the bush with regards to this. Afterwards, you inject a bunch of statements about men, assume that I must absolutely believe what you wrote, and then go to correct me about views I don’t have simply isn’t going to cut it here.

            To be fair, I believe men are part of the process. Outside of a lab, it takes two. Simple biology and nothing more. It’s not any more complex that that.

            “Write what you really mean: why was I having unprotected sex if I didn’t want to have a baby? (An assumption, of course; women do conceive having protected sex.) Well, unless you have just about as many children as times you’ve had intercourse, you already know the answer to that, so stop being disingenuous. But I will explain.”

            I thought I had written exactly what I meant, which is asking why that situation occurred as you state. I’m not making assumptions about sex in general, the use of contraception, or even mentioned the idea that neither sex is absolutely for making babies, or that it’s only for procreation. You’re still trying to ram ideologies down the throat of someone who doesn’t hold them. Please see to that, moving forward.

            Past this, I wasn’t being disingenuous, and you don’t actually list what you think I was doing such about, so there’s really little else for me to say there.

            For your next 2 paragraphs, I’m sorry that those things happened to you, and I hope you were able to find closure and justice in the matter.

            “Perhaps you need to understand that people do that when they feel helpless and trapped and the suffering has become too much. Deliberately putting them in situations where they are even more helpless and trapped, literally saying that their pain is just an “inconvenience,” is inciting those people to suicide, frankly.”

            I live by the Buddhist proverb that “pain is inevitable, suffering is optional”. While I know that’s a broad way of looking at things, I find it to be true. I do understand feelings of being helpless, but suffering is something we, on some level, allow. In these cases, though, there’s no “deliberately” trapping someone, unless they are an abuser or a predator. Just my 2 cents.

            “Here’s another thing you won’t like hearing, I imagine: it wasn’t much trouble to have an abortion. It was a phone call, a trip to a clinic, and a kind doctor.”

            Then you would imagine wrong. Hearing that it was easy, as far as procedural issues are concerned, doesn’t bother me in the least. It’s sad that it’s what happened, but the fact you were able to do it easily doesn’t cause me grief. The ease or difficulty doesn’t change the act, and doesn’t change the moral or ethical items behind it. Focusing on how easy it may be is simply not worth effort. The lessons you learned from it, and the improvement of your station in life, is certainly nice to hear though.

            “I bless that doctor for saving my life to this day, and yes, I become angry when I think about people who would slander him and others like him.”

            Then you’re taking things personally, methinks. I don’t slander abortion doctors. I disagree, strongly, with what they do. Their own collegues and fellow doctors disapprove of the actions. When your own profession sees you that negatively, certainly that’s reason enough to even pause a moment. The doctor you saw could be, otherwise, a pleasant and law abiding citizen. That doesn’t change anything, doesn’t somehow balance out the books, and doesn’t remove him from the verbal line of fire. One can disagree, and be polite.

            “Watching people do their utmost to limit women’s safe choices today is the opposite of meliorist.”

            I find this to be in error, because you’re basing it off of the idea that evil pro life people are out to destroy lives and the like. Actually destroying a life would, in fact, be the opposite of a meliorist and their activities. I believe that abortion should be allowed in cases where the mother’s life is in imminent danger. Beyond this, there’s no moral or ethical foundation for it.

            “Now you know where the anger comes from. (It seems from your writing you knew, already.) That you find it misdirected, I find interesting. I direct it where it belongs: at people who dehumanize women, every day, and congratulate themselves for doing so. ”

            I had an idea, but I don’t like assuming if it’s not necessary, and I’d rather you say it directly. Just easier in the end. I find it misdirected when someone, like myself, approaches you and you level that same attitude and anger without any reason (or, as I pointed out, justification). Pro life isn’t about dehumanizing women at all. I likely could spend a great deal of time trying to convince you of that, but I don’t honestly believe you would want to hear it. Maybe I’m wrong, which is always possible, but at the end of the day there’s nothing more than I can say other than it’s not the case and state why. Are there people who do act that way, and come across as crass and belligerent? Sure. I’m not one of them, however, in this case. I just believe there’s more to your opposition’s side than you give credit.

            ” Dehumanizing as in, pretending we think there are no no moral, religious, or ethical items to deal with.”

            This, here, is factually incorrect. Obviously, I can’t talk for everyone else, but I can answer this. I don’t believe, pretend, or otherwise ponder that pro-abortion supporters think there are no issues such as those. I see them actively dismissing them, actively misrepresenting them, and actively decrying them as horrible when they’re not. I would point out that pro-abortion supporters are more publically starting to make the argument that it’s, in fact, “not a big deal and isn’t a hard choice”. There’s a story, right here on this site, which speaks to that. Your own side is making that argument, as we speak, but I don’t believe it’s the majority who see it that way. Perspective, and all that.

            ” One is, are women people with inalienable rights? The answer from the anti-choice is an inescapable and very loud “no.” They even pretend that understanding how reproduction actually works is “deceitful.”

            I disagree, again. Inalienable rights or not, all rights come with responsibilities and limits. That is what part of the debate, globally, is about. Where those limits and responsibilities are, and how to address them. You may have an entire list of rights, but there’s a limit to what you can do with them. Pro life folks, as a whole, believe that life is important, and that the weakest among us should be protected from what amounts to nothing more than a “might makes right” philosophy. The portion about “deceitful” reproductive science is a case-by-case basis. When someone is actually arguing with the proper science, then there’s only but so many ways to go. Stating that an 8 week old fetus is a “clump of cells” isn’t accurate, and we both know it. Check out the National Institute of Health. Search for their diagrams about what a fetus looks like at each stage, and then ask “why would someone posit that a fetus with a visible face, eyes, hands, and feet…..is nothing but a clump of indistinguishable cells? You may be surprised.

            “What’s deceitful is pretending women have every right not to be pregnant as long as they’re not pregnant – a useless and cruel “right” if ever there was one.”

            There’s no way to address this without getting into a huge discussion on the matter. A woman has every right to be pregnant if she wants, or not be pregnant if she wants. The questions, which run contrary to your statement, is the idea that once she gets pregnant, what rights, laws, ethics, morals, and other guiding principles should be or are involved in that process? I’ve countered this line of thinking before, as i did in the other posts I referenced. If you want 10 kids, have at it. If you wish to be child free, then go forward with my blessings. But it’s the responsibility angle, of once pregnancy occurs, that is the actual debate. The rest is just a non sequitur. I am glad you found help and talked to someone, though.

            “Yes, it is about egos: the number of people who think it’s their business to concern themselves with the intimate details of other people’s lives without the slightest permission, because they’re female, is unbelievable hubris.”

            Again, I think you’re taking this in a direction it just doesn’t need to go. If men were involved as well, it wouldn’t be a discussion limited to females. That’s just what it is though, and there’s nothing either of us can do to change that biological fact. We could make the argument, that counters, that men who don’t want children can be roped into 18 years+ of child support, by *force*, with no recourse or ability to avoid that, on the whim of the mother. It’s not always just about women, when it comes down to this kind of thing.

            Otherwise, you’re missing the point I believe. It’s not *about* getting into your privacy. It’s about the ethical, moral, and legal implications of a specific procedure/act that exists in the public eye. That’s all. It’s not egotistical to want to answer those questions, or address those concerns. It’s not ego that drives people to want to protect innocent life. If someone *has* an ego, then that’s their mistake. But the actual process of addressing those concerns isn’t egotistical, but simply what people who strongly believe something is right or wrong do….they debate. I just don’t see the hubris in that. The other end of the spectrum is total apathy for morality and ethical items, which (as a person claiming to have a measure of faith, is one of the worst things you can do. The Bible itself is very specific about apathy, about hiding your light, and about standing by while someone needs help or someone needs protection and doing nothing. I would encourage you to read those passages, and really take them to heart.

            “I avoid most clergy like the plague; a great many of them are steeped in the misogyny that overtook the Christian faith many hundreds of years ago. ”

            I’m non-denominational, but I dislike going to church. My personal take is that people are more stuck on what’s in print than what’s in context. I want to know what things mean…not just what they say.

            “I look to my own faith, where I find that Jesus was nonjudgmental, even towards women adulterers and (putative) prostitutes who didn’t have lots and lots of children (by magic, I suppose).”

            Yahtzee. Christ, though, also said other things. “Suffer not the little children to come unto me”, for example. Before you accuse me of taking it out of context, I’m not really trying to…but I am trying to at least demonstrate in a cursory faction that children are important (and that the unborn are likewise). I find your train of thought interesting though. Christ was concerned, by his own statement, with the sick and not the well. But Christ did have cause to levy judgment at people. He drove the money lenders and others out of the temple, because he knew it was wrong and acted on it. He judged Peter as being wrong for denying him 3 times. He judged those who knew better, and then did something bad anyway despite that knowledge. Notice how that goes back to our point earlier about the whole “pretending we don’t know about the morals end of it” section? The Bible gets taken out of context about the whole “judge not” section, while we’re here. Judging *properly* is what it really goes into…making good judgments. Hate the sin, love the sinner, right?

            Though we don’t know who had lots and lots of children though. Back then, it was common to have larger families, but that’s beside the point. :)

            “God made me a human being with agency, not an incubator.”

            You’re correct. No one *wants* you to be an incubator for its own sake. I’d prefer you never were one, rather than look to abortion to fix the problem. We live in a world where education is readily available, where facts can be easily gained, and sadly where teaching personal responsibility has gone to the wayside. Never make the mistake though that pro life people *need* you to incubate children whether you want to or not. Their point is that if you do end up pregnant, that abortion is morally and ethically wrong, but it’s nothing about “get pregnant, have babies”. That, unfortunately, is something that is levied at pro life people regularly, and it’s sadly incorrect. It’s rhetoric, in those cases.

            I appreciate you opening up, and talking about this with me. If nothing else, I want you to know that I’m not your enemy. I’m not trying to judge you harshly, I don’t believe you’re going to hell or some such nonsense, and I’m not trying to bludgeon you with guilt or misogyny. I don’t want to beat you up about your choices. We both know I think it’s sad and unfortunate. Beyond that, I’m not interested in grilling you about it or telling you how wrong you were. That isn’t my department either.

            I would just ask you to be mindful. Confront hostility, but don’t generate it without need, ya know?

            Have a great evening, and thank you for the excellent and thoughtful reply. I do truly hope you’ve found peace through turmoil, and I’m glad to hear you’re in a better place in life mentally. Cheers.

          • TheDingus

            “I didn’t even open the window all of the way to notice you’re still coming across as angry and sarcastic. It’s not necessary, I assure you.”

            Anger is often fear turned outward. I’m afraid of being treated like a thing, not a person; afraid of living in a world where all females are considered things, not persons.

            Anger turned towards the threat causing fear is human, natural, and a form of self-defense. It will go away when the threat does.

            Sarcasm would be unnecessary if we could talk about facts, but when someone who is pro-choice starts talking facts, we’re told that we’re heartless killers who reduce “babies” to cells – even when they’re zygotes, not babies, and literally are undifferentiated cells.

            Meanwhile, your movement continues to talk about zygotes, embryos and fetuses separately from women. A zygote, embryo or fetus separate from a woman has the same reproductive value as sperm in a tissue: none. They’re either (not being angry or sarcastic, just talking facts) a dark spot on a feminine hygiene product, a corpse, or frozen solid.

            They might become a baby, or, if a zygote, they might two babies or anything one can create from a stem cell. But they are not people. The salient ethical point is, women are people.

            I confess it gets tiresome pointing that out over and over, and just being ignored with “but THE BABY!”

            “This is likely going to be a long reply, based on yours.”

            Yup.

            “Conception creates a new life.”

            Conception creates the possibility of a new life. The majority of the time, the possibility will not be realized. More facts: if the woman ovulated a little too long before conception, or is too old herself, and the ovum isn’t viable, the conceptus is reabsorbed; no new life. If the woman’s fallopian tube lacks the proper motility, it is reabsorbed or it becomes an ectopic pregnancy; no new life. If it makes it to the uterus, but the woman is at the point in her cycle of shedding the lining and implantation doesn’t occur, no new life. If the woman’s body perceives it as a foreign body, no implantation, and no new life. If implantation occurs but goes wrong, there’s a miscarriage or a gestational trophoblastic disease, not a new life. If the woman develops a fatal condition and dies before fetal viability, no new life. If she gets treatment for the condition, ending the pregnancy, no new life. If she kills herself, no new life. If she is killed by her partner, no new life.

            The notion that it’s a crime or a sin for a woman to consciously decide for herself not to bring forth a new life, that she has no agency and is just a biological specimen subject to the whims of nature, is simple misogyny. Men decide every day not to bring forth new life, even though they’re biologically capable of it. Heck, hordes of men decide every day to kill all manner of people and other living things, often with legal sanction, or claimed moral right.

            Legal consideration: do men have different rights than women, or do both genders have equal rights and equal protection under law?

            The point is, women are already a life. A life capable of reproducing. The capability to reproduce is part of the woman’s person hood. Stripping her of agency over it values potential life and potential person hood over actual life and actual person hood.

            Stripping women of agency over their own person by using their person against their will is particularly nasty, to many people who have thought about all the moral, ethical, philosophical and religious implications. (You are stuck on one of the implications.)

            “… you inject a bunch of statements about men, assume that I must absolutely believe what you wrote, and then go to correct me about views I don’t have simply isn’t going to cut it here.”

            There are no human babies without men. You absolutely don’t have to “believe” that any more than the Catholic church had to “believe” that the earth orbits the sun. The facts remain, though.

            Legal question: do you think men have a right to decide whether or not to beget children?

            Have whatever views you like, just don’t insist I have to live by them. I have the right to my own views, and to live according to them. Vice-versa: I will never insist you have an abortion or use contraception if you don’t believe in them.

            “I thought I had written exactly what I meant…”

            You did. You’re perhaps unaware that inherent in the question is the implication that I’m really just thoughtless, lazy and selfish, but it’s there in the phrasing “too much trouble.” “Was it too much trouble to use birth control? Was it too much trouble to not have sex?” I.E., why were you so dumb, lazy and selfish, you couldn’t avoid pregnancy?”

            If you wanted to ask, why did you have an abortion, you should ask that, not “was it too much trouble not to get pregnant.” Yes, it was, for complex psychological reasons. And because to err is human.

            “…I’m sorry that those things happened to you, and I hope you were able to find closure and justice in the matter.”

            Thank you.

            “I live by the Buddhist proverb that “pain is inevitable, suffering is optional.” “Suffering is something we, on some level, allow.”

            That applies to people who are capable of mature philosophical thought. See: Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs.

            I know a woman who was struck by a car, breaking both her femurs. She suffered. She did not choose to. To pretend that pain is never suffering is specious, even to a Buddhist.

            “In these cases, though, there’s no “deliberately” trapping someone, unless they are an abuser or a predator.”

            Can women be predators of their own bodies? (I mean, where ever they go, there they are, to borrow a phrase.)

            Yes there is deliberately trapping them. You have to take steps to remove their ability to easily end unwanted pregnancy. You can’t the possibility just disappears. If the easiest way to not have a baby is jumping off a bridge, women will take it (I know). If the easiest way is maneuvering a crochet hook up around in there, they’ll do that, too.

            Pretending you aren’t part of that when you purposely remove other easier ways is just you being morally disingenuous.

            “It’s sad that it’s what happened, but the fact you were able to do it easily doesn’t cause me grief.”

            Apparently, it causes a great many other anti-choice people grief, however.

            “The lessons you learned from it, and the improvement of your station in life, is certainly nice to hear though.”

            Nice enough to allow other women to follow their own path in life, too?

            “Then you’re taking things personally, methinks.”

            Yes and no. It’s not personal that I get frustrated with those who act like doctors who perform abortions aren’t treating people who need help; it is personal that I feel it viscerally.

            While the procedural issues weren’t difficult, my doctor’s treatment of me was compassionate, skilled and delicate, as well as effective. (It took me a couple of decades to appreciate it, actually.) He literally gave me my life back in about 20 minutes, and not just by ending the unwanted pregnancy. A very gifted doctor.

            Yet you “disagree strongly” with what he did. I can only conclude, then, that you disagree strongly with him giving me my life back. That isn’t me “taking it personally,” it’s inherent in what you wrote.

            “The doctor you saw could be, otherwise, a pleasant and law abiding citizen.”

            He was a law abiding citizen.

            His saving the life of a human being absolutely should remove him from the line of verbal fire.

            This is the cognitive dissonance anti-abortionists live in as comfortably as a tailored suit, because either I am not a human being, or my life was disposable, since according to you he should be severely, publicly and even professionally chastised for saving it. Paradoxically, your claim to morality is that you value human life. Which is it?

            “I find this to be in error, because you’re basing it off of the idea that evil pro life people are out to destroy lives and the like.”

            What you think you’re doing or your motives for doing it are less important that what actually happens. Consider the Voting Rights Act. It was written to take account of the results of laws. The good old boys in the South could and would swear on a stack of Bibles they weren’t trying to prevent blacks from voting. What matters is, did they actually prevent blacks from voting? If so, all the rest is window dressing.

            Forcing women to gestate and give birth to babies they do not want and would not have will destroy lives. Actual lives, as in killing women; and experienced lives, as in living lives of misery.

            BTW, an “imminent” threat to life can’t always be ameliorated or reversed. Others don’t get to risk that for someone else.

            “Pro life isn’t about dehumanizing women at all. I likely could spend a great deal of time trying to convince you of that, but I don’t honestly believe you would want to hear it.”

            I’ve heard it all, and it all boils down to the same thing: the functioning of a woman’s reproductive organs matters more than their over all humanity. The very contention that a zygote, embryo or fetus is an individual person is dehumanizing to women: it defrocks them of a significant aspect of their sex, the ability to bear and give birth to children.

            (I think the way you all treat childbirth as a minor little detail is one of the most egregious examples of dehumanization.)

            “I just believe there’s more to your opposition’s side than you give credit.”

            I believe you’re mistaken. I understand that continuation of the species is among the most powerful urges in creation, and think the opposition responds in part from that. I understand that life has deep, profound, miraculous meaning, and believe they respond in part from that, too. I also understand that biological existence, while miraculous, is not all there is to the profound meaning of life.

            (For considerations of space and not going off on tangents, I will forbear from discussing the tenets of patriarchy and male supremacy; and God being “The Father,” with women being vessels for “His” use and the use of “His” male children on earth.)

            I agree wholeheartedly with their side, up to a point. That point is where the placenta attaches to the uterus. (Coincidentally, that’s the point where they stop thinking.)

            I wholeheartedly agree that unwanted pregnancy should be avoided; I don’t pretend that it always can be.

            “I see [the pro-choice] actively dismissing [the moral, religious, or ethical items to be considered], actively misrepresenting them, and actively decrying them as horrible when they’re not.”

            That’s what you want to see. Ask me any question you like; I’ve considered them all. I misrepresent nothing. (Unlike the “anti” side, which bases everything on the premise that an embryo in the womb is exactly the same thing as a living baby in a crib.)

            The results will be horrible, whether you acknowledge them or not, whether you wish they wouldn’t be, or not. Just forcing women to give birth is horrible. (Let me suggest that you wouldn’t like it if I forced you to have blood removed from you veins against your will, so the hypocrisy is horrible, too.)

            “I would point out that pro-abortion supporters are more publicly starting to make the argument that it’s, in fact, “not a big deal and isn’t a hard choice”.

            Is it a big deal if a man masturbates, thereby depriving his possible future offspring of life? Is it a hard choice for most men?

            What makes it a big deal for women to choose not to give their possible future offspring life? They’re doing exactly what men do, in regards to their own, female bodies.

            I believe what upsets the anti-choice side about that argument is, it strips them of their most potent weapons: shame and guilt. Also, once you grant women adult agency that argument is fundamentally true. One of the hardest things about making the choice is working through the shame and guilt heaped on women for daring to think ahead.

            “Inalienable rights or not, all rights come with responsibilities and limits.”

            To place limits on inalienable rights, we must follow due process of law. Saying the following rights are alienable because someone had sex is absurd: the right to life; the right to liberty and to not be forced into servitude; the right to freely exercise one’s own religion; the right to be secure in one’s person, home and property; the right to due process of law; the right to equal protection of the laws.

            Saying that only females may be stripped of their rights, without due process, because they’re female goes past absurd, into active misogyny.

            I don’t even consider the responsibility argument, since if women must stay pregnant, it’s no longer a responsibility, it’s an obligation. Having responsibility implies having agency.

            “The portion about “deceitful” reproductive science is a case-by-case basis.”

            Before viability it takes a woman to have continued gestation, in every case.

            According to proper science, a zygote IS a clump of cells. An embryo at 8 weeks gestation is barely more than that, is not alive by itself, and has no sentience, sapience, intellect or psyche (it can’t; it has no functioning brain).

            Which by itself is neither here nor there. What makes it a moral consideration is that women DO.

            “A woman has every right to be pregnant if she wants, or not be pregnant if she wants.”

            Exactly, and all the pro-choice side is saying. (BTW, no one is “pro-abortion” in the sense of advocating that women should have them. Most pregnant women do not, and you don’t see us having fits about it. We wouldn’t be fighting at all if you’d just mind your own business.)

            “… once she gets pregnant, what rights, laws, ethics, morals, and other guiding principles should be or are involved in that process?”

            I find the notion that women should be required under law or morality to endeavor to have a baby because they have conceived and MIGHT have a baby to be directly hostile to the idea of individual rights; to be the turning of laws upside down based on gender; to be ethically bankrupt because it erases women as people; and to be willfully ignorant of what it takes to successfully and lovingly raise a child, which should be one of the guiding principles under consideration.

            “But it’s the responsibility angle, of once pregnancy occurs, that is the actual debate.”

            If a woman is responsible once pregnancy occurs, it’s her responsibility to decide whether to bring it to completion.

            If she is not allowed to decide, she is not responsible. The party that strips that agency from her is responsible.

            You can’t have it both ways.

            “It’s not *about* getting into your privacy. It’s about the ethical, moral, and legal implications of a specific procedure/act that exists in the public eye.”

            The problem is, you can’t do as you wish to without breaching other people’s privacy. Look at it from a relatively shallow angle: is it my business if you have sexual intercourse? Is it the government’s business? I’m going to say no, and no. When you see an obviously pregnant woman or girl, what’s the one thing you know about her? That she’s had sexual intercourse.

            It’s not anyone’s business, on that basis alone. (Might as well argue that all non-virgin women should have a mark tattooed on their foreheads; it amounts to the same thing.)

            You don’t see the hubris in the debate because you haven’t gotten to brass tacks, which are: this movement wants to make having a safe, private abortion at the hands of a trained medical provider illegal or impossible to get. It’s not talking; it’s not debating; it’s action. This isn’t a theoretical discussion.

            “The Bible itself is very specific about apathy, about hiding your light, and about standing by while someone needs help or someone needs protection and doing nothing. I would encourage you to read those passages, and really take them to heart.”

            I find evidence of hubris in that statement, as well. I have taken them to heart, though you assume I haven’t. I believe in helping girls and women, particularly young women, to not have to go through the pain and fear I did.

            “…I am trying to at least demonstrate in a cursory fashion that children are important (and that the unborn are likewise).”

            Every one thinks children are important. Trying to conflate the “unborn” with the already living is where we come into conflict. To me, and honestly I’m not being sarcastic, that’s like me calling you an “undead corpse” and feeling justified in treating you like a corpse.

            Anyway, you’re back to valuing “unborn children” more than living girls and women. Jesus did not do that. He didn’t show the slightest signs of doing it, and by all the apparent evidence, he was a powerfully intelligent and insightful being. If he didn’t know that women of his time avoided having babies, why and how, he was, instead, an idiot. Do you think he was an idiot?

            “He judged those who knew better, and then did something bad anyway despite that knowledge.”

            I told my story so you would know better. If you would have forced me to remain pregnant anyway, you would be doing something bad despite having knowledge. (Not incidentally, I believe Jesus would not have forced me to remain pregnant; from my lived experience, I know Jesus can present himself in a person’s life any time he wants.)

            “No one *wants* you to be an incubator for its own sake.”

            Untrue, my friend. That’s exactly what they want. They’ll say it’s for the sake of the “unborn child;” they’ll say the ends justify the means. But those are the means: treating women, under law, as incubators.

            When they stop trying to outlaw safe, legal abortion, I’ll believe otherwise. When they trust women with the choice before they trust them with a child, I’ll believe otherwise.

            “We live in a world where education is readily available, where facts can be easily gained, and sadly where teaching personal responsibility has gone to the wayside.”

            I absolutely take responsibility for my once having had a medically necessary abortion. I’ll take a modicum of regret, but I won’t take guilt, I won’t take shame, and I won’t take responsibility for being a victim of child rape and hence screwed up in the head.

            I’ll thank the anti-abortion movement to stop trying to take responsibility for me, too.

            “I appreciate you opening up, and talking about this with me.”

            Thank you. I appreciate you reading and your responses.

            “We both know I think it’s sad and unfortunate. Beyond that, I’m not interested in grilling you about it or telling you how wrong you were. That isn’t my department either.”

            Kindly spread the word to your brothers and sisters.

            “I would just ask you to be mindful. Confront hostility, but don’t generate it without need, ya know?”

            A legitimate point. I will try to do better on that score in the future.

          • Cynical_Meliorist

            Thank you again for the thoughtful reply. Doing this in 2 parts, for clarity sake.

            Your first 3 paragraphs are true, about anger, fear, and sarcasm. I would point out again that you’re not being treated like a thing, you’re not being threatened, and that you’re dealing with someone who is being polite and wanting to discuss a subject honestly and openly. You’re still just making generalizations about the “movement”, and not addressing me as a fellow person. We can talk overall policy and facts, but at the end of it, it’s just two people talking.

            “They might become a baby, or, if a zygote, they might two babies or anything one can create from a stem cell. But they are not people. The salient ethical point is, women are people.”

            Yes, women are human people. The personhood/people angle is usually tiresome. I always find it’s just a way for people to skirt or strawman the uncomfortable part about it being a human life that’s treated as being disposable. Under the same guidelines, we could relabel whoever we like and not call them people, as has been done through history.

            “The notion that it’s a crime or a sin for a woman to consciously decide for herself not to bring forth a new life, that she has no agency and is just a biological specimen subject to the whims of nature, is simple misogyny. Men decide every day not to bring forth new life, even though they’re biologically capable of it. Heck, hordes of men decide every day to kill all manner of people and other living things, often with legal sanction, or claimed moral right.”

            Without pasting the paragraph before it, all of those things actually create new life. But we’re not talking about natural miscarriage, or outside forces such as a man murdering a pregnant woman. Those are all simply red herrings, in the end.

            Yet, it’s not. There are a few problems with your argument here, other than the additional “men kill all kinds of things”, which is nothing more than relative privation. That while men can make new children is true, it still takes 2, which takes nothing into account that they don’t have to do so anymore than you. The second problem is that we’re talking about the creation of a new, individual life…not some amorphous thing, and the purposeful destruction of that new life, on purpose, by the mother for whatever reason you care to name. 99% of the time, that reason isn’t medical, or even necessary. Trying to equate anything else along those lines really just isn’t helpful.

            “Legal consideration: do men have different rights than women, or do both genders have equal rights and equal protection under law?”

            In theory, it sounds good, but in practice it doesn’t work that way as well as one would think. The point I made about child support yesterday would be an easily demonstrated item for that. Otherwise, we can’t really have a law about men having babies, since biologically that’s not a thing (and no, i dont count that one dude who wasn’t really a dude having a child…that’s literally a 1 in 7 Billion chance thing). It would be nice if there really were equal protection across the board, but in practice it just doesn’t happen that way 100% of the time.

            “Stripping women of agency over their own person by using their person against their will is particularly nasty, to many people who have thought about all the moral, ethical, philosophical and religious implications.(You are stuck on one of the implications.)

            I don’t see which one i’m stuck on, so you’ll have to elaborate. In practice, the only time a woman is stripped of such agency is from rape. You can’t make the argument that women the world over, at a rate of 99%, are being made into brood mares. They had full faculty when they were creating a life, had full faculty of themselves while having fun and not thinking of the consequences, so…at what point do we allow people to continue making bad decisions based on equal/lesser/larger bad decisions, especially when it violates all 4 of your modifiers? At what point should people just shut up and go home, and let it be? We both know that answer. The fact that people have free will is fine, but no one forced the woman in those 99% of cases to do anything against her will.

            “There are no human babies without men. You absolutely don’t have to “believe” that any more than the Catholic church had to “believe” that the earth orbits the sun. The facts remain, though.”

            That wasn’t the point I was driving at, and we both know that.

            “Legal question: do you think men have a right to decide whether or not to beget children?”

            Irrelevant question. Something you should look at….legal versus moral. One does not always equal the other. Men and women both have the right to decide whether they want children or not. That’s still, but it’s also an attempt to strawman and red herring the discussion. I can’t really entertain deviations, when there’s this much to reply to.

            “Have whatever views you like, just don’t insist I have to live
            by them. I have the right to my own views, and to live according to them. Vice-versa: I will never insist you have an abortion or use contraception if you don’t believe in them.”

            The moral/principle pendulum swings both ways, maam. You don’t have to insist that others allow something they vehemently disagree with to just be allowed, because you think it should. Hence, the debate over it. The imposition of morals on one is just as odious as the lack of them in another.

            “Yes, it was, for complex psychological reasons. And because to err is human.”

            Fair enough, but I find this statement more and less telling than you know.

            ” See Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs.”

            This has mostly been replaced with what’s known as attachment theory, but….it doesn’t take a highly developed philosophical center to really grasp at the concepts. Even some of the most….less than discerning people…I’ve come across don’t function *just* with their base desires for food, sleep, sex, and water. People are not simply animals, in that respect. Consider, for example, someone who would have been in the same position as yourself previously. Did you still want friends? Did you still accept facts? Could you be creative? Those are all higher needs on the hierarchy. Boiling us down to base urges does a disservice to everyone.

            “I know a woman who was struck by a car, breaking both
            her femurs. She suffered. She did not choose to. To pretend that pain is never
            suffering is specious, even to a Buddhist.”

            Then we’re operating on a different definition of “suffering”. In this specific case, you’re talking about pure physical discomfort. I’m talking more mental, psychological, and maybe physical (but certainly not the rule). I just think we’re operating under different ideals over this one. Physical pain can make one suffer, but again..it’s largely optional.

            “Yes there is deliberately trapping them. You have to take steps to remove their ability to easily end unwanted pregnancy. You can’t pretend the possibility just disappears. If the easiest way to not have a baby is jumping off a bridge, women will take it (I know). If the easiest way is maneuvering a crochet hook up around in there, they’ll do that, too.”

            Or, we could instill better systems, whereby the idea of getting pregnant while it’s not wanted becomes an odious and unwanted thing in and of itself. Call that lofty idealism if you like, but isn’t it better to educate and to have better prevention? Would that not fit directly into the higher portions of Maslow? That is where I am focused. Two wrongs never make a right. Second, in this case, PP did a study some years ago, which thoroughly debunked the often “clothes hanger”, or crochet hook, ideology. According to their numbers, 90% or more of abortions were done by a doctor in an office…not in an back alley on a hope and a prayer.

            “Pretending you aren’t part of that when you purposely remove other easier ways is just you being morally disingenuous.”

            Quite the contrary, it its incredibly specific and in the open. It follows a simple train of thought, with a simply conclusion. I find nothing disingenuous about that, in this case.

            “Yet you “disagree strongly” with what he did. I can only conclude, then, that you disagree strongly with him giving me my life back. That isn’t me “taking it personally,” it’s inherent in what you wrote.”

            You’re conflating two items (my disagreement with his practice and you “getting your life back”). There’s no way to know if you could have done one without the other, really. I disagree with the practice of abortion. Getting your life back, or anything else, simply is you injecting personal feelings into the mix. It’s good your life turned out well afterwards, but there was a cost (whether you choose to accept that or not) that you didn’t have to pay. Just what it is.

            “His saving the life of a human being absolutely should remove him from the line of verbal fire.”

            So, save one, kill one and give him a pass? Sorry, that doesn’t balance it. A firefighter can save buildings full of people from death, but he kills someone in whatever fashion and he doesn’t get to skip court that day or move on without there being a problem. Same concept here.

            “This is the cognitive dissonance anti-abortionists live in as comfortably as a tailored suit, because either I am not a human being, or my life was disposable, since according to you he should be severely, publicly and even professionally chastised for saving it. Paradoxically, your claim to morality is that you value human life. Which is it?”

            Incorrect. You’re a human being. We’ve covered that. Your life isn’t disposable. Covered that as well. Pro life people add in that your child shouldn’t have been disposable either, with which you disagree. Also, it’s not “According to me”, but according to the breadth of medical professionals who take that line and see things that way. I’m not 95%+ of the medical community. Just reporting what’s out there, in this case. I believe what they do is morally wrong, regardless of their reputation or standing. I don’t think we need to publicly shame them….that would run entirely counter to my discussion with you about avoiding shame as a weapon, wouldn’t it? My point is that they’re doing something morally and ethically wrong, and that it’s a sad situation. In this very direct light, protecting both while not shaming the doctor……it removes your paradox claim entirely.

            “What you think you’re doing or your motives for doing it are less important that what actually happens. ”

            I disagree. If the consequence has something negative, then that means the approach that was taken to physically substantiate it, such as a voting right, was flawed. A flawed premise or conclusion doesn’t necessarily mean that the entire thing is flawed. If my motives are proper, and I’m thinking through on how to achieve those motives and goals without causing damage, then what I’m doing and how I’m doing it is paramount.

            “Forcing women to gestate and give birth to babies they do not want and would not have will destroy lives. Actual lives, as in killing women;and experienced lives, as in living lives of misery.”

            Appeal to Consequence, and the line after it was an Appeal to Pity. No one forced them to get pregnant in the first place. See, we’re right back where we started talking about education and prevention. You can’t have one without addressing *every* part of it equally.

            “The very contention that a zygote, embryo or fetus is an individual person is dehumanizing to women: it defrocks them of a significant aspect of their sex, the ability to bear and give birth to children.”

            I strongly disagree here. That contention isn’t dehumanizing at all, it’s the exact opposite. Women have the power to create and bring forth something no man can ever do. That’s an incredible and powerful thing. This, in no way (allow me to repeat, in NO way) defrocks them of their ability to have children and give birth. There’s just zero truth to that statement of yours in its entirety. It’s rhetoric. There is no movement to strip women of the right to give birth except on the say-so of someone else. Anything to the contrary is categorically false. The debate and discussion is around the idea of women throwing away their offspring like garbage (and in the case of some clinics, actually in the garbage), when those lives are intrinsically valuable on a moral/ethical level. *That* is the argument to focus on.

            “I wholeheartedly agree that unwanted pregnancy should be avoided; I just don’t pretend that it always can be.”

            I can’t disagree with that to a point, which is why the issue is complicated and worthy of discussion. For my end, I just don’t always pretend that it’s going to cause suffering, or that it’s the worst thing ever in the long and sad history of bad things happening. None of us can read the future.

            “That’s what you want to see. Ask me any question you like; I’ve considered them all. I misrepresent nothing. (Unlike the “anti” side, which bases everything on the premise that an embryo in the womb is exactly the same thing as a living baby in a crib.)”

            Based on our discussion, could I not directly indict you on the very subject of misrepresentation with this statement alone? Your own side makes it as if they’re two entirely different things, and we can both agree there are differences. Yet, each is simply the appropriate stage of life and growth based on human biology. That’s it.

            Also, it’s not just what i “want to see”. Have I not tried to establish that I’m using facts and well thought out discussion, rather than shooting from the hip or making it up as I go along? Surely, I’ve earned at least that much consideration. Again, I would point you to the references from the last post as validation.

            “The results will be horrible, whether you acknowledge
            them or not, whether you wish they wouldn’t be, or not.”

            This is known as “Assuming the Worst”. There’s zero way you, me, or anyone else in the history of humanity could know that. If you have someone who does, I’d love to know next weeks lottery numbers. The question of “Can it be bad?” is not the same as “It’s going to be the WORST thing ever!!”. I don’t confuse those two things. Negativity and situations can be dealt with, but there’s no consideration or ability to change things when life is eradicated. I find the “it’s going to suck!” argument to be vacuous.

            “Is it a big deal if a man masturbates, thereby depriving his
            possible future offspring of life? Is it a hard choice for most men?”

            Since masturbation doesn’t result in the creation of a new life, this too falls outside of the realm of discussion. A woman can masturbate repeatedly and it changes nothing and has no bearing on this topic. So to answer, it’s never a big deal because there’s no actual ethical or moral issue to be had here in context.

            “I believe what upsets the anti-choice side about that
            argument is, it strips them of their most potent weapons: shame and guilt.”

            Two things I’ve been careful to avoid and refute, and yet here I am with a cogent argument. Those two things are weak, and I have no use for them really. :)

            To place limits on inalienable rights, we must follow due
            process of law. Saying the following rights are alienable because someone had
            sex is absurd: the right to life; the right to liberty and to not be forced into servitude; the right to freely exercise one’s own religion; the right to be secure in one’s person, home and property; the right to due process of law; the right to equal protection of the laws.”

            To place limits on those rights may, or may not, be proper. We have the right to free speech, for example, but calling out “fire” in a crowded theater is a limitation. Saying that “because someone had sex” would be absurd. Have all of the sex you want. Saying that those things need review when a new life, which cannot defend itself, comes into play is a legitimate discussion to be had. Even while pregnant, you still have your own right to life (we don’t cage you). You have the right of liberty (again, b/c we don’t cage you). You have the right to not be forced into servitude (but one could point out that getting pregnant would be, in fact, one forcing themselves into that position, so…that’s an interesting discussion to have). You’re still free to practice your religion, or not practice anything. You can be secure in your home without restriction, on your property. Your legal rights are not abridged from being pregnant. You still retain all of those things. The question is how does a new, innocent and defenseless life also fit into those things, hence the debate. But dressing it down to where “pregnant women are going to lose every right and be slaves and locked up!” is massively disingenuous and doesn’t even come close to a misogynous argument.

            “I don’t even consider the responsibility argument, since if women must stay pregnant, it’s no longer a responsibility, it’s an obligation. Having responsibility implies having agency.”

            Then you’re starting at the end of the argument and working your way from there. I start pre-pregnancy. All the agency in the world is there for the taking. Starting at the beginning and moving forward, this becomes an easier discussion point.

          • TheDingus

            “I would point out again that you’re not being treated like a thing, you’re not being threatened…”

            You don’t think I have the right to determine what happens to my body for the better part of a year, and you do not believe what’s happening to it matters beyond it performing it’s biological role in reproduction. You contemplate only the biological role, as though my body is separate from my having awareness or agency. You contemplate it without giving the slightest weight to the known facts that I will be in discomfort and pain, and there will be permanent changes to my physical, emotional and mental functioning. You pretend pregnancy, childbirth and parenthood have no affect on someone’s life, liberty or property, or, at best, that
            whatever effects they do have are acceptable, including the risk of permanent disability or death, because YOU find them acceptable.

            But that’s not treating me like a thing? Of course it is. You simply dismiss me as a person. You believe any changes to my body, any pain, discomfort or loss of freedom, function or property I experience, any physical or psychological change or harm that comes to me, even my death, don’t warrant consideration.

            Then you say I’m not being threatened. Unbelievable.

            “You’re still just making generalizations about the “movement”, and not addressing me as a fellow person.”

            I wouldn’t be addressing you at all, but for the movement. I am addressing you as a fellow person, who is part of a movement. My responses are in part because the movement you’re involved in aims to strip me of my humanity and rights. This is not just a theoretical discussion.

            “The personhood/people angle is usually tiresome. I always find it’s just a way for people to skirt or strawman the uncomfortable part about it being a human life that’s
            treated as being disposable.”

            Are you genuinely saying that considering what it means to be human is tiresome? Then, pray tell, what value do we have? Biological existence is the start, not the entirety.

            “Under the same guidelines, we could relabel whoever we like and not call them people, as has been done through history.”

            We can do that if individual people don’t have individual rights. It takes authoritarian power to do what you describe, the exact power the anti-abortion movement wants to hand to the government.

            If a human person is living outside of and despite another human person, she is an individual human being, irregardless of gender, ability, ethnicity, race, politics or religion. I will not relabel them anything. However, I can easily tell that they’re not living inside of and because of someone else, something you refuse to see.

            I think pregnancy is one individual who is reproducing, not two “individuals.” There MIGHT BE two individuals, in the future. There is only one, in the present.

            “Without pasting the paragraph before it, all of those things actually create new life.”

            Then take those new lives out of the body of the person who doesn’t want them there, and let them get on with their lives. Perhaps you’ll think I’m being sarcastic, but I’m not. Let them have *their* rights and *their* lives. They don’t get to have them at my expense, at risk to me, without my consent, any more than you do.

            “But we’re not talking about natural miscarriage, or outside forces such as a man murdering a pregnant woman. Those are all simply red herrings, in the end.”

            YOU’RE not talking about that; I am.

            Now homicide is a “red herring.” (But you’re not threatening to women, at all.)

            Homicide and suicide cause more maternal deaths than medical complications. Were you aware of that? Well, you are now (though I anticipate you’ll continue to say it doesn’t matter, which I find rather hostile).

            What you call “a new life” is not capable of independent existence and may never be capable of it. Simultaneously, the girl or woman is already a life and is already having an independent existence. Throughout your entire reply, you continually dismiss that, as if it’s unimportant, a
            “red herring” or a “straw man.”

            You erase women.

            You recapitulate exactly what I find outrageous: that it’s “one thing” to talk about failed conception or miscarriage, but it’s something else if women make decisions as thinking people. You reduce women to being THINGS without AGENCY; stuff happen *to* them, and we can’t stop it. Except, in reality, we can and we do.

            “There are a few problems with your argument here, other than the additional “men kill all kinds of things”, which is nothing more than relative privation.”

            The privation is women’s, relative to men’s, while the privilege is men’s, relative to women’s. (How convenient for men, huh?) But that doesn’t have to be. We can address
            it, and we do.

            I’m not fallaciously ignoring your contentions. I’m considering them, weighing them and finding that the privation/privilege in-balance you accept is unacceptable to me.

            “… which takes nothing into account that they don’t have to do so anymore than you.”

            But according to you, I do have to create children. Literally create them, from my blood, my breath, my bones, my organs, and my hormones.

            That you seem to believe a child is created absent gestation is a delusion based in misogyny.

            “We’re talking about the creation of a new, individual life…”

            It’s not individual. Expel or otherwise remove it from the woman’s body and it’s dead, but the woman is not. The woman is individual.

            “99% of the time, that reason isn’t medical, or even necessary.”

            How do you know if it’s medically necessary? I ask that literally: is the medical status of women freely available to you? Should it be? Do women have no right to privacy because they’re female?

            What makes you think a woman can’t decide for herself what’s necessary? Why do other people who don’t know her, who have no right or authority to know the intimate details of her life, get to decide what’s necessary for her?

            “In theory, it sounds good…”

            It’s not theory; it’s written in our Constitution. The answer is, no, men and women don’t have different inalienable rights based on their gender. Inalienable rights, as the anti-abortion movement loves to point out, are based on humanity, not gender.

            “we can’t really have a law about men having babies”

            Why not? I’m seriously asking, because clearly you believe we can have a law about women having babies, and there are no babies without men.

            We can’t have a law that treats women differently under law, either.

            “It would be nice if there really were equal protection across the board, but in practice it just doesn’t happen that way 100% of the time.”

            There’s a difference between, “it exists in law but we can’t always guarantee it” and making sure it doesn’t exist in law. Right now, the anti-abortion movement is actively working to make sure what already exists in law no longer would.

            Please quit pretending otherwise.

            “I don’t see which [implication] i’m stuck on, so you’ll have to elaborate…”

            Your stuck on, abortion stops a life from developing. That’s one consideration. It’s not every consideration. In fact, to my mind, worrying about the private disposition of an embryo whose own parents don’t want to be born is far down the list of ills in the world that need addressing. The suffering and dying of living, sapient people tops it, by miles. The destruction of the environment, the mass extinction of
            many forms of life, top it by miles. Etc.

            “In practice, the only time a woman is stripped of such agency is from rape.”

            Untrue. Pregnancy takes forty weeks. A woman is completely aware of what’s going on throughout most of that time. You strip her agency over her reproductive organs from her a teensy bit later than a rapist does, but for much longer.

            I find rapists to be more honest and straight foward than folks like you. They make no bones about using a woman’s body against her will. You go to great lengths to pretend you’re doing no such thing, even when you are. They often
            intend to commit assault (unwanted touching) while you pretend unwanted touching isn’t even going on. They cause girls and women harm and sometimes have the decency to be a little furtive about it: you cause girls and women harm and call it “moral.”

            “They had full faculty when they were creating a life, had full faculty of themselves while having fun and not thinking of the consequences”

            Ah, yes. We’re back to women being thoughtless and selfish. (AKA, human.)

            Creating a life takes 40 weeks, not two minutes.

            “At what point do we allow people to continue making bad decisions based on equal/lesser/larger bad decisions, especially when it violates all 4 of your modifiers?”

            We always let people make bad decisions, if we consider them individuals with rights and agency over their own lives. We only step in when they are incapable of decision
            making (young or mentally challenged or physically unable) or there is harm to another, against that person’s will. (For example, I may think S&M practice is harmful, but if two consenting adults engage in it, that’s their business because it’s their will and they both agreed.)

            That’s why you insist developing embryonic life is “individual” when it is not. That’s why you insist that a Z/E/F is “harmed” when they’re incapable of feeling or perceiving harm; and pretend women aren’t harmed, even though they are capable of feeling and perceiving harm; indeed, even when they tell you directly of the harms they experience. That’s why you behave as if the possible future acquisition of will is more valuable than the actual, current will of a living individual.

            (Just writing “it violates all 4 of your modifiers” is meaningless when you don’t explain how.)

            “No one forced the woman in those 99% of cases to do anything against her will.”

            But you will force her to do something against her will for the next several months.

            “Legal question: do you think men have a right to decide whether or not to beget children?” “Irrelevant question.”

            Not at all. We don’t reproduce by parthenogenesis. There are no living babies without men. If men are not depriving their own children of life by choosing not to create them, women aren’t, either.

            I’m not the one arguing that because we’re capable of having children, we have to. You are. (But you don’t mean “we;” you mean “females only.”)

            “You don’t have to insist that others allow something they vehemently disagree with…”

            Yes, I do. It’s neither their business nor do they have the authority to “allow” me to live by my beliefs, not theirs.

            As far as I’m concerned, there is no debate about that. I have rights you do not get to strip from me wholesale.

            I’m not “allowing” you to live according to your own beliefs. You have the right to and I acknowledge that, and recognize I don’t have the right to interfere, no matter how “vehemently” I disagree. I vehemently disagree with factory farming; I don’t take steps to disallow others from buying food from where ever they wish.

            “Even some of the most….less than discerning people…I’ve come across don’t function *just* with their base desires for food, sleep, sex, and water.”

            They do when they’re starving or dying of thirst. Sleep deprivation is a torture technique; without sleep we become psychotic. Does psychosis lends itself to having a philosophical center? (Men without access to
            sex get up to all sorts of nastiness sometimes; have you noticed?)

            “People are not simply animals, in that respect.”

            I’d say people are not simply animals, period. But you’re stuck with adding the modifier because you think women ARE simply animals, when it comes to reproduction.

            “Did you still want friends?” No. I didn’t trust people.

            “Did you still accept facts?” Sometimes. I didn’t accept the fact that young men are powerfully motivated by the desire to have sex, for instance.

            “Could you be creative?” In between panic attacks and suicidal thoughts? No.

            “Boiling us down to base urges does a disservice to everyone.”

            Yet you boil women down to their base biologically functioning every day of the week.

            “Then we’re operating on a different definition of ‘suffering’. ”

            You can say that again.

            “Or, we could instill better systems, whereby the idea of getting pregnant while it’s not wanted becomes an odious and unwanted thing in and of itself.”

            You might as well say, “where the idea of having sex without wanting babies” or “the idea that we’re human and
            make mistakes” is odious.

            I don’t call that lofty; I call it judgmental and cruel.

            Having said that, I certainly agree we should do everything possible to make unwanted pregnancy easily avoidable, and to encourage people to avail themselves of every possible means. I would encourage people to be mindful, absolutely; I just wouldn’t expect it, pretend they always are, or make it compulsory.

            You start by recognizing that people have fundamental agency over their own bodies. Without that, everything else
            is arguing how many angels may dance on the head of a pin.

            “According to their numbers, 90% or more of abortions were done by a doctor in an office…not in an back alley on a hope and a prayer.”

            (A) Link, please (to the study, not to an anti-abortion site). (B) You’ll have to tell it to the women I’ve known who didn’t go to a doctor’s office, and to the families of girls and women who died of attempts at self-abortion.

            “Quite the contrary, it its incredibly specific and in the open.”

            You divesting yourself of any responsibility for the outcomes of what you would impose certainly is in the open.

            “You’re conflating two items (my disagreement with his practice and you ‘getting your life back’).”

            You’re right. I’m considering something that happened to me congruently actually happened to me congruently. But I must be wrong, mustn’t I?

            You’re dismissing me as a person, again.

            “There’s no way to know if you could have done one without the other, really.”

            Yes there is: I just told you there wasn’t. I would’ve killed myself without the abortion; I very nearly did even though abortion is safe, legal and accessible. Stop dismissing me as a person.

            “Getting your life back, or anything else, simply is you injecting personal feelings into the mix.”

            And, being a mere female, my “personal feelings” of darkness, pain and despair are obviously worthy of zero consideration. Charming.

            “It’s good your life turned out well afterwards, but there was a cost (whether you choose to accept that or not) that you didn’t have to pay.”

            There was a cost I didn’t want to pay, so I didn’t. You think I should have, based on YOUR personal beliefs and feelings. Now you think I should pay a different cost, for being
            human. Serious hubris.

            “So, save one, kill one and give him a pass?”

            No one was killed. They weren’t spontaneously alive, yet.

            Give him a pass for saving a human life? Yes. Unless, as I said, I’m not human and/or my life is disposable.

            “You’re a human being.”

            Until I conceive, then I’m an incubator without agency.

            “Your life isn’t disposable.”

            Of course it is: you would deliberately prevent me and others from getting the care I needed. You’ve even stated that a woman’s MURDER would just be a “red herring.”

            You would deliberately hound a decent human being out of the very practice that saved my life. How about, for a refreshing change, you take responsibility for that?

            “Pro life people add in that your child shouldn’t have been disposable either, with which you disagree.”

            It was never going to be my child, one way or the other. Children are what you have after live birth. Dead women don’t give live birth.

            “My point is that they’re doing something morally and ethically wrong, and that it’s a sad situation.”

            My point is that saving women’s lives isn’t morally or ethically wrong.

            “Protecting both while not shaming the doctor.”

            You cannot protect both. You can protect one, or the other. How I wish you could see what is so plainly true.

            No one is forcing you to shame doctors for providing medical care. You want to.

            (Cut “blah blah blah it doesn’t matter what happens to women” re: laws and rights.)

            “Appeal to Consequence”

            Yeah. I think considering consequences is valid. Again, this is not a theoretical discussion.

            “Appeal to Pity.”

            Appeal to empathy.

            “You can’t have one without addressing *every* part of it equally.”

            I do and I have. We should have wide spread sex education and access to contraception . We should make child rearing tenable socially and economically, and the well being of children paramount.

            I’ve given a great deal of consideration to the status of embryos and fetuses. I don’t find that their ACTUAL status (as opposed to the status they MIGHT achieve) rises to the level of girls’ and womens’.

            “Women have the power to create and bring forth something no man can ever do. That’s an incredible and powerful thing.”

            So powerful, we can’t let mere women be in charge of whether or not it happens.

            “This, in no way (allow me to repeat, in NO way) defrocks them of their ability to have children and give birth.”

            You talk repeatedly and consistently about zygotes, embryos and fetuses as if they exist and develop individually, when they don’t. That’s defrocking women of their role in pregnancy.

            You can’t defrock them of their ability; indeed, you want to compel them to actualize their ability whether they want to, or not.

            “There is no movement to strip women of the right to give birth except on the say-so of someone else.”

            Oh for crying out loud. Yes, there is a movement to strip women of their right to end pregnancy because they don’t want to give birth. If they cannot end their own pregnancies, a likely outcome will be that they give birth. If they cannot decide NOT to give birth, they are being forced to give birth.

            Conception is not pregnancy. Women are aware, thinking, feeling human beings with will. You don’t get to pretend that all goes away because they had sex.

            (Cut “blah blah blah throwing a used feminine napkin away like garbage is outrageous…” [not in my house.])

            “None of us can read the future.”

            Suddenly, we can’t understand data?

            “Your own side makes it as if they’re two entirely different things”

            Because it IS two entirely different things. An embryo in the womb is living inside of and because of a woman. A baby in a crib is not. You erase women.

            “Have I not tried to establish that I’m using facts and well thought out discussion, rather than shooting from the hip or making it up as I go along?”

            I’ll grant that you try. What I perceive you doing is using facts when they apply, calling facts logical fallacies when you don’t want to apply them, and ignoring two very salient facts: there are no babies without women’s bodies, and women are individual human beings with rights.

            “This is known as “Assuming the Worst”.”

            I’m assuming nothing. I lived it. Others I’ve known have lived it too. There are all sorts of data to refer to, regarding maternal mortality and morbidity, poverty, and child abuse, as well.

            “Since masturbation doesn’t result in the creation of a new life, this too falls outside of the realm of discussion.”

            That’s my point: masturbation doesn’t result in the creation of a new life. Clearly you think it’s fine for men to decide not to create new life, deliberately choosing to throw their possible future offspring away in the trash like garbage.

            Conception very often doesn’t result in the creation of a new life, either, a point you dismissed as unimportant, if I recall.

            PREGNANCY results in the creation of a new life. Women don’t have to be pregnant if they don’t want to be, even if a new life will not be created because of it, anymore than men HAVE TO have sex so a new life can be created.

            (Cut discussion of rights in which you completely ignore the concept of due process and the level of actual harm done to sapient persons.)

            “Even while pregnant, you still have your own right to life (we don’t cage you).”

            Until I throw an embolism and die. (Slave owners didn’t “cage” their slaves, either; hard to get any work out of them, that way.)

            “You have the right of liberty (again, b/c we don’t cage you).”

            I don’t have control over the day to day functioning of my own body, and you think that’s “liberty?” Think a woman is free to do whatever she wants while she’s throwing up? Think she’s free to do whatever she wants while pushing an infant out of her vagina? A pregnant woman is not at liberty if she hasn’t chosen to remain pregnant, and it takes a particular level of delusion and arrogance to pretend otherwise.

            A parent is likewise not at liberty. That’s fine IF THEY CHOOSE IT. If they don’t, you have absolutely stripped them of their liberty. No two ways about it.

            “.. one could point out that getting pregnant would be, in fact, one forcing themselves into that position”

            Nope. STAYING pregnant would be putting oneself in that position. People have the right to choose.

            “You’re still free to practice your religion, or not practice anything.”

            No I’m not. My religion says God gave me free will, in fact, that will is the very heart of a meaningful existence. Not incidentally, my religion has no proscription against abortion.

            “You can be secure in your home without restriction, on your property.”

            Not if I throw an embolism due to pregnancy and die in it. Not if every Tom Dick and Harry knows I had intercourse in it.

            “Your legal rights are not abridged from being pregnant.”

            They are if I’m required to be pregnant against my will.

            “The question is how does a new, innocent and defenseless life also fit into those things, hence the debate.”

            New? Not yet. Potential.

            Innocent? You could say a being without a brain is “innocent” but I find that to be a term of rhetoric and appeal to emotion.

            A woman who dies due pregnancy has lost her right to life. Since we cannot know which women might lose their lives due to pregnancy, we strip all women of, if not their actual lives, but their right to life. And we do so by letting their own bodies kill them. (Charming, again.)

            If the government has the authority to compel continued
            pregnancy, she’s lost her right to privacy and her right to liberty, along with the right to not be deprived of property, and her right not to be placed into servitude.

            If continued pregnancy is compelled based on her gender, with no consideration of her circumstances, with no warrant nor probable cause to get one, she’s lost her right to due process.

            Of course it’s misogynist to pretend none of that is true.

            “Then you’re starting at the end of the argument and working your way from there. I start pre-pregnancy.”

            And you stop pre-pregnancy, too. At pregnancy, YOU take responsibility.
            Re·spon·si·bil·i·ty: the opportunity or ability to act independently and make decisions without authorization.

            “All the agency in the world is there for the taking.”

            Well, other than deciding not to be pregnant, thereby changing my entire life, forever, on your say-so.

          • Cynical_Meliorist

            Thank you for the reply. I tried to be brief, but…11 pages takes a while to respond to.

            “You don’t think I have the right to determine what happens to my body for the better part of a year, and you do not believe what’s happening to it matters beyond it performing it’s biological role in reproduction.”

            Again, you’re simply taking things that are being said, and applying them like you would anyone else. I think you have a right to determine those things, and have plenty of agency beforehand to do so. Once you introduce another life into the mix, it’s not just about you anymore. Otherwise, nothing of which you say in that entire paragraph is what I believe, and you’re doing nothing but projecting a series of talking points.

            “You contemplate it without giving the slightest weight to the known facts that I will be in discomfort and pain, and there will be permanent changes to my physical, emotional and mental functioning.”

            Patently false. All of those things are taken into consideration. Pregnancy and childbirth don’t happen because of unicorns, magic, and elves. It’s not some magically painless or totally neutral process, and no one here pretends that it is as such.

            “You pretend pregnancy, childbirth and parenthood have no affect on someone’s life, liberty or property, or, at best, that whatever effects they do have are acceptable, including the risk of permanent disability or death, because YOU find them acceptable.”

            Again, patently false. When we talk about risk of death, and to save the life of the mother, then abortion IS a viable alternative. In this case, you’re trying to use the exception (an exception less than 1% of the time, i might add) to justify the other 99% in which that never applies. *I* don’t find death acceptable at all, any anyone reading our exchange wouldn’t come to that conclusion at all.

            “But that’s not treating me like a thing? Of course it is. You simply dismiss me as a person.”

            Not at all. In fact, I’ve not dismissed you in any way, have I? Have I not been engaging you as a person with rational feelings and thoughts? You’re not a thing, and if you keep insisting that I must believe it, for no other reason than I disagree with your position, then we’ll have less to really discuss.

            “Then you say I’m not being threatened. Unbelievable.”

            Your umbrage here, as I just demonstrated, is ill advised and misplaced. If life and limb are in danger, you’ll find no argument here. Otherwise, your point holds no actual water.

            “My responses are in part because the movement you’re
            involved in aims to strip me of my humanity and rights.”

            Again, more talking points. No one is seeking really seeking to make you a person with no rights. The idea is balance between the rights you have and the rights of the life you create. If all human life deserves protection (and pro life people believe in this instance that ti does), the idea is to balance those. Saying we want to give a fetus *more* rights is inaccurate, since at present they have little to no legal protection at all.

            “Are you genuinely saying that considering what it means to be human is tiresome? Then, pray tell, what value do we have? Biological existence is the start, not the entirety.”

            No, I’m saying that when pro-abortion supporters use it as a word game, it’s tiresome. If existence is the start, then why would one then delay giving protection to something valuable? This runs counter to the abortion mainstream argument, who do not believe this…it’s a complete contradiction to say something is valuable and worth protection….and then not really do it.

            “I think pregnancy is one individual who is reproducing, not two “individuals.” There MIGHT BE two individuals, in the future. There is only one, in the present.”

            This is biologically incorrect. You would be an individual who does/is/did produce another individual. The entire idea of “potential” in these cases is an equivocation argument. If you’re pregnant, there’s no “potential” there, you’re actually pregnant. What’s there is actually alive. When pro-abortion supporters talk about said potential, they mean as someone who has a social security number and can graduate from college as “potential”. But you’re *actually* pregnant with an *actual* life. There’s nothing mysterious or unscientific here…quite the contrary.

            “Now homicide is a “red herring.” (But you’re not
            threatening to women, at all.)

            In this case, it is. You’re using it as a justification for something where it’s in a massive minority, to justify the remainder of your claims. The fact you find this threatening is simply inaccurate. If we were talking about forced abortions via murder, then you’d be on point. Talking about elective abortions, again…99% of the time…and throwing in a murder stat which doesn’t apply is in fact a red herring. You’re still looking for malfeasance where it doesn’t exist.

            “Homicide and suicide cause more maternal deaths than medical complications. Were you aware of that? Well, you are now (though I anticipate you’ll continue to say it doesn’t matter, which I find rather hostile).

            I was aware and those things do matter, so your anticipation wasn’t well placed. You’re still assuming *everything* is negative right from the start. On the other hand, we could address post-abortive women committing suicide as an equally important problem, or the mental and physical issues that come along with that (depression, infertility later, complications, etc). Are those important? Absolutely. Are they part of the discussion? Sometimes. Each of those need to be addressed seperately, but again…using murder stats for abortion justification isn’t the argument and doesn’t hold up under scrutiny in the context of what we’re discussing.

            “What you call “a new life” is not capable of independent existence and may never be capable of it. Simultaneously, the girl or woman is already a life and is already having an independent existence. Throughout your entire reply, you continually dismiss that, as if it’s unimportant, a “red herring” or a “straw man.”

            Neither are patients in temporary comas, but we don’t kill them needlessly. So are toddlers, but we don’t eradicate them wholesale either. There are many who can’t live without someone else (and the whole “it’s inside me!” argument is specious and ambiguous….that’s natural biological reproduction at work, not artificial means of support), yet we don’t kill them because it’s convenient. That is a moral underpinning that pro-abortion supporters clearly skirt, because there’s no actual moral argument for abortion outside of life and death situations, which are exceedingly rare at best.

            “You erase women.”

            Hardly. I place the woman and their child on equal footing. I believe both have the right to life. How does that “erase” them….especially given in the context that our entire discussion is about people making better choices, being responsible and *acting* like an adult? You’re simply trying to play the misogyny card over and over where it doesn’t apply, simply because you’re already biased in that direction.

            “But according to you, I do have to create children. Literally
            create them, from my blood, my breath, my bones, my organs, and my hormones.”

            Ambiguity argument and completely wrong. I’m not saying you *have* to at all. Have no children, if you choose. Have 20. The argument is about the ones that are terminated, not the ones you have or don’t, and no one is ever advocating that you must absolutely have kids. Even the idea that such would be the case would be generously called a stretch.

            “That you seem to believe a child is created absent gestation isa delusion based in misogyny.”

            Again, misogyny. It’s the only card you can keep playing, but it’s wrong every time you do. I’ve not degraded you, or sought to lock you up to breed, or talked down to you simply because you’re a woman. Do you really think that people believe gestation happens that way? Do you genuinely think that I believe that women magically get pregnant and the stork shows up later with a delivery? Let’s be real about this, and be honest. This is a ridiculous statement that you’re better than having to make. Again, you’re just trying to justify a position by saying that the other person’s malfeasance is at play when it’s not the case.

            “How do you know if it’s medically necessary?”

            Easily. That’s the stats reported repeatedly from Guttmacher and the medical community. While Guttmacher is a pro-abortion group, their stats are commonly used for statistical purposes. I’m just arguing the facts as presented publicly. Their own stats say this, and they’re the opposition.

            “What makes you think a woman can’t decide for herself what’s necessary? ”

            Who says she can’t? The problem is that there is a massive amount of misinformation and rhetoric involved (and we can admit this isn’t one sided). Do you expect people to make good choices with bad information…especially since those who offer the service there financially profit from the exchange? It’s at least worth pausing and considering.

            “Why not? I’m seriously asking, because clearly you believe we can have a law about women having babies, and there are no babies without men.”

            As you keep pointing out, women gestate babies. Men can’t. You’re being argumentative over this for no real purpose. Yes, men have to be involved on some level, one way or the other. Otherwise, nothing here.

            “. Right now, the anti-abortion movement is actively working to make sure what already exists in law no longer would. Please quit pretending otherwise.”

            I would disagree. Folks like myself realize the value of medically necessary abortion practices. As much as morally it’s wrong, as stated before, you’ll find decent support for abortion in cases of rape and incest. It’s the “on demand” function that is odious. Again, restriction isn’t outright denial. Couple this with proper education and other programs, and I doubt you’d find much wrong with the proposal.

            “Your stuck on, abortion stops a life from developing.
            That’s one consideration.”

            That’s not one consideration, that’s *the* consideration. That is exactly what abortion is and does, without any preamble. It terminates a pregnancy. That termination is a life that, otherwise, could have been viable. There’s no splitting hairs about it. Abortion is the destruction of a life. Biologically, scientifically, philosophically, there’s no escaping that conclusion at all.

            “In fact, to my mind, worrying about the private
            disposition of an embryo whose own parents don’t want to be born is far down
            the list of ills in the world that need addressing.”

            Again, relative privation and appealing to consequence.

            “The suffering and dying of living, sapient people tops
            it, by miles. ”

            I consider them at least equally worthy of consideration and debate. Notice I’m not placing a fetus *over* others in that respect. I’m simply giving equal moral footing.

            “. You strip her agency over her reproductive organs from her a teensy bit later than a rapist does, but for much longer.”

            This is a stretch. Comparing pregnancy to raping someone is….i’m sorry, it’s dumb. Just plain dumb. If you consider a frat girl out getting drunk and getting pregnant on the same plane as a woman getting raped repeatedly and becoming pregnant by her rapist, then we have a much broader conversation to undertake. One of those is done by bad choice and lack of planning. The other is done by a horrible, traumatizing, violent physical action of sexual aggression against another person. These are not even in the same zip code as being alike.

            “Ah, yes. We’re back to women being thoughtless and selfish. (AKA, human.)”

            Some are. Unless you’re willing to argue that everyone is thoughtful, insightful, and plans to have abortions (which you’ve admitted isn’t true previously), then yes. Humans can be that way. Again, two wrongs don’t equal a right.

            “Creating a life takes 40 weeks, not two minutes.”

            Nit-picky, but…it does take 2 minutes. It takes 40 weeks to allow it to fully live and be born. I do applaud the idea you acknowledge there is life there. You just don’t want to say it’s human. You don’t like having to admit that there is a moral component to killing innocent humans. Just what that is really.

            “We always let people make bad decisions, if we consider them individuals with rights and agency over their own lives. We only step in when they are incapable of decision
            making (young or mentally challenged or physically unable) or there is harm to another, against that person’s will.”

            Correct. Notice the line of thinking. We step in to protect people from themselves. From harming others. Right before this, you acknowledge that there’s life…but here you dismiss it as unworthy or not needing any protections. That said life is nothing more than property. That’s a dark line of thinking to have, when you see another life as nothing more than disposable goods. The unborn cannot defend themselves, cannot act on their own behalf to protect themselves or ask for help, any more than an infant or toddler. All of the things you state in that last paragraph are reasons why pro life people do act. You’ve summed it up yourself.

            “That’s why you insist developing embryonic life is
            “individual” when it is not.”

            Ambiguity argument. “Individual”, as you mean it, would be a high school senior. Someone with a career. Someone who bought a house. Someone who is swinging on a playground somewhere. Yet, scientifically and biologically, we are all individuals from the moment of conception. You already know this, and even acknowledged it previously. Using this term in two different contexts to justify your point, when clearly one of them is accurate and the other is only for the purpose of shifting goalposts, isn’t going to work. If you want to argue this point, then you’re relying on an ableist/ageist/location argument, which has already been dismantled.

            “That’s why you behave as if the possible future acquisition of will is more valuable than the actual, current will of a living individual.”

            Even you must admit at this point that my position isn’t what you’re listing. I’ve stated repeatedly that I find both of them equally valuable. If all human life contains inherent value, then why would they be different in that context? They wouldn’t, and to argue otherwise would undermine my own argument.

            “Not at all. We don’t reproduce by parthenogenesis. There are no living babies without men. If men are not depriving their own children of life by choosing not to create them, women aren’t, either.”

            Specious argument. In this case, the question wasn’t part of the actual debate. I find this basically as tautology, given other statements.

            “Yes, I do. It’s neither their business nor do they have the authority to “allow” me to live by my beliefs, not theirs.”

            Again though, double standard. You’re asking others to accept something for which they are morally and completely opposed. If i were to turn it around, and say “well, you had no right to impose Roe v Wade, because before that things were illegal…you should have just accepted it”, what kind of nonsense would you believe me to be using? The pendulum for these things swings both ways.

            “I vehemently disagree with factory farming; I don’t take steps to disallow others from buying food from where ever they wish.”

            No, but would you accept and help pass legislation that curtailed factory farming? Would you write letters to a congressman, or blog about how this style of farming is unethical and damaging? Same difference really.

            “They do when they’re starving or dying of thirst. Sleep deprivation is a torture technique; without sleep we become psychotic. Does psychosis lends itself to having a philosophical center? (Men without access to sex get up to all sorts of nastiness sometimes; have you noticed?)”

            In this case, you’re going to extremes. If someone is dying of thirst, having sex isn’t an obvious priority. Using extreme situations and examples doesn’t justify the point. And yes,I have noticed some men are like that….as are some women. Again, it’s human, right?

            “You might as well say, “where the idea of having sex without wanting babies” or “the idea that we’re human and
            make mistakes” is odious.”

            Not at all. Asking people to be responsible is what we, as people do, every day of the week. Making mistakes is one thing, but compounding mistakes can be avoided.

            “I don’t call that lofty; I call it judgmental and cruel.”

            Asking people to plan ahead, not to do things all willy nilly, not to endanger or destroy the very life they create, and to act like a responsible person with a sense of right, wrong, and with intellect is anything but judgmental and cruel. The only way to take it that was is if you believe it’s totally fine for people to be unthinking idiots who are ruled by their loins. That’s not the case, it’s not what either of us really believe, and I can’t give you this one. Oddly, we agreed right after this:
            “Having said that, I certainly agree we should do everything
            possible to make unwanted pregnancy easily avoidable, and to encourage people to avail themselves of every possible means. I would encourage people to be
            mindful, absolutely; I just wouldn’t expect it, pretend they always are, or make it compulsory.”

            Honestly, I do expect it on some level (not the compulsion, just in case). I expect adults to act like adults. I’m all for having fun, and i’m not some stick in the mud. At the endof the day though, society *expects* people to be responsible. “I was out having a good time” isn’t valid justification for practically anything you can name that we are required to take care of regularly. Forgetting to pay your mortgage, or light bill, or showing up at the grocery store without anything to pay with are easy examples. Those things happen, and even sometimes because we’re busy with other things, but….your bank isn’t going to accept that excuse (or, maybe…but not for long..they know we make mistakes). Miss a payment, sure. Miss six of them, and there’s little to no going back. We, in almost every avenue of life, are expected to act like adults and be responsible.

          • TheDingus

            This one will be quite a bit shorter.

            You remind me of a picture I once saw. In it, a tribal elder is holding a young girl over his lap (he’s very strong, as men are against young girls). On his face is the classic patriarchal look that says “what I do to you I do because I know better and everything is going to be okay if you would stop uselessly struggling against me” as he slices her clitoris off with a ritual knife, without benefit of anesthesia. Following that he’ll probably sew her
            labia shut, also without anesthesia.

            Much that is wrong in this world is summed up in that picture. His utter inability to empathize with the pain he’s deliberately inflicting is in the same vein as the following statement:

            “You’re using homicide as a justification for something where it’s in a massive minority.”

            Murder is irrelevant if it’s a small number of murders? You believe killing pregnant women is easily dismissed? (Like the agony and terror of a young girl forcibly having her sexual parts removed and mutilated is.)

            Then you tell me that my feeling threatened by your acceptance of women’s deaths is “inaccurate.” (Because it will all be okay if I stop uselessly feeling things for myself, and let you define me.)

            It’s clear you know women are murdered while pregnant, in fact, for BEING pregnant. The Nazis quickly murdered pregnant inmates, which is why they had abortions in concentration camps at great risk to themselves, but less risk than the certainty of being murdered if found to be pregnant. (Silly women, struggling for their own survival, almost as if they’re human beings, or something.)

            I’m just “throwing in a stat” and it’s not malfeasance on your part to accept the murders of women. Murders that in many cases the woman sees coming well ahead of time. No wonder you think discussion of sapience is “word games.” You have a more lofty goal, like the patriarch who mutilates young girls. A few corpses isn’t even in it. (What “right” to life?)

            You’re way too far down the rabbit hole, when murder is copacetic as long as it isn’t too many folks who get whacked. Or is it only okay if it’s just women? (Of course.)

            I hope you come back up, some day, but I doubt it. You’ve found too cozy a home in the anti-choice movement. Which tells me all I need to know about it.

            I really hope there aren’t many pointlessly sapient girls or women in your life.

            No need to reply; you’ve clarified your position nicely.

          • Cynical_Meliorist

            You clearly, after all of our discussion, have still missed…well, the entire point.

            “You remind me of a picture I once saw. ”

            After reading that section, it’s no surprise that our discussion has come down to your comparison of someone who is pro life to those who want mutilate genitals and the like. It’s sad that, despite being told the facts of the discussion and the actual purpose behind it over half a dozen times, than in the end you fall back to “he hates women!”, because as is your calling card…anyone who disagrees with you clearly hates all women and wants to enslave, mutilate, and harm them.

            This, of course, flies in the face of every fact, every point I’ve mentioned, every part of the discussion where you’ve been told directly this isn’t the case, and pretty much anything else that’s been said.

            You’ve literally allowed your projection of issues from abuse you suffered to color other people who disagree with you as of the same stripe. It’s sad, and I feel pity for you. Yet, I’m not surprised.

            You have actively, repeatedly, dismissed even basic biology and demonstrated a specific lack of knowledge (the conception/implantation part was especially revealing of this fact) on the subject. You’ve repeatedly told your opponent that he must believe something (and you do it again here too, but I’ll get to that in a moment), because you can’t imagine them believing anything else. That line of thinking is not only fallacious and incorrect, but telling of the very position and line of thinking you hold. Your inability to even ponder the fact that you might, actually and factually, be incorrect never even occurred to you (and I’d be money you make a face at the screen and show umbrage at this statement, whether you reply or not.)

            “”You’re using homicide as a justification for something where it’s in a massive minority.”Murder is irrelevant if it’s a small number of murders? You believe killing pregnant women is easily dismissed? (Like the agony and terror of a young girl forcibly having her sexual parts removed and mutilated is.)”

            This is nothing more than an ad hominem attack, based on the most incorrect interpretation of the facts and statements made you could possibly have typed. Since you need clarification, allow me to assist you.

            No one said those who are murdered are not important. Their lives, like the life of the one you destroyed, is intrinsically valuable. But then again, that wasn’t the point. The entire point was that you’re using something that happens as as *s-t-a-t-i-s-t-i-c-a-l* minority (almost to the point of being invisible in the stats) to justify something that happens over 1 million times a year. Just saying the above statement of yours must took a grand amount of willpower to blatantly disregard literally 20+ pages of material to the contrary. I do not, in fact, believe in dismissing those murders….and i’ll spell it out for you….

            In. The. Proper. Context.

            You failed to do so, and still cling to the idea that clearly, people believe murder is ok. Again, after being told in the “dozen times” neighborhood that your conclusion was wrong and that you were warping an obvious sentiment into something ridiculous.

            “t’s clear you know women are murdered while pregnant, in fact, for BEING pregnant. ”

            Yes, something covered on this site by one Adam Peters on several articles, and something which as an act is deplorable and should be prevented where possible, and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law otherwise. Is that not clear enough for you? However, again..you’re using a statistic out of place to justify a practice that biologically, you don’t even understand.

            If you doubt such understanding, then a refresher course in Biology would give you the difference between implantation and conception, and your massively erroneous conclusions therein.

            “I’m just “throwing in a stat” and it’s not malfeasance on your part to accept the murders of women. ”

            You’re using the wrong stat in the wrong way. That was my *entire* point. How was that not clear? Did you not understand that using something that happens 0.2% of the time, to justify a procedure you want to happen the other 99.8% of the time is statistically negligible? That you cannot use the massively underwhelming majority of cases to substantiate the massive majority of them? At this point, your entire argument unravels to reveal that even on simple points, you can’t be bothered with your opponents actual position, but rather whatever fanciful one you can come up with which makes them sound bad.

            “No wonder you think discussion of sapience is “word games.”

            A word game that, in this context of this discussion, wasn’t necessary. We already agreed on terms. You’re the one who wants to play word games by rearranging concepts and then telling me what *I* believe, based on whatever whim you possess at the time. If you read the section about this as it was originally, and translated it into English, your above quip wouldn’t even exist.

            “You have a more lofty goal, like the patriarch who mutilates young girls. A few corpses isn’t even in it. (What “right” to life?)”

            You can’t even be bothered to ask what my goals are, so….why not just supplant more fantasy in rather than ask? It’s good that, at least, you don’t make much sense at the end, and your babbling just makes the logical win all the sweeter.

            “You’re way too far down the rabbit hole, when murder is copacetic as long as it isn’t too many folks who get whacked. Or is it only okay if it’s just women? (Of course.)”

            Murder isn’t that way for me though. Read this entire post, like 5 times, and tell me again how I clearly am pressing for all sorts of horrible things that I clearly, repeatedly, sternly state I am diametrically opposed to in the first place. You’ve allowed your own grief and tragedy to simply paint someone else as a monster, when really…you haven’t heard the first word I’ve said.

            “I hope you come back up, some day, but I doubt it. You’ve found too cozy a home in the anti-choice movement. Which tells me all I need to know about it.”

            I find my home is where the logical end of the argument is found. You clearly don’t have the same requirement. You logically had no rebuttals for anything said, and you can’t even accurately describe or process your opponent’s argument. The start of “coming back up”, and one you should look into, starts with accepting a small set of basic truths and sciences, and looking where the errors lie on both sides of the discussion. I somehow doubt you’ll use this as a teaching tool, but only more personal justification that all men are evil and all pro life people are simply monsters.

            “I really hope there aren’t many pointlessly sapient girls or women in your life.”

            What does this even mean? That you hope I’m alone and miserable? That I prefer cats over people? This is nothing more than a weak, uninspiring parting shot for someone you cannot hope to win an argument over. It would be like me saying “welp, hope all of that rape and idiocy doesn’t catch up with you again!”……which is, just in case you don’t get the idea, is NOT whatI’m saying to you, but merely using an example. I am a happily married man with many people in my life, male and female, but I can admit…I don’t keep pointless people around for long, hence why now I suppose our discussion will have to come to a close.

            I can’t keep dishonest, self hating people around me and maintain good balance. Hopefully, you’ll “come up” from that one day, but sadly no one here will be around to see it.

            “No need to reply; you’ve clarified your position nicely.”

            Apparently, there were two reasons to reply. First, because had my position been clear, even a cursory review of your own post would have made it completely unnecessary. Second, there’s no reason to allow someone to get the last word in, when that word is inherently dishonest and twisted. Such statements like yours deserve to be repudiated in the strongest terms possible.

            Lastly, I do find one correction in order. You kept referring to things as “it’s not theoretical”. You’re right. It’s not.

            There’s a clear difference between theoretical and analytically looking at something. You just never seemed to notice, I guess.

            I do wish you well, though. I hope you find peace in your own heart someday, which clearly is not the case now. I hope you can open your eyes and stop pretending that your faith is one thing, while it clearly says otherwise. That you can stop pretending that people who disagree, and value the life of the child you threw away, are monsters and that those who needlessly and actively kill such life are somehow heroic or doing the right thing.

            But…there’s no need to reply. You’ve clarified your position nicely, for far too long, for there to be much left unsaid.

          • PJ4

            Zing!
            That’s gonna hurt
            Lol
            CM, you are awesome

          • TheDingus

            “You clearly, after all of our discussion, have still missed…well, the entire point.”

            Nope. Refused to accept the point without thought, based on your assumed authority over me because you’re male. That’s something different.

            “…has come down to your comparison of someone who is pro life to those who want mutilate genitals and the like…”

            You do: “An episiotomy is an incision made in the perineum — the tissue between the vaginal opening and the anus — during childbirth…. Recovery is uncomfortable, and sometimes the surgical incision is more extensive than a natural tear would have been. Infection is possible. For some women, an episiotomy causes pain during sex in the months after delivery. An extensive episiotomy might also contribute to fecal incontinence after childbirth. ” (From the Mayo Clinic.)

            “…what you remember most about the day your child was born is not her or his cute nose, but the way your body was ripped apart – it can be hard to admit. I know, because that’s how it is for me. Moments after the birth of my second child, a sense of panic took over the room. “If you have any more children, you’ll have to have a Caesarean,” the attending obstetrician announced. As she spoke, an assistant worked frantically to prepare me for surgery, having just found a fourth-degree [vaginal] tear, the worst tear you can get in childbirth, one that stretches past the anal sphincter onto the bowel.”

            http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/24/an-unspoken-risk-of-vaginal-birth/?_php=true&
            _type=blogs&_r=0

            Ah, but again, you believe that because that’s not what you INTEND to happen, the fact that it DOES happen is immaterial. (To whom, pray tell?) Just like the fact that ritual removal of the clitoris results in pain to the girl is unimportant to the patriarch who inflicts it; he intends something else, too.

            You’re not getting a pass from me, nor from other people who find your easy acceptance of the mutilation of women’s genitals without their consent disgusting. (Although your acceptance of the murders of pregnant women is more disgusting, still, as well as the opposite of “pro life.”)

            “anyone who disagrees with you clearly hates all women and wants to enslave, mutilate, and harm them.”

            When the result of what you want to do enslaves, mutilates and harms women you have to hate women to persist in wanting to do it. Other people, like me, say “we can’t impose those risks or outcomes on women without their consent.” You don’t. Explain.

            “You have actively, repeatedly, dismissed even basic biology …”

            Says the man who apparently believes the “basic biology” takes place in a magic incubator attached to no one. LOL!

            Regarding your black and white statement “You’re using homicide as a justification for something where it’s in a massive minority.” “This is nothing more than an ad hominem attack, based on the most incorrect interpretation of the facts and statements made you could possibly have typed.”

            I didn’t type that we can’t use homicides as a argument because they’re a “massive minority,” you did. Own it. How many murders of pregnant women are tolerable? 1? 10? 400?

            Doesn’t even one strip a woman of her life? Doesn’t that one woman have a RIGHT to life? Or are inalienable rights only for fetuses and men?

            Try to follow along with your own arguments:

            Will women be murdered because they’re pregnant? Yes. Does it matter? No; it’s just a few of them.

            Will their genitals be affected, even mutilated, with possibly serious outcomes? Yes. Does it matter? No.

            Will some die of embolisms brought on by the pregnancy? Yes. Does it matter? No, it’s just a few of them.

            Will some die of bleeding to death? Yes. Does it matter? No, it’s just a few of them.

            Will every woman who bears and gives birth to a child be subject to physical pain? Yes. Does it matter? No.

            Will women kill themselves because they are pregnant? Yes. Does it matter? No; it’s just a few of them.

            Tthe bottom line is that WOMEN DO NOT MATTER to you. You bet I call that misogyny.

            “clearly, people believe murder is ok…” Obviously, when they are happy to create the conditions that lead to murder, they believe murder is ok. As in, acceptable if it means a million babies are born to parents who don’t want them; what’s a few murders here and there? The ends justify the means…

            “Did you not understand that using something that happens 0.2% of the time, to justify a procedure you want to happen the other 99.8% of the time is statistically negligible? ”

            Murder is negligible. Got it the first time. You’re still stripping ALL women of their RIGHT to life when

            you justify the murder of so much as one based on “percentages.”

            “You can’t even be bothered to ask what my goals are…” You’re right. I just assumed your goal is the same as every other misogynistic sociopath in the anti-choice movement: to strip women of agency over their own lives and their own bodies so that babies will be born whether their parents want them or not, or they can be cared for, or not. If instead you are pro-choice, do please say so.

            “I find my home is where the logical end of the argument is found…” You’ve found a home where the illogical end of one facet of the argument can be found by dismissing every reality you won’t honestly address.

            “What does this even mean? That you hope I’m alone and miserable? That I prefer cats over people?”

            It means, I hope you don’t have any kind of authority over female human beings since their sapience is not worthy of more consideration than how their uteri work, and any pain they experience, even being murdered, is acceptable to you. Like the man in the photograph.

            You’re the who dismisses sapience as unimportant, not I. (Cats are sapient too; if you think as little of their sapience as you do of girl’s and women’s then I hope there are no cats in your life, either.)

            “There’s a clear difference between theoretical and analytically looking at something. You just never seemed to notice, I guess.”

            There’s a difference between a corpse on a slab and “analytically” thinking about how many corpses on slabs are acceptable, absolutely.

            You don’t wish me well. You wish I’d just accept your statements because you know better and if I’d quit uselessly struggling against you, your subjugation of me would go much smoother. I’ve seen that picture before. It’s ugly as can be.

          • Cynical_Meliorist

            “Nope. Refused to accept the point without thought, “””””based on your assumed authority over me because you’re male. That’s something different.”

            You refused to accept the point *because* I was male, and nothing more. At least be honest about this facet of the discussion. I’ve never assumed authority over you, and can empirically state that I want no authority over you, seek to lord over you in some manner, or that I wish to enslave, harm, or otherwise allow negative things to happen to you. This easy point is something you continually restructure and restring in the hopes that it will flow with a narrative that you have wholesale created, twisted, and forced on someone else. Like this.

            “You do: “An episiotomy is an incision made in the perineum “……….

            Right here, you’re forcing a view on me which neither I, nor anyone here, holds in any way, shape or form. How many times do I have to categorically deny that pro life policies do *not* equal, or even come close, to genital mutilations? How many times must you be told, in plain English, that no one here wants that to happen, and that it’s deplorable. I almost feel, at this stage, I’d be reduced to using finger puppets to get the message across.

            One more time then, just in case. I do not support such heinous and disgusting behavior. I do not condone it, wish it on anyone, believe it is anything we should do to another human being, and that those who do such things are monstrous and disgusting. Is that clear enough for you now?

            I also appreciate the link from the Mayo Clinic, as it’s a good source of information. Now, if only you had the same diligence in actually discussing the *actual* things we talked about, rather than making up something that no one here actually discusses, believes, or wants to happen. There’s no point in talking about “intentions”, when this has ZERO to do with our topic, and it’s *literally* you telling me what I believe, and then taking me to task for something *you* inserted.

            It’s patently ridiculous and absurd, yet you continue to do it even now.

            “Ah, but again, you believe that because that’s not what you INTEND to happen, the fact that it DOES happen is immaterial. (To whom, pray tell?)”

            Easy, as far as who. You and I, and anyone else who wants to talk about THIS topic. If you want to talk about something completely different, happening 10,000 miles away, and that has absolutely *nothing* to do with THIS topic, then we can change gears. But in *context* of this discussion, your points about this are unimportant. Are they important, otherwise? Yes. Are they important in a conversation about abortion.

            No. Not at all.

            “Says the man who apparently believes the “basic biology” takes place in a magic incubator attached to no one. LOL!”

            This is nothing more than avoidance. I plainly stated the biological differences between conception and implantation. No one here believes it’s “magic”, and your insinuation is nothing more than a side-step to avoid the painful truth that you don’t understand the difference. I made the case plainly, and this is the level of response.

            You then go right back to the point no one was making, like so:

            1.”You’re not getting a pass from me, nor from other people who find your easy acceptance of the mutilation of women’s genitals without their consent disgusting. (Although your acceptance of the murders of pregnant women is more disgusting, still, as well as the opposite of “pro life.”)

            2. “When the result of what you want to do enslaves, mutilates and harms women you have to hate women to persist in wanting to do it. Other people, like me, say “we can’t impose those risks or outcomes on women without their consent.” You don’t. Explain.”

            As usual, you’ve massively distorted a point to make yourself out to be defending something that doesn’t exist, or attacking a point no one holds. I’ll point back to the “no one is saying this, and no one wants to mutilate or harm people” statement as many times as necessary for you to get the very basic idea that, in fact…no one is saying this and no one wants to harm or mutilate people. As far as your request for explanation, it’s been explained. At great length. You’re welcome to review that material again at your leisure.

            “I didn’t type that we can’t use homicides as a argument because they’re a “massive minority,” you did. Own it. How many murders of pregnant women are tolerable? 1? 10? 400?”

            Yes, I did, because in the context of the discussion, you’re attempting to use a vast minority of situations to justify a mass majority of actions. The two are not compatible. That point still stands unchallenged. Exceptions don’t prove rules, and your twisting of the narrative to try and do so fails repeatedly.

            The appropriate answer to your question is zero(in case you were wondering), which kind of goes without saying, but you likely figured the answer *for* me, and it surprises me you didn’t invent the point, and then argue it against me anyway. You then go on to try and warp the argument back in a different direction with this:

            “Doesn’t even one strip a woman of her life? Doesn’t that one woman have a RIGHT to life? Or are inalienable rights only for fetuses and men?”

            You go right back to the “it’s because men must want power over people” argument, or whatever made up conjecture you want to insert. Of course those women have a right to life, which has been the theme of the entire message here…a right to life, which you apply selectively on criteria you can’t logically support. There’s no other real point here to make.

            “Will women be murdered because they’re pregnant? Yes. Does it matter? No; it’s just a few of them.”

            Yes, it matters. The number isn’t an issue. Any murder, in those cases (even just 1, for those in the slow seats again) is wrong and abhorrent. The only reason that’s hard for you to process is that, such an answer destroys the “pro life people don’t care about born people!” narrative you so desperately cling to, and forces you to keep re-inventing the other persons’ position to push it a little farther towards Crazytown. Such as this next gem, after a bunch of non arguments and points already shown to be the opposite of your claims:

            “Tthe bottom line is that WOMEN DO NOT MATTER to you. You bet I call that misogyny.”

            You should call it that, and then go find someone who ACTUALLY SUPPORTS THAT POSITION. I apologize in part for the use of caps lock, but seriously…it’s like you don’t even bother to understand what you’ve been told. Not everyone who disagrees with you hates women. The bulk of the pro life movement is made up of *gasp* women. 50% of those that pro life policies are intended to help are, again, *gasp* women. The CPC’s and other such institutions that help with crisis issues, pregnancy, and everything else we discussed help primarily…..wait for it……women.

            For people you swear hate women so much, and try to paint as patriarchal overlords, women sure do take up a lot of that landscape. Your own narrative, even at a glance, falls apart.

            “The ends justify the means…”

            Only to you, though…even if you have to lie, misrepresent, distort, and otherwise make up arguments. This is known as a Pious Deception, based on what your limited statement of motive entails, but it’s still a lie that you keep repeating.

            “Murder is negligible. Got it the first time. You’re still
            stripping ALL women of their RIGHT to life when you justify the murder of so much as one based on “percentages.”

            No, you didn’t get it the first time. You didn’t get it the second, the fifth, or the last. Let me do it slowly.

            Murder bad. Murder wrong. Murder not part of abortion topic as a whole. You use stat to make point outside of topic.

            Does that help? The percentage doesn’t matter one iota, when banked against the idea that you’re trying to use it (and your own personal experience) as a justification for something that occurs over 1 million times a year. Again, exceptions…..rules….you get the idea, I hope.

            “…” You’re right. I just assumed….”

            Finally! The first real, refreshing, honest thing you’ve said to date. You assumed. You didn’t actually ask. You didn’t bother to flesh it out with the truth. You assumed my argument was something it wasn’t, then crafted a narrative around a false assumption. After being told a dozen times or more that these things were not true, you then assumed that they really had to be, because you believe it, then insert made up and erroneous points that you wholesale crafted and pulled out of thin air, then argued as if I’d made them.

            Your assumptions are wrong, ill advised, and nothing more than projection. Your quips about people being sociopaths fall on deaf ears, given your track record along with the fact that the use of the term is even ridiculous. Sociopaths don’t give a crap about anything or anyone, so why bother trying to save defenseless life, or protect mothers? Why inform people about the real items at play, or educate them on issues, if we don’t care? Even the notion is completely contradictory, of which you don’t care and will likely never correct.

            “It means, I hope you don’t have any kind of authority
            over female human beings since their sapience is not worthy of more
            consideration than how their uteri work, and any pain they experience, even
            being murdered, is acceptable to you.”

            Skipping the obvious part of “I don’t hold that view”, really there’s nothing here. I don’t value a woman just for the contents or workings of her uterus. If that were the case, my points would be centered around making you breed, not telling you to be educated about things and see the moral or ethical implications of an act you seem fine with otherwise. The truth of the matter is, if you were to be honest about your own actions, and the ethics or morals behind them, the carefully crafted shields and walls you’ve put up to pretend you’ve done something really awesome would crumble, and you’d be forced to face your actions in their purest state. I dont want to shame you, i dont want to judge you…those aren’t my place. But saying that you should reflect on those things, in an honest light, is something you’ll never do. You’ve demonstrated this aspect of things time and again, so your own personal mindset being this way isn’t surprising. I do hope one day you’ll consider that angle, and consider that your actions (however beneficial to you specifically) were still morally and ethically incorrect. What you do with that is up to you. I won’t condemn you for it. I will point out that it’s incorrect, and leave it at that.

            “You’re the who dismisses sapience as unimportant, not
            I.”

            I dismissed it because it wasn’t important to what you’re talking about, and in context of the discussion, sapience or sentience is merely an ableism/ageism/location argument. You have zero actual logical rebuttals for that point. You have zero arguments which, even if they’re wrong, might sound good. I’m dismissing it because it’s not an important issue *in* *this* *discussion*. Why is that still unclear? Sapience might be important if we’re talking about a cadaver, or someone in a permanent coma, but for purposes of abortion, it’s not relevent and your desire to make it so with no actual reason than “because I want to” doesn’t fly. If you could show why it’s not an ableism/ageism/location argument, or actually refute that, you’d have done so. You did not. My point still stands, and you can try to warp it as much as you want…but my posts still stand, in their entirety, for which you have no real answer.

            “There’s a difference between a corpse on a slab and
            “analytically” thinking about how many corpses on slabs are acceptable, absolutely.”

            Non sequitur and par for the course. What corpses? Why are we talking about dead people? I thought we were talking about on demand abortion? Even in your closings, you can’t be bothered to stay on point or make anything more than generic, uninteresting jabs, non sequiturs, and off topic comments.

            “You don’t wish me well. You wish I’d just accept your statements because you know better and if I’d quit uselessly struggling against you, your subjugation of me would go much smoother. I’ve seen that picture before. It’s ugly as can be.”

            Boring and incorrect. Your entire schtick is wrapped up in the following:

            Person 1 makes comment. You reverse the comment, and assert the opposite. You then tell the person how bad they are for this position, while Person 1 is wondering where the opposite statements come from in the first place.

            I do wish you well, despite your critical comments otherwise. I don’t wish you ill, or that harm would befall you. I do wish you had a better handle on this discussion. I do wish you wouldn’t make comments to the contrary of what’s stated and then blast me for positions I don’t hold and have repeatedly said as such. I do wish you’d honestly argue the points rather than make up stories out of thin air, or make exceptions justifications for the rules.

            Despite this, there’s no “subjugation” going on here. Whether you agree with me or not is on you. If I present a logical, factually based case and you reject it out of hand, or because you think i want to “subjugate” you, then you’re the one making the mistake. You are the one in error, and all of the comments to the contrary do nothing to show you that. You can continue to believe that all pro life people want to subjugate and harm you, but that runs in the opposite direction of the facts and truth of the matter.

            The picture you’ve seen is one you’ve painted and then signed another’s name on, so you can hang an albatross around their neck that was never theirs to begin with, for the purpose of justifying your own world view. I’m sorry, but that’s what it is.

            I do wish you well, again. I really do hope you find actual peace and clarity, both of which seem absent in your writings. There’s just no other way to say it.

            Or, don’t accept that and move on. Your choice.

          • Cynical_Meliorist

            LOL. too long and was forced to break it into two. This is 2/2, again sorry for the long replies.

            We REALLY need to find a way to shorten this!!!! :)

            ” (A) Link, please (to the study, not to an anti-abortion site). (B) You’ll have to tell it to the women I’ve known who didn’t go to a doctor’s office, and to the families of girls and women who died of attempts at self-abortion.”

            Links are moderated, but doing a google search of “planned parenthood study & myth & back alley”. I found it there. I don’t see what linking an “anti-abortion” site would matter, really. Either the data is correct, or it’s not and disregarding the source isn’t really helpful regardless. As far as your part B, that’s unfortunate but anecdotal. If they did those things, was it out of unsafe conditions, or because of fear and shame from those around them (i.e they didn’t want anyone to ever know they were pregnant and tried to fix the issue themselves?). If that’s the case, then any barrier or restriction to access, or any other problem you care to relate to pro life people would be inaccurate. Their problem was a lack of support from people around them, not a problem with the law, the system, or from pro life people in those cases. Again though anecdotal when banked against a national debate, but still…very unfortunate. There are tons of resources for people to utilize (for reference, i thought i had the aforementioned link bookmarked. I’ll endeavor to find it later this evening, and if i do, i’ll post it. Links put things in moderation here, and sometimes gets dropped into their spam filter…apologies.)

            “You divesting yourself of any responsibility for the outcomes of what you would impose certainly is in the open.”

            Hardly. If i’m saying that there is a responsibility to those lives, then I also am obligated to assist after the fact as well. I know most pro-abortion people think pro life people only care about a fetus. Unfortunately, that’s not true. If we compare the number CPC’s that national pro-abortion groups donate to, and the number that pro life groups do or run, you’ll find there’s not even a comparison to be made. In fact, groups like PP and NARAL regularly call CPC’s by horrible names, dissuade people from going to them to get help, and actively campaign against them. CPC’s help women not only while they’re pregnant, but well afterwards with financial assistance, clothes, needs for the baby, even housing and job placement for mothers. Easy to find that sort of information, and the ones that I’ve volunteered at and donated to (while i acknowledge that it’s anecdotal) have gone above and beyond to help women in need. This help stretches far above what any abortion advocacy group does. PP doesn’t hold fund raising events for expecting mothers. They don’t provide material support, job placement, housing placement, or adoption services at all. NARAL spits on those concepts. The plain, unadulterated truth is that such groups support one thing only, while pro life groups actually do the heavy lifting for born children and are scoffed at as if they’ve done nothing.

            “Yes there is: I just told you there wasn’t. I would’ve killed myself without the abortion; I very nearly did even though abortion is safe, legal and accessible. Stop dismissing me as a person.”

            Not dismissing you as a person….you keep saying this, and i keep on doing everything but dismissing you. I’m sorry you were in that kind of a place, mentally. On a national level though, we’re talking apples and oranges. There is help for people, if they just look for it even for a second.

            “And, being a mere female, my “personal feelings” of darkness, pain and despair are obviously worthy of zero consideration. Charming.”

            See, more needling. You being a “mere female” has nothing to do with. Your feelings are important, as I’ve stated before. Feelings, however, are unimportant when having a logical discussion and trying to use fact to justify a point. You’re confusing me making a logical point with somehow me not giving a crap about you as a person. I’ve demonstrated repeatedly that this is not the case. As noted, you’re simply looking for me to be horrible, so you can dismiss my statements. I simply won’t allow that to be the case when it’s clear that it’s not. To clarify….you, as a person are important. I wish you well, and I am glad that you are emotionally better and healthy. Those things do not stack up with the actual debate. They are different things, to be addressed differently.

            “There was a cost I didn’t want to pay, so I didn’t. You think I should have, based on YOUR personal beliefs and feelings. Now you think I should pay a different cost, for being human. Serious hubris.”

            Again, not hubris. It’s a pattern, where my arguments are either because i’m male, or i’m wrapped in hubris and ego. There was a cost, that the child paid. You didn’t. That is what I meant. I base those ideas on philosophy, moral understanding, and fact. I am sorry you had to deal with the situation as it presented itself, and i’m sorry you felt that was the only way to deal with it. It’s hard to be humble and express a measure of sorrow over that being the case, AND be full of pride at the same time. It doesn’t work for me that way, and you likely are aware of that.

            “They weren’t spontaneously alive, yet.”

            Factually, you know this is incorrect. You stated earlier that it was alive, as a matter of fact. You’re contradicting yourself now. Easily demonstrated. At what point is the product of a conception alive, spontaneously or otherwise? If you’re pregnant, and you admit yourself that what’s there (to avoid z/e/f arguments of equivocation, i use “what”) is alive…..why argue otherwise? Science has shown that new life begins at conception. Arguing otherwise is simply disregarding fact. If you prefer, we could ask “at what point does it become alive?”, in which case you’re relocated to a handful of arguments with no factual or scientific basis. At best, you might argue with a fallacy of the heap debate, but that wouldn’t go far either. The fact, as you acknowledge yourself on several occasions, is that the product of such conception is alive. It’s a new human life. Pretty much all there is to say there.

            “Of course it is: you would deliberately prevent me and others from getting necessary care. You’ve even stated that a woman’s MURDER would just be a “red herring.”

            Since we already know your statement about murder being a red herring is blown entirely out of proportion based on the actual debate at hand, that’s easily dismissed. Secondly, preventing you from “necessary care” is a misnomer. If the life of a woman is in danger, then abortion is a viable option. A reasonable person wouldn’t conclude “The woman on the table will die without an abortion” is the same thing in any fashion as “I got pregnant from a one night stand”. They’re not the same thing in any real way, and trying to equate them is false. While we may have to grind out what “necessary” means, working with the easy definition of life and limb being such would be easier to prove than items of convenience.

            “It was never going to be my child, one way or the other. Children are what you have after live birth. Dead women don’t give live birth.”

            And women who get pregnant and then kill their offspring in utero are still destroying their offspring, and arguing that the time makes it better in some respect changes nothing about the ethical or moral considerations of the act itself.

            “You cannot protect both. You can protect one, or the other. How I wish you could see what is so plainly true.”

            I see it plainly. You can. There’s a way to do both. Most people just don’t want to, but they aren’t me.

            “No one is forcing you to shame doctors for providing medical care. You want to.”

            I stated I didn’t want to. You’re forcing the “you want to!” on me, directly in contention to what’s been stated time and time again. Even after all of this time, you’re still perceiving me as out to get you in some fashion. Take what’s been stated and work with it. Don’t assume (because we know what that does) that everyone fits into this narrow paradigm you’ve constructed. And again, it’s not me that is shaming doctors in their own profession. It’s the doctors in that profession who believe that such a job is less than worthy of praise, and they’re not shaming them publicly overall.

            “Yeah. I think considering consequences is valid. Again, this is not a theoretical discussion.”

            Correct, but it is a logical one. There’s a difference between plotting an argument based on an actual consequence versus the Appeal to Consequence, which is that “If you do X, Y might happen…therefore, X is bad.”. In this case, you’re not adjudicating for the fact that there is consequences. You’re using them as a method to explain why something is bad, when logically (though informally) it’s an invalid reason. This doesn’t vacate other parts of the argument, but the distinction here is pretty clear. We can talk about actual consequences, but the Appeal part of it is plain.

            “Appeal to empathy.”

            Still logically invalid in an actual discussion.

            “I do and I have. We should have wide spread sex education and access to contraception . We should make child rearing tenable socially and economically, and the well being of children paramount.”

            I agree to a point, actually. How to do this would be a worthy discussion as well, though we would likely disagree on a few of the specifics.

            “I’ve given a great deal of consideration to the status of
            embryos and fetuses. I don’t find that their ACTUAL status (as opposed to the status they MIGHT achieve) rises to the level of girls’ and womens’.”

            This line of thinking revolves around the idea again of ableism/ageism/location. If all human life has intrinsic value (and i get the hint you might believe it does, on some level), then an argument that counters that inherent nature would be counterproductive. If you’re basing the distinction between “this person has a job and a life, but the fetus doesnt”, then you’re making a different argument and one that we’ve covered already. If they are inherently valuable as both having the capacity as rational, moral agents, then the argument becomes clear.

            “So powerful, we can’t let mere women be in charge of whether or not it happens.”

            Incorrect. Again, outside of rape, you have *every* opportunity and chance to decide when it happens, or if it happens at all.

            “You talk repeatedly and consistently about zygotes, embryos and fetuses as if they exist and develop individually, when they don’t. That’s defrocking women of their role in pregnancy.”

            Not at all. You’re not understanding my point, if you genuinely believe this is the case. I talk about them individually because they are, as a matter of direct fact, individuals. Yes, they reside within the body of the mother, but we don’t consider a pregnant woman to have 4 arms, 4 legs, 2 hearts and 2 heads. Each of them is a distinct biological entity. Each has their own unique DNA, and each of them function the manner required during gestation. There’s nothing more complicated than that about this. I doubt you want to make the argument they’re the same actual person.

            “Conception is not pregnancy. Women are aware, thinking, feeling human beings with will. You don’t get to pretend that all goes away because they had sex.”

            You, likewise, don’t get to pretend that conception is something that magically happens apart from the process. Conception is the start of that life, but implantation is the start of pregnancy (though, some may argue otherwise, that’s my current knowledge of the topic). You’re trying to slightly strawman me on this one. Likewise, I don’t pretend that pregnancy reduces a woman to a robot, despite your conjecture otherwise. Those things don’t go away as a result of sex, you’re right. This misses the point to some degree as well, because no one is saying that having sex suddenly changes your world view, or removes your emotional and thinking processes. Further, you don’t get to pretend that killing an innocent life is no big deal for anyone, or even pretend that there’s no moral or ethical dilemma in the debate.

            “Suddenly, we can’t understand data?”

            That’s another silly argument, and also a false one. Data is in the past. You can’t collect data from the future, as far as i know. We can speculate, we can guess, we can try and plot a discussion or direction based on previous data, but that’s not the argument I was making, of which you’re well aware. There’s a difference between guessing and critical thinking, and assuming things that have never happened based on things that might have happened. Your argument is that it should be ok, because something bad happened prior. There’s zero way to know when or if it will happen in each case, which counters your argument.

            “I’ll grant that you try. What I perceive you doing is using facts when they apply, calling facts logical fallacies when you don’t want to apply them, and ignoring two very salient facts: there are no babies without women’s bodies, and women are individual human beings with rights.”

            I would think “try” is a weak compliment here, but i’ll take it. I argue with the facts. I call a fallacy when I see it, and as much as I like talking to you about these things, you’ve done little to combat those. If the truth of something goes against what I think, I can either adjust my thinking or disregard it. Changing makes me grow and open to new experiences. Disregarding makes me stubborn and wrong. I’m not ignoring data, or your feelings, or anything else. I’m taking those into account, and making decisions and judgments based on those factors. The last bit of the paragraph is just repetition for it’s own sake, and kind of common sense. Yes, women have rights. Yes, women have babies. What other point could be made here that’s new?

            “I’m assuming nothing. I lived it. Others I’ve known have lived it too. There are all sorts of data to refer to, regarding maternal mortality and morbidity, poverty, and child abuse, as well.”

            Correct, you did. But you’re also Assuming the Worst, because of likely several reasons (personal experience, projection, appealing to consequence again, etc). This doesn’t diminish your struggle, or anyone else really. This simply puts out there that you’re assuming that because you had problems, or others you know did, that it’s going to really be as horrible for someone else….whcih is something you have no way to know or validate beforehand. Again, you can’t see the future. Someone in a good position might fall prey to those things. Someone in a negative position may find their way to a positive one. There’s just no way to know, and using a blanket statement or ideology from a negative position is even more cynical than I am comfortable admitting.

            “Conception very often doesn’t result in the creation of a new life, either, a point you dismissed as unimportant, if I recall.”

            Incorrect. Conception creates a new life, but implantation sees it to fruition, as a note. If you’ve conceived, then the life started at that point. Whether it implants or not does nothing to change that aspect. It simply changes what happens afterwards.

            “PREGNANCY results in the creation of a new life. Women don’t have to be pregnant if they don’t want to be, even if a new life will not be created because of it, anymore than men HAVE TO have sex so a new life can be created.”

            Vacuous truth, to a point. You’re right…women don’t have to be pregnant if they don’t want to be, but they *can* get that way even if they don’t want to. If 2 people don’t want a kid, a condom helps prevent that. If it breaks, even if she didn’t want to get pregnant, she still can if that happens. Otherwise, your point about men not being necessary really isn’t as important here…yes, a woman can go to a facility and get IVF. There’s no real point to make otherwise.

            “(Cut discussion of rights in which you completely ignore the concept of due process and the level of actual harm done to sapient persons.)”

            Not at all. In fact, I’ve stayed within the idea that everyone has due process. I can’t say women have agency AND deny that at the same time without contradicting myself. My points, that you seem fine with relabeling minus context, is that women have legal protections while their unborn children do not. Again, if life is inherently valuable, why the lack? If you *honestly* answer that question, and remove unimportant items from the debate, the answers become rather clear. People, 99% of the time, do it for convenience. Not need. Not medical emergencies. Want. Greed. Convenience. I’m fine with the due process of people…I’ve never argued otherwise, and insisting I do, or have, is disingenuous on your part maam.

            “Until I throw an embolism and die.”

            Again, life of the mother issue. We covered this as being acceptable. You can’t keep using the same reason as an excuse when it’s already allowed.

            “I don’t have control over the day to day functioning of my own body, and you think that’s “liberty?” Think a woman is free to do whatever she wants while she’s throwing up? Think she’s free to do whatever she wants while pushing an infant out of her vagina? A pregnant woman is not at liberty if she hasn’t chosen to remain pregnant, and it takes a particular level of delusion and arrogance to pretend otherwise.”

            Equivocation argument. Are you free to drive while barfing? Of course not. That doesn’t mean you can’t drive at all. While you’re giving birth, likely you wouldn’t want to be doing anything else but focusing on that. You’re strawmanning my point again to make an argument that is silly on it’s face. What we’re talking about, with regards to freedom or liberty, is not what you’re implying here.

            “A parent is likewise not at liberty. That’s fine IF THEY CHOOSE IT. If they don’t, you have absolutely stripped them of their liberty. No two ways about it.”

            If they choose not to parent the child, then there are adoption agencies and other assistance that can be looked upon. It’s not an either/or situation.

            “No I’m not. My religion says God gave me free will, in fact,
            that will is the very heart of a meaningful existence. Not incidentally, my religion has no proscription against abortion.”

            Actually, God did give you free will, but He also placed restrictions on it. “Don’t eat of this tree” was the first one, which was violated in no time. Again, rights and freedoms come with responsibility and the need for good discernment. Likewise, w/e religion you choose may not have a specific verse for it, but lets take another topic close to home. Suicide. There’s no specific “don’t commit suicide” (though the verse used is usually about how God determines life and death, and you shouldnt, but that’s a larger “catch all” for things) versus in the Bible, but it’s mentioned in 7 different accounts. In some contexts, the king and his swordbearer committing suicide was either seen as an act of restoring honor, or cowardice. It’s not really there either, as in “don’t do this!”, but there’s plenty of context otherwise.

            “New? Not yet. Potential. Innocent? You could say a being without a brain is “innocent” but I find that to be a term of rhetoric and appeal to emotion.”

            Some rhetoric, sure. It’s needed to a small degree, but not a fallacy. First, we can already knock out the “potential” part as being factually inaccurate. Innocent, on the other hand, doesn’t fall as an appeal to emotion. In fact, you’ve criticized me several times for being the exact opposite and not caring, which was also untrue. In this case, innocent applies. The fetus in question is guilty of no offense. They’ve assaulted no one. They’ve committed no crime or sought to do injustice to someone else. They are, by definition, innocent…sans any need to appeal for any emotion at all.

            “A woman who dies due pregnancy has lost her right to life. Since we cannot know which women might lose their lives due to pregnancy, we strip all women of, if not their actual lives, their right to life. And we do so by letting their own bodies kill them. (Charming, again.)”

            A woman who dies as a result of pregnancy is a tragedy…and usually one that can be avoided. In this case, you’re again using less than 1% of cases (to be honest, in the US alone it’s less than 650 i believe per year, versus 4 million or so births, making it no less sad but also statistically almost invisible) to justify the remaining 99+%. You can’t use the exception to justify the rule, only the exceptions. Before you believe i’m being heartless, i’m not. I fully advocate abortion if the mother’s life is genuinely at risk, for whatever reason. Unnecessary death is sad, and we should all work to prevent it, yes? But medically necessary isn’t the same thing as “I don’t want to change my schedule”, which is one of the top 3 reasons women have an abortion according to Guttmacher. It’s not even close.

            “And you stop pre-pregnancy, too. At pregnancy, YOU take
            responsibility.”

            Not at all..in fact, i’ve argued from the position of importance going from pregnancy and beyond (CPC’s, if you remember, and then some). At pregnancy, should there not be a modicum of responsibility on someone’s part? Again, making bad decisions after other bad decisions isn’t really gaining ground anywhere. Additionally, my point about men being *forced* to take such responsibility would make the system unfair, when banked against your statements and definition of responsibility. It’s all part and parcel.

            “Well, other than deciding not to be pregnant, thereby changing my entire life, forever, on your say-so.”

            You can choose to not be pregnant, and no one will argue. You can choose to have as many kids as you want, and no one will argue. Neither of those has a moral or ethical dilemma. Abortion, on the other hand, does. It’s not *my* say so, but a collective of people who believe that life is important and worth protecting from those who believe that might really does make right. The consideration and argument is about whether or not it’s ethical and moral to kill an innocent human life (a life you admit is there, no less) We arrive at different conclusions, but I don’t think either of us is being hateful about it.

            Thank you again for the thoughtful replies. I’ll be gone for a few days, but if you reply I’ll endeavor to respond. I hope this finds you well!

          • Cynical_Meliorist

            “Before viability it takes a woman to have continued gestation, in every case.”

            Only if you use viability as a starting point. If what we’re talking about is alive beforehand (consider whats going on at 19 weeks gestation, for example….just at the edge of viability), then your argument loses ground. The point pro life people make is that life is important and deserves protection, and that arguments about ageism, ableism, or location are not strong arguments.

            “According to proper science, a zygote IS a clump of cells. An embryo at 8 weeks gestation is barely more than that, is not alive by itself, and has no sentience, sapience, intellect or psyche (it can’t; it has no functioning brain).

            Correct, but by the time you realize you’re pregnant, we’re not talking about a single cell, or a cluster that no one can identify. Those are clearly not the case. Even your own rebuttal has to allow for the fact that this is the case (as you note with the 8 week part). Again, falling back on the ableism/ageism/location arguments, along with sentience or intellect, is a weak position. Consider a person in a coma, with next to no brain activity. If a doctor walked in and said “well, he’s pretty much nothing right now, but…in 6 months he’ll start coming out of it, and a few months after that he’ll be on the road to full recovery”, would you then be a monster for pulling the plug the next day? Capability and inherent growth are what distinguish this argument from the cadaver/coma arguments mainly, in case you wish to use that as a retort. Someone damaged or brain dead isn’t coming back, and we treat them differently, because there is no chance they will function again. A fetus, unless it is also dead or damaged, does not fall into that category because it will continue to grow and advance as we have.

            “Exactly, and all the pro-choice side is saying. (BTW, no one is “pro-abortion” in the sense of advocating that women should have them. Most pregnant women do not, and you don’t see us having fits about it. We wouldn’t be fighting at all if you’d just mind your own business.)

            Actually, even a cursory look at this website or a web search would turn up evidence to correct your stance on this. “Pro-abortion”, for context, is that abortion should be allowed whenever, for whatever reason, up to the moment of birth, specifically what is known as “on demand”. A quick search of mouthpieces such as Amanda Marcotte and other pro-abortion supporters would corroborate that claim easily.

            The last bit of that statement is nothing more than shutuppery. It’s not an actual defense, or even a good reason, to put up a fight. Should we let other people, whom we believe are doing immoral things, tell us to mind our business because it doesn’t involve us? Again, as a person of faith, you’re in a position to either walk away or do something about it. If you walk away and allow it to continue, then your own values are either not there or are compromised. If you saw someone beating a child next door, would you go back inside or call the cops? Could they not say “mind your own business!” and be correct, under your methodology?

            “If a woman is responsible once pregnancy occurs, it’s her
            responsibility to decide whether to bring it to completion. If she is not allowed to decide, she is not responsible. The party that strips that agency from her is responsible. You can’t have it both ways.”

            Actually, my point would be that both parties are responsible, and that both should *be* responsible from the start. You keep bringing up agency, as if it’s the end-all, but really…no one strips that from a woman when she chooses to get pregnant while not wanting a child in the first place. She’s actively engaging her agency in that case, and then making a second bad choice as a result of the first bad choice. Also, your argument could be the foundation for no man ever paying child support again, if taken to a logical conclusion. If it’s her responsibility and he doesn’t want it, he shouldn’t have to pay for it…after all, he’s being denied agency in the choice as well. Notice how that argument goes in unintended and detrimental directions?

            “The problem is, you can’t do as you wish to without breaching other people’s privacy. ”

            The NSA disagrees. ;)

            I get your point though, but there’s always going to be a divide between privacy and law/ethics/morals/whatever. It’s always going to be a balancing act. The idea that someone committing an unethical or immoral act, and that it’s ok *because* it should be private, is another bad position to take. NAMBLA would use that to their advantage. Child abusers would love it. People who want to do whatever they like, as long as it’s private, would rejoice over that kind of thing. Taken to a logical, even shallow, conclusion, that creates a problem where none need to exist.

            “You don’t see the hubris in the debate because you haven’t gotten to brass tacks, which are: this movement wants to make having a safe, private abortion at the hands of a trained medical provider illegal or impossible to get. It’s not talking; it’s not debating; it’s action. This isn’t a theoretical discussion.”

            I’ve argued honestly from the start. You’re incorrect about the premise though. Virtually no one wants abortion 100% illegal. You’ll find sweeping support for life of the mother issues, and also broad (but not as broad as the first) support of abortion in cases of rape or incest. There are going to be people who believe all or some of that, but that’s the “brass tacks”. It’s the “on demand” function…the immoral and unethical items…which the debate is over. Not about 100% restriction always with zero alternative. I hope you don’t believe that is the case, because doing so is patently false. Also, the illegal aspect of it would be on the doctor, not the patient. I find that’s important when discussing this part.

            “I find evidence of hubris in that statement, as well. I have
            taken them to heart, though you assume I haven’t. I believe in helping girls and women, particularly young women, to not have to go through the pain and fear I did.”

            You’re reaching with the hubris again. I don’t know if you have taken them to heart, and I don’t assume you did or did not. That statement was one of direction, not of dictation or ordering you around. I am using a different tone than that. I would hope you take such things to heart, but I don’t know you or what you’ve learned on the subject, so all I can do is ask you to take them to heart, or re-read them. That’s all.

            “Every one thinks children are important. Trying to conflate the “unborn” with the already living is where we come into conflict. To me, and honestly I’m not being sarcastic, that’s like me calling you an “undead corpse” and feeling justified in treating you like a corpse.”

            Fair, but i don’t see it as conflating but merely as recognizing life and it’s starting point and following the line from the fetus, to the born, to the growing, and then to the departed. The beginning and end of human life, as it were.

            “Anyway, you’re back to valuing “unborn
            children” more than living girls and women.”

            Incorrect. I value them both equally, whether that’s easy for others to accept or not. I believe that an unborn girl, and the mother than carries her, both have the capacity to both be moral rational agents. Both of them are human lives, with a finite time in this world. Both of them have the same inherent and intrinsic value to me. That’s all.

            “Untrue, my friend. That’s exactly what they want. They’ll say it’s for the sake of the “unborn child;” they’ll say the ends justify the means. But those are the means: treating women, under law, as incubators.”

            I disagree, because no one wants to force pregnancy on someone from the start (i.e. you have to go get pregnant and carry a child to term). The debate is over what happens *after* conception…not the mandate that woman need to “shut up and breed”. The end doesn’t always justify the means, and arguing otherwise would be hard to do. But is that not the case for pro-abortion supporters…that their argument is also a combination of “might makes right” with the idea that the ends, in fact, justify the means? Without being mean or sarcastic, could not someone outside this discussion very easily point to you and say that the ends/means argument is the very one you’re using to justify your own actions?

            “I absolutely take responsibility for my once having had a medically necessary abortion. ”

            If it was a question of without the procedure, you would have died, then there’s no need. Morally, you would have done nothing wrong and there’s no fault in that.

            “Kindly spread the word to your brothers and sisters.”

            I can, but you and I both know that we can’t control other people, especially on the internet! At best, I can say I’m sorry when they do it, and I can try and correct it as best I’m able, but really that’s as good as we know it can get.

            “A legitimate point. I will try to do better on that score in the future.”

            Gandhi once famously said, “You cannot shake a man’s hand with a closed fist”. I think that even just the two of us, even at massive length, being able to be civil and discuss something we see from totally different points of view is a positive thing. We may not agree, and there are likely things we absolutely agree on, but I’ve found our discussion pleasant and fruitful. Thank you again.

          • PJ4

            “It was wasn’t much trouble to have an abortion”

            Here’s something you won’t like hearing: Rapists and pedophiles don’t find it much trouble doing what they do either
            In fact they use every means they can to justify their deeds
            They dehumanize their victims
            Much the same way you try to dehumanize the child in the womb

          • http://liveactionnews.org/author/adam-peters/ Adam Peters

            Rapists and pedophiles also see abortion as an easy way to cover up their crimes:

            In 2012, Coloradan Timothy Smith pled guilty to sexually abusing his step daughter. When she became pregnant with his child, Smith took the 13-year-old to a Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains abortion facility. Although state law requires Planned Parenthood to notify the authorities when abuse is suspected, no such notification was given. Nor was any effort made to inform the victim’s mother. Instead, she was released back into the “care” of her abuser.

            While this was no doubt an horrid experience for Smith’s step-daughter, it was nothing new for Planned Parenthood. Multiple cases have come to light in which Planned Parenthood staff performed abortions on abused children and failed to notify the authorities. Employees have also been caught offering to arrange involuntary abortions on child prostitutes who “can’t speak English” and “won’t know what’s going on.”

            http://liveactionnews.org/gloria-steinem-is-raising-money-for-planned-parenthood-pimps-and-abusers-should-thank-her/

          • TheDingus

            Then they are as stupid as you are. One can get DNA evidence from a number of sources, including the results of an abortion. We don’t have to continue and support the crime of using a girl or woman’s body against their will in order to nail rapists and pedophiles.

          • http://liveactionnews.org/author/adam-peters/ Adam Peters

            Well, TheDingus, things typically work like this: When a girl between the ages of 11-16 suddenly becomes visibly pregnant, questions tend to get asked. And, if you’re the one who got her pregnant, then there’s a pretty good chance that you don’t want those questions answered. This is especially true if you happen to be the girl’s father, step-father, soccer coach, or just the neighborhood predator. The good news (for rapists) is that Planned Parenthood is both willing and able to make that baby bump disappear via the magic of abortion.

            John Blanks Jr. brought his daughter to Planned Parenthood after he impregnated her; clinic staff aborted his baby and then turned the victim back over to him, thus allowing the abuse to resume. http://www.lifenews.com/2007/05/10/state-2279/

            Timothy did the same with his step daughter. http://liveactionnews.org/lawsuit-planned-parenthood-sent-teen-back-to-sex-abuser/

            So did Gary Cross with his. http://archive.lifenews.com/state3469.html

            Adam Gault found Planned Parenthood’s abortion services to be helpful after he discovered that his rape victim was carrying his child. http://www.boston.com/news/local/connecticut/articles/2007/08/02/charges_added_in_alleged_abduction/

            Denise Fairbanks’ abusive father seems to have felt the same way. http://www.lifenews.com/2012/09/21/planned-parenthood-forced-to-settle-suit-failed-to-report-child-rape/

            While it’s true that all of these men were eventually caught, easy access to abortion allowed them to avoid suspicion for months or even years. You may want to read about the subject in my new article called, “By donating to Planned Parenthood, you can lend a hand… to an abuser.” http://liveactionnews.org/by-donating-to-planned-parenthood-you-can-lend-a-hand-to-an-abuser/

          • TheDingus

            Gosh, you think it’s news to me how rapists and pedophiles behave?

            Why do you make ME responsible for THEIR behavior?

            I’m dehumanizing nothing. Embryos and fetuses are what they are, not what they might become.

            I’m willing to bet money my abusers knew exactly what they were doing was wrong. Hence the “tell any one and I’ll kill you” stuff. Hence the guy who broke down in sobs and said “he didn’t mean it.” Wanting me to have empathy for HIM.

            I’ve performed no “horrible actions” in saving my own life, and deciding not to have a child. None, at all. It’s my body; I can decide what happens to it and what it does. I took nothing “out” on what was a completely unaware and insentient being. You just think I did because you imagine what “might have been.”

            Let me reiterate for those in the slow seats: no child was going to come from that pregnancy. Either I ended the pregnancy, or I ended me, the pregnant person. If you think the embryo was going to gestate itself in my cremated remains, you’re more delusional than I thought.

            I don’t buy that you find the actions of rapists and pedophiles “horrible,” since you’re fundamentally agree with them that my body, indeed my sex organs, are not mine, but someone else’s, to use.

            You made the choice that was right for you. I’m happy for you. I made the choice that was right for me. You’re not happy for me. That’s all.

          • PJ4

            Gosh, you think it’s news to me how rapists and pedophiles behave?

            Gosh I hope not, I was simply comparing your behavior to theirs—

            Why do you make ME responsible for THEIR behavior?

            Um…wow, you seem overly emotive and unhinged
            No where in my response do I hold you responsible for their behavior
            But apparently you’re not responsible for your own behavior either
            I went thru the same thing you did

            But I do think you need to stop feeling sorry for yourself
            All your comments are nothing but one big pity feast for yourself
            It’s just emotive twaddle
            You’re angry
            Very angry
            I’m sure your abuser was angry when faced with the reality of what he did too
            I know my abuser was filled with anger and hate when he was confronted
            To this day he denies any wrong doing for sexually abusing me for years
            What a coincidence: to this day you deny any wrong doing for killing your child
            I don’t know about your abuser, but the parallels between you and my own abuser are very startling

            I’m dehumanizing nothing. Embryos and fetuses are what they are, not what they might become

            Again, willing to bet money your abuser thought the same thing about you

            However:

            Human life begins at conception
            You killed your offspring
            Our abusers abused us.

            I’m willing to bet money my abusers knew exactly what they were doing was wrong. Hence the “tell any one and I’ll kill you” stuff. Hence the guy who broke down in sobs and said “he didn’t mean it.” Wanting me to have empathy for HIM.

            Yes, like you want people to have empathy for you for killing your child
            I get it
            We all get it

            Hmmm should we be willing to bet that you really do understand that killing your child was wrong (regardless of the location of his/her tiny little body)?

            I’ve performed no “horrible actions” in saving my own life, and deciding not to have a child. None, at all. It’s my body; I can decide what happens to it and what it does. I took nothing “out” on what was a completely unaware and insentient being. You just think I did because you imagine what “might have been.”

            Right and our abusers preformed no horrible act either according to their own warped minds
            The only thing you are proving is that your mind is about as warped theirs

            Oh and it was your child’s body that ended up in a biohazard bag, not yours
            He/she wasn’t your property to throw away

            Let me reiterate for those in the slow seats: no child was going to come from that pregnancy. Either I ended the pregnancy, or I ended me, the pregnant person. If you think the embryo was going to gestate itself in my cremated remains, you’re more delusional than I thought.

            It’s truly sad that you felt there was no other option that you felt trapped into taking the life of the child you helped to create
            But

            Let me reiterate for those in the slow seat : once there is conception there is a new human life
            Every embryology and biology book will tell you the same thing

            I don’t buy that you find the actions of rapists and pedophiles “horrible, since you’re fundamentally agree with them that my body, indeed my sex organs, are not mine, but someone else’s, to use.

            Meh, I don’t really find the opinion of a dehumanizer such as yourself very important so you can buy whatever you want.
            No skin off my back

            But, by your own admission you trapped the child in your uterus
            You imprisoned him/her without their consent and then killed him/her before their first birthday

            Just bc someone is seemingly non-sentient does not make him/her non-human

            I’ll make this as simple as I can for you:
            Humans only reproduce other humans
            Human life, not potential, starts at conception
            Pick up a book on basic embryology
            It’s a bit complicated but perhaps you can find someone to explain it to you.
            Or maybe not since I’m regurgitating it to you in very simple terms and yet you still don’t seem to get it

            In as little as 12-14 weeks gestation human twins embrace each other and fight each other in the womb with purpose

            http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0013199

            You made the choice that was right for you. I’m happy for you. I made the choice that was right for me. You’re not happy for me. That’s all.

            It was not a choice
            I brought him into this world with my actions, I saw it through
            I wasn’t a coward
            I didn’t run away
            I saw him safely into this world
            It was difficult though as I had no one to help me save for the local CPC

            I’m sad for your baby
            And I’m depressed that people like you will continue to spread lies about an entire class of humans to fit your own selfish needs—the way our abusers did to us
            I can only hope you’ve taken necessary measures not to reproduce again

          • TheDingus

            “Gosh I hope not, I was simply comparing your behavior to theirs—”

            So,me affecting my own body, and them affecting my body against my will, is the same thing?

            I think you deciding for me against my will how my
            reproductive organs will be used is much more akin to what rapists and pedophiles do.

            “No where in my response do I hold you responsible for their behavior”

            That’s true if you think rape victims and 13 year olds pregnant with their possible half-sibling should be able to have abortions. Do you?

            “But apparently you’re not responsible for your own behavior either”

            I am completely responsible for having had an abortion; I am not entirely responsible for trying to work through being the victim of child rape and abuse. Only a sociopath can’t tell the difference.

            “I went thru the same thing you did”

            I’m sorry to hear that.

            “All your comments are nothing but one big pity feast for yourself”

            Sure. There are no factual points in my comments, at all.

            “It’s just emotive twaddle”

            Yes, I’ve gotten the message on this site that any emotions people feel are “twaddle.” Other than yours, which are righteous beyond belief.

            “You’re angry Very angry”

            Do people call you Sherlock?

            Of course, anger is an emotion, and you’ve made it clear that emotions are “twaddle.”

            In particular, women who express anger are really bad people, aren’t they? Did you learn that from the CPC, or from your abusers?

            “I’m sure your abuser was angry when faced with the reality of what he did too”

            Which abuser? There was more than one. The one who raped me between the ages of four and nine pretends it never happened to this day. No anger there. The one who begged me to excuse him displayed no anger at all, that I detected.

            “I know my abuser was filled with anger and hate when he was confronted To this day he denies any wrong doing for sexually abusing me for years”

            Familiar story. Again, I’m sorry.

            “What a coincidence: to this day you deny any wrong doing for killing your child”

            I didn’t kill my child; I chose not to create a child. (Funny you call it “my child” when I never gave birth, and was never going to give birth. Also, clearly you don’t think it was mine: it was society’s.)

            “I don’t know about your abuser, but the parallels between you and my own abuser are very startling”

            Not really. That’s how people who abuse girls and women are. It’s only news in this society, where everyone pretends it doesn’t happen, because we wouldn’t want to interfere with men’s lives (though thank goodness that’s beginning to change).

            “Again, willing to bet money your abuser thought the same thing about you”

            I’m pretty sure they knew I was a breathing, thinking, feeling human being. That’s part of the imposition of power, isn’t it, inflicting pain on and ignoring the will of girls? Feelings can hardly be abused and dismissed if they’re not first acknowledged. (As you demonstrate by dismissing every one of my feelings throughout your post.)

            Nothing I’ve read indicates that embryos feel a thing, or think about what they might feel if they could. That would require having a functioning brain.

            “Human life begins at conception”

            Nope. Human reproduction begins at conception. Chances are high (3 to 1) no independent life will come of it.

            “You killed your offspring”

            I chose not to have offspring. There’s a process to that, you know. I know you do, because you’ve indicated you’ve had children. You just think that actually, THEY had YOU.

            Incidentally, that applies throughout my life. Later, when discussing having children with my gynecologist as a married woman with the kind of
            feelings you allow and approve of, I was told in no uncertain terms that pregnancy was medically contraindicated for me. She was right, as I was when I chose abortion earlier. (Amazing how
            intuitive human beings with functioning brains are, isn’t it?)

            “Yes, like you want people to have empathy for you for killing your child”

            I want people to leave other people alone and mind their own business. I also want them to know they’re inflicting pain on people; chance
            would be a faint hope, huh? (Honestly, I’ve given up expecting narcissists and sociopaths to evidence empathy, though.)

            “I get it We all get it”

            Not even close.

            “Hmmm should we be willing to bet that you really do understand that killing your child was wrong (regardless of the location of his/her tiny little body)?”

            “Location?” Is that what women are, “locations?”

            Anyway, no, you shouldn’t bet the farm on that. It wasn’t wrong for me to save my own life, and I killed nothing. I chose not to give life. You get to do that, too; or should Federal marshals be allowed to
            take you into custody to remove one of your kidneys, to give someone life?

            Not to mention, it’s confusing the way you pretend you’re all about “life” but you don’t give a rat’s behind about women’s lives. How do you work that out, in you head?

            “Right and our abusers preformed no horrible act either according to their own warped minds”

            You’re displaying cognitive dissonance; just above you explain that they knew what they were doing was wrong, hence their anger and hate. Also, you’re flagrantly dishonest and disrespectful: they certainly did perform horrible acts.

            Here’s the difference: I was aware and could think and feel. Embryos are not, and can’t.

            You prove my point: you’re appealing to what MIGHT BE, not what is.

            “The only thing you are proving is that your mind is about as warped theirs.”

            Twaddle. The recognition that zygotes, embryos and fetuses are not the moral and legal equivalent of individual, born people, and don’t have rights, is
            as old as human kind; it’s even in the Bible.

            “Oh and it was your child’s body that ended up in a biohazard bag, not yours “

            But you’d have been fine if it had been my body which ended up in a coffin.

            “He/she wasn’t your property to throw away”

            So, first it’s my child, then it’s not? Be that as it may, my body is my property. Do you not know that it takes women’s bodies to create babies, or do you just dismiss it as unimportant?

            “It’s truly sad that you felt there was no other option… ”

            I didn’t “feel” it; it was true. You say you’ve been repeatedly raped: did that just “feel” like
            being trapped?

            You would prefer I had been trapped. You probably work to make sure other girls like us ARE trapped. (You should be ashamed.)

            “But let me reiterate for those in the slow seat: once there is conception there is a new human life“

            Cute, “the slow seat.” Because I’m all by myself out here, and there aren’t hundreds of millions of people who agree with me. (Sheesh.)

            Did you know that separating women from engaging in or being part of human society is a trademark of abusers? They prefer total control.

            I think conception is the possible start of a new human life that will only exist independently after many months of the complex functioning of the woman’s body. I have the right not only to think
            that, but to live my life by my beliefs, not yours. I have the added plus of knowing I’m factually accurate, as well.

            You take the medieval view that, fundamentally, men inject tiny fully formed babies in women’s stomachs where they “incubate” until they get bigger.

            Every embryology and biology book will tell you differently.

            (I’m curious, when you think about embryology, do you ever look at what the embryo arises from, or who is surrounding the embryo, and how they make the embryo’s life possible?)

            “Meh, I don’t really find the opinion of a dehumanizer such as yourself very important…”want.”

            Seeing reality, and assigning value to sapience and the capabilities to spontaneously exist and to reproduce, is not “dehumanizing.” It’s recognizing the fullness of being human.

            I think the complete dismissal of sapience and spontaneously being able to live outside of someone else, with will and intent, while pretending reproduction happens without women’s bodies, is what’s dehumanizing. Women aren’t just incubators on legs.

            “But, by your own admission you trapped the child in your uterus”

            I freed the embryo from my uterus. I thought that’s what has you so disgusted?

            According to you, it was a living individual. Don’t see how I could possibly have harmed it by setting it free. Can you explain?

            “You imprisoned him/her without their consent and then killed him/her before their first birthday”

            It really was “him/her” since at the time I ended the
            development, sex differentiation had yet to occur. It might have literally become “him/her.” (Become: future tense.)

            But you’re being ridiculous. You think the embryo existed BEFORE I had sex. Not only that, that non-existent being had will, and didn’t want to be inside me; I trapped it in there. Just so I could remove it, later.

            Then you talk about birthdays. Why do birthdays matter? Does something special happen when we’re born?

            “Just bc someone is seemingly non-sentient does not make him/her non-human”

            Seemingly? Have you actually perused any of the embryology text books you refer to?

            “Humans only reproduce other humans”

            Never said otherwise. Said that takes 40 weeks, not two minutes.

            “Human life, not potential, starts at conception”

            Yes, potential: 1 out of 4 will never spontaneously live. (You’ve thrown a few into the trash yourself, mistaking a used tampon holding a tiny little corpse for “garbage.”)

            “Pick up a book on basic embryology”

            Yes, you really should. Also, don’t limit yourself to embryology but expand out to include all science about human reproduction. (Fair warning: you might start thinking about women as human beings.)

            “It’s a bit complicated but perhaps you can find someone to explain it to you.”

            It’s more than a bit complicated, but back at ya.

            “It was not a choice”

            Yes, it was. You had both the right and the means not to bear your child. You chose to. Most women do, most of the time. (Trust women.)

            “I wasn’t a coward”

            Is that what we’re calling PTSD and clinical depression with suicidal ideation, these days, cowardice?

            “I didn’t run away.”

            I didn’t, either.

            “I saw him safely into this world”

            Good on you. Your choice. Completely believe you had every right to make it. Congratulations.

            “I’m sad for your baby”

            There was no baby and was never going to be one, so your feelings are wildly misplaced.

            Furthermore, you’re not sad for me; you’re judgmental as can be. So I have suspicions about your ability to feel sad about what happens to
            human beings, in the first place.

            “And I’m depressed that people like you will continue to spread lies about an entire class of humans to fit your own selfish needs—the way our abusers did to us”

            You’re not depressed; you’re delusional. You have no idea if and when a woman is pregnant, so you’re just indulging in self-righteousness.

            We’re not spreading lies; we’re telling the truth.

            Wanting to survive is “selfish?” It’s almost like I thought I had a right to life, or something. Wonder where I got that silly notion?

            By the way, you sound angry. Very angry. Try aiming it at the men who raped you, denying you agency over your own body, not at me. I believe you have complete agency over your own body, and would never use it against your will.

          • http://liveactionnews.org/author/adam-peters/ Adam Peters

            “There was no baby and was never going to be one, so your feelings are wildly misplaced.”

            I asked this question of another commenter and never got an answer, so I’ll ask it again:

            Gianna Jessen was born during a botched abortion. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1504652/Gianna-Jessen-was-aborted-at-7-months.-She-survived.-Astonishingly-she-has-forgiven-her-mother-for-trying-to-kill-her..html

            So was Melissa Ohden. http://www.melissaohden.com/

            Can you explain how a doctor’s mistake was able to transform these women from entities with no rights into babies?

          • TheDingus

            Happy to answer your questions.

            The doctors didn’t transform them into babies; the pregnant girls did.

            Second, if you’re trying to get me to say that it’s too bad these two women didn’t die during a late term abortion, you’re barking up the wrong tree. After viability, a healthy fetus should be delivered, not aborted. I have no qualms with that, especially since I know more than 99.9% of women who carry to the third trimester do not seek abortions; they want a baby, and deliver, if prematurely. I trust women.

            Saline abortions are no longer performed. They had a high risk of embolisms and unfinished abortion (risking sepsis) for women; and obviously awful outcomes for fetuses.

            Presently, a late term abortion is done by Labor & Delivery, since Dilation and Extraction, while safer for the woman, was successfully outlawed by people who don’t give a rip about safety for women.

            Also, standard practice now is that the non-viable fetus is euthanized before the abortion, and the pain inflicted on them in these horrible stories of malpractice would not be now. So unless you like the
            idea of torturing a fetus that is severely malformed and incapable of
            life outside the womb by letting them die slowly, please know that
            doctor’s who practice legally, now, don’t do saline abortions on viable,
            living fetuses.

            There’s an omission from Ms.Jessen’s story which is, why her mother sought to terminate at 7 1/2
            months. The story is inaccurate, too, because abortion on demand is not legal
            throughout pregnancy in most states; at 6 months gestation, abortions may only
            be performed for reasons having to do with either the mother’s health,
            or the fetus’s. (I reiterate that at 7/12 months gestation, a viable, healthy fetus should and would be delivered, not aborted.) We have no indication what this woman’s mother’s health was.

            The doctor’s “mistake” (if you want to call it that) in the first story is that he or she didn’t do their homework, or perhaps just didn’t care. Maybe, as in the second story, the girl lied about how long she’d been pregnant. We don’t know.

            In the second story the doctor’s mistake seems to be (it’s hard to read the posted medical record) the same: the doctor didn’t do his or her homework, and accepted the girl’s statement that she was 10 weeks pregnant. These doctor’s may have been vastly incompetent if they couldn’t tell how far along gestation was, which I doubt; it could be the fetus was quite below weight, having gestated in a woman who didn’t want them and didn’t care for herself. Actual details about these procedures is obviously not thick on the ground.

            In both cases, the doctors probably felt they were treating the young woman for something life threatening. But, we don’t know.

            In both these cases, the doctors did not behave like the infamous Dr. Gosnell, you will note, and the delivered infants were cared for, not murdered.

            What happened to these babies was wrong, and I’m glad these women lived.

            However, I’d have no qualms whatsoever if the pregnant girls in these stories had received early abortions, and I would like to know a lot more about why they didn’t, which, as usual among the disingenuous anti-choice community, doesn’t seem to be possible. (ALL the facts might not make for such compelling arguments, I guess.)

            I do know that attempts to delay early abortion for girls and women in a dishonest effort to get them past the point of viability will lead to more complications, including, sadly, outcomes like these. So, kindly don’t take pride in trying to create more stories like these.

          • http://liveactionnews.org/author/adam-peters/ Adam Peters

            Happy to answer your questions.

            Thank you kindly.

            ”After viability, a healthy fetus should be delivered, not aborted.”

            I’ll admit that I was surprised by that answer; I apologize for assuming the worst.

            ”Also, standard practice now is that the non-viable fetus is euthanized before the abortion…”

            By “euthanized,” you mean that a needle is forced through her or his body so that potassium chloride or digoxin can be injected into it, right?

            …and the pain inflicted on them in these horrible stories of malpractice would not be now.”

            I suspect that being stabbed and then shot full of poison isn’t a pleasant experience either.

            There’s an omission from Ms.Jessen’s story which is, why her mother sought to terminate at 7 ½ months.

            I’m not sure why she sought out an abortion, but according to Gianna, her mom has said that she isn’t happy with the outcome.

            The story is inaccurate, too, because abortion on demand is not legal throughout pregnancy in most states…

            Most, but not all. As this helpful handout from the Guttmacher Institute shows, 8 states plus the District of Columbia have no gestational limits on when an abortion can take place.

            http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_OAL.pdf

            While California (the state where Gianna was born) does currently ban abortions after viability (except to protect the life or health of the mother), no such restriction existed in 1977. In 1972, California’s Supreme Court invalidated the 20 week limit found in the 1967 Therapeutic Abortion Act and no new limits were imposed until 2002. Thus, Gianna’s mother didn’t need to give the doctor any reason at all for why she wanted an abortion in the 3rd trimester.

            http://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/people-v-barksdale-22886

            http://www.foxnews.com/story/2002/10/07/state-legislation-protects-abortion-rights/

            …at 6 months gestation, abortions may only be performed for reasons having to do with either the mother’s health, or the fetus’s.

            Close, but not quite. In 1992, the US Supreme Court discarded the trimester framework of Roe and instead adopted a pre/post viability analysis, stating that

            ”We also reaffirm Roe’s holding that, subsequent to viability, the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.”

            Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

            So, while it’s true that a state can restrict abortion after viability, it is under no obligation to do.

            In both cases, you will note that the doctors did not behave like the infamous Dr. Gosnell, and the delivered infants were cared for, not murdered.

            The doctor wasn’t present at the clinic when Gianna was delivered–it was his staff that rescued her. Gianna has said publicly that she believes this is the only reason she wasn’t killed at birth.

          • PJ4

            So,me affecting my own body, and them affecting my body against my will, is the same thing?

            No
            You’re not paying attention
            You affecting the child’s body is the equivalent of what your abusers did

            I think you deciding for me against my will how my reproductive organs will be used is much more akin to what rapists and pedophiles do

            Thats nice and dripping with emotion but wrong
            You killing your baby is much more akin to what rapists and pedophiles do

            That’s true if you think rape victims and 13 year olds pregnant with their possible half-sibling should be able to have abortions. Do you?

            Why? Bc you don’t think the baby deserves to live just because of who the father is?
            Besides, if that (and health of the mother) were the only reason(s) for abortion ever, you and I wouldn’t even be having this conversation.

            I am completely responsible for having had an abortion; I am not entirely responsible for trying to work through being the victim of child rape and abuse. Only a sociopath can’t tell the difference.

            Only a sociopath would have no emotion over killing their child and continue to deny that she did

            I went thru the same thing you did” I’m sorry to hear that.

            Thank you

            Sure. There are no factual points in my comments, at all.

            At best what you have to say is 1/2 truths
            But for the most part, it’s mostly assumptions/stereotypes about pro lifers, emotive twaddle and falsehoods

            Yes, I’ve gotten the message on this site that any emotions people feel are “twaddle.” Other than yours, which are righteous beyond belief.

            Projecting again.
            I never said that

            I’ve noticed you’re very good at putting words into people’s mouths
            It’s pretty consistent in all your comments on here to everyone.
            Typical pro abort tactics

            What you’ve been trying to pass off as qualifications in order to be a member of the human race is nothing new
            It’s the same thing oppressors have been spewing for centuries

            Do people call you Sherlock?

            aaaw, you’re trying to be clever….So cute!

            Of course, anger is an emotion, and you’ve made it clear that emotions are “twaddle.

            So thin skinned
            Yikes
            I never said emotions are twaddle
            I said your comments are emotive twaddle (translation: your writing method is ineffective). Not what you actually feel

            *eye roll*

            In particular, women who express anger are really bad people, aren’t they? Did you learn that from the CPC, or from your abusers?

            Hmmm.,. I think I just learned that from you.
            I had no idea that women who express anger are really bad people.
            Interesting that you feel that way yet claim to be an activist for women
            I know I’ve never said or expressed that in anyway (nor have any of my fellow pro lifers)
            Do all pro aborts share this belief of yours?
            Interesting how you try to equate CPC’s (who try to help women keep their babies) with abusers.

            Which abuser? There was more than one. The one who raped me between the ages of four and nine pretends it never happened to this day. No anger there. The one who begged me to excuse him displayed no anger at all, that I detected.

            Whichever one
            You pick
            It’s your story, not mine
            I’m just making an observation.
            I’m not the only one to have picked up on your anger issues.

            Familiar story. Again, I’m sorry.

            Thanks

            I didn’t kill my child; I chose not to create a child. (Funny you call it “my child” when I never gave birth, and was never going to give birth. Also, clearly you don’t think it was mine: it was society’s.)

            Yes you did
            The child was there, in his/her earliest stage of development.
            Once conception has occurred, the new human life has already come into existence

            Development begins with fertilization, the process by which the male gamete, the sperm, and the femal gamete, the oocyte, unite to give rise to a zygote. —-T.W. Sadler, Langman’s Medical Embryology, 10th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2006. p. 11.

            Not really. That’s how people who abuse girls and women are. It’s only news in this society, where everyone pretends it doesn’t happen, because we wouldn’t want to interfere with men’s lives (though thank goodness that’s beginning t o change).

            No one pretends it doesn’t happen
            What are you taking about?
            Pro lifers are all about holding men accountable for their actions

            I’m pretty sure they knew I was a breathing, thinking, feeling human being. That’s part of the imposition of power, isn’t it, inflicting pain on and ignoring the will of girls?

            I’m pretty sure they didn’t care that you were a member of the human race
            Just like you care(d) nothing for the offspring you helped to create and then destroyed

            Feelings can hardly be abused and dismissed if they’re not first acknowledged. (As you demonstrate by dismissing every one of my feelings throughout your post.)

            Projecting again

            Nothing I’ve read indicates that embryos feel a thing, or think about what they might feel if they could. That would require having a functioning brain.

            Ah so it’s only ok to violate someone’s body if they don’t feel it and/or have no recollection of it
            Tell me, do you think it’s ok to rape women who are in a temporary coma or drugged out of their mind: remember they will have no recollection of it and feel nothing while it’s happening

            “Human life begins at conception” Nope. Human reproduction begins at conception. Chances are high (3 to 1) no independent life will come of it.

            Stop playing semantics and explain:

            [The zygote], formed by the union of an oocyte and a sperm, is the beginning of a new human being —Keith L. Moore, Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2008. p. 2.

            I chose not to have offspring.

            No you chose to kill your offspring regardless of how much you deny it

            There’s a process to that, you know. I know you do, because you’ve indicated you’ve had children. You just think that actually, THEY had YOU.

            I think they had me? Really??
            Wow
            News to me
            I love that you presume to know what I’m thinking now
            So in addition to pro abortion propagandist you can also claim clairvoyant
            Good to know

            Incidentally, that applies throughout my life. Later, when discussing having children with my gynecologist as a married woman with the kind of feelings you allow and approve of

            The kind of feelings I allow and approve?
            Dear me, you’re really spiraling downwards aren’t you?

            I was told in no uncertain terms that pregnancy was medically contraindicated for me. She was right, as I was when I chose abortion earlier . (Amazing how intuitive human beings with functioning brains are, isn’t it?)

            Well there’s something for all of us to be grateful for

            I want people to leave other people alone and mind their own business

            Even when it comes to rape, domestic abuse, pedophilia and murder?
            Really?
            Are you happy no one came to your rescue?

            I also want them to know they’re inflicting pain on people; chance would be a faint hope, huh?

            Really? Saving lives is now inflicting pain on people
            Good one

            (Honestly, I’ve given up expecting narcissists and sociopaths to evidence empathy, though.)

            I know how you feel. Me too. I’ve given up on people like you having any empathy for the child in the womb and their mother.
            All your comments expose you for the narcissist and sociopath that you are

            Location?” Is that what women are, “locations?

            Putting words in my mouth again
            I’m beginning to see that the only thing of which you are capable is straw manning

            Also, I’ve noticed you don’t understand what analogies are.

            Anyway, no, you shouldn’t bet the farm on that. It wasn’t wrong for me to save my own life, and I killed nothing. I chose not to give life. You get to do that, too; or should Federal marshals be allowed to take you into custody to remove one of your kidneys, to give someone life?

            Organ donation is not equivalent to carrying a child
            Forced organ recall, however, is akin to abortion
            If you gave your kidney to someone and then somehow changed your mind after it had already been implanted, could you have the federal marshals hunt that person down for you so as to take it back?

            Not to mention, it’s confusing the way you pretend you’re all about “life” but you don’t give a rat’s behind about women’s lives.

            Not to mention that you know nothing about what I care about but like to pretend that you do
            Of course I care about women’s lives —both inside and outside the womb
            I’m sorry you’re not capable of both—pretty one dimensional of you.

            How do you work that out, in you head?

            Again, how do you work out in that head of yours that you know anything about what I care about?

            You’re displaying cognitive dissonance; just above you explain that they knew what they were doing was wrong, hence their anger and hate.

            I was merely playing your game
            I asked should we ; i didn’t state we should
            You’re the one displaying all sorts of cognitive dissonance.

            Also, you’re flagrantly dishonest and disrespectful: they certainly did perform horrible acts.

            As are you
            One good turn deserves another
            Although, I’ve not been dishonest about anything.

            Here’s the difference: I was aware and could think and feel. Embryos are not, and can’t.

            So again, to summarize your justifications: as long as someone lacks the capacity to think or feel something (ie drugged or temp coma) it’s ok to do whatever we want to with their bodies.
            Got it
            Thanks

            You prove my point: you’re appealing to what MIGHT BE, not what is.

            Nope it’s what is
            I’ve demonstrated already
            But here it is again ( not that any amount of scientific textbook knowledge would be enough to convince someone like you—but since I’m a bit of a glutton for punishment…)

            Traditional ways of classifying catalog animals according to their adult structure. But, as J. T. Bonner (1965)pointed out, this is a very artificial method, because what we consider an individual is usually just a brief slice of its life cycle. When we consider a dog, for instance, we usually picture an adult. But the dog is a “dog” from the moment of fertilization of a dog egg by a dog sperm. It remains a dog even as a senescent dying hound. Therefore, the dog is actually the entire life cycle of the animal, from fertilization through death. —renowned (pro choice) biologist Scott Gilbert

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK10044/

            So genius, please explain what Dr. Gilbert is trying to say here.

            Twaddle. The recognition that zygotes, embryos and fetuses are not the moral and legal equivalent of individual, born people, and don’t have rights, is as old as human kind; it’s even in the Bible.

            Wow you’re all over the place
            Ok, so now history and your silly book is what determines rights and individuality?
            You sure you wanna go there?
            And I couldn’t give a rats ass about what’s in your bible
            I don’t need anyones god or “holy” book to tell me that killing ones offspring is wrong
            It’s possible for me to be good without god, sorry you need such a crutch for your feigned benignity

            But you’d have been fine if it had been my body which ended up in a coffin.

            Never said that
            You’re projecting again

            “He/she wasn’t your property to throw away” So, first it’s my child, then it’s not?

            *eye roll*
            I didn’t say that she/he wasn’t your child– just that he/she wasn’t your property to discard
            Reading comprehension much?

            Be that as it may, my body is my property.

            Be that as it may, the child’s body is not your property
            We’re going around in circles here

            Do you not know that it takes women’s bodies to create babies, or do you just dismiss it as unimportant?

            Whoa, it takes a woman’s body for the development of the child she’s helped to create?? No way!
            (sarc off)
            *eye roll*

            I didn’t “feel” it; it was true.

            So you’re saying that something can be true independent of your feeeelings?
            Kudos to you as I’ve never heard a liberal pro abort say that
            Good on you for that
            Now let’s work on your application of that very important point.

            You say you’ve been repeatedly raped: did that just “feel” like being trapped?

            Um, no I didn’t say I was repeatedly raped. Where did I say that? I said I was sexually abused. That doesn’t have to be repetitive rape

            You would prefer I had been trapped.

            I would? You profess to know what I prefer now?
            Wow, don’t give up your day job
            Your delve into the world of clairvoyance isn’t working out so well
            I can, with confidence, call you out for the charlatan that you are

            You probably work to make sure other girls like us ARE trapped. (You should be ashamed.)

            Do you make the wrong ASSumtions about every stranger you encounter on the net
            You should be ashamed of yourself for doing that.

            Cute, “the slow seat.” Because I’m all by myself out here, and there aren’t hundreds of millions of people who agree with me. (Sheesh.)

            So if hundreds of millions of people agreed with your abuser that raping you was ok, those hundreds of millions of people would be correct?

            Sheesh
            I had no idea you were into mob mentality
            I, however, would take a stand and defend you against hundreds of millions of people and say no, your abuser did not have that right.

            Did you know that separating women from engaging in or being part of human society is a trademark of abusers?

            Kind of like preventing children in the womb from being born or engaging in society is a trademark of abusers?
            But tell me, please, who do you know who is trying to separate women from engaging in or being apart of society? If you find that person I’ll join you in condemning them

            It’s certainly not pro lifers.

            They prefer total control.

            Sounds just like what you did to your child
            You took his/her life and ended it because you had the power over someone weaker
            Because for oppressors like you, might equals right.

            I think conception is the possible start of a new human life that will only exist independently after many months of the complex functioning of the woman’s body.

            1/2 truth
            Take out possible add that the babies body does much of the work by him/herself and you have a scientifically correct statement

            I have the right not only to think that, but to live my life by my beliefs, not yours.

            Of course
            Except when it imposes on the life or well being of another

            I have the added plus of knowing I’m factually accurate, as well.

            Um no you don’t have that
            You wish you had that
            All you have are your feeeelings, bitter though they may be

            You take the medieval view that, fundamentally, men inject tiny fully formed babies in women’s stomachs where they “incubate” until they get bigger.

            I do??
            News to me
            Again, with the assuming what I think and believe
            Did you receive your degree in Assuming-Falsehoods-About-People-You-Don’t-Know?

            (I realize that I’m giving you a lot of credit in assuming you have any kind of degree; most people reading your tripe wouldn’t believe you’ve had any form of higher education, but (being a pro lifer) I’m an extremely generous person)

            Every embryology and biology book will tell you differently
            (I’m curious, when you think about embryology, do you ever look at what the embryo arises from, or who is surrounding the embryo, and how they make the embryo’s life possible?)

            Of course I do
            Without both male and female gametes, the offspring would not exist
            Duh

            Seeing reality, and assigning value to sapience and the capabilities to spontaneously exist and to reproduce, is not “dehumanizing.” It’s recognizing the fullness of being human.

            Nope it’s assigning arbitrary standards for acceptance of someone in a lesser stage of development from you, into the human race

            I think the complete dismissal of sapience and spontaneously being able to live outside of someone else, with will and intent, while pretending reproduction happens without women’s bodies, is what’s dehumanizing.

            Good thing I’m not dismissing anything and that you’re just building up that straw man of yours

            Women aren’t just incubators on legs.

            You’re the only one on here even making such a suggestion

            I freed the embryo from my uterus. I thought that’s what has you so disgusted?

            No you didn’t
            You killed him/her
            What is freedom without life?

            If someone were to kidnapped you in the dead of winter, took you to a remote cabin in the woods with nothing surrounding you guys for 100’s of miles, then benevolently decided to strip you naked and set you free into to the snow, would that really be “freeing you”?

            According to you, it was a living individual. Don’t see how I could possibly have harmed it by setting it free. Can you explain?

            Not according to me, according to embryology he/she a living individual

            Care to explain this?

            Although life is a continuous process, fertilization (which, incidentally, is not a ‘moment’) is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte. —-Ronan O’Rahilly and Fabiola Müller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p. 8.

            What ever were these embryologists saying???

            It really was “him/her” since at the time I ended the development, sex differentiation had yet to occur. It might have literally become “him/her.” (Become: future tense.)

            Actually sex is determined at conception

            different ion happens around week 6
            Pretty cut and dry
            Here, ask a scientist

            http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/mole00/mole00212.htm

            And

            http://www.m.webmd.boots.com/a-to-z-guides/ss/slideshow-foetal-development

            But you’re being ridiculous. You think the embryo existed BEFORE I had sex

            You claim to know what I (random stranger on the internet) think and then have the temerity to call me ridiculous?

            Lol
            Good one
            Please quote me where I ever say that an embryo existed before you had sex

            See this is where you sound emotional delicate
            It’s a bit sad and I’m trying really hard to have sympathy for you but it’s becoming clearer and clearer that your ignorance is quite deliberate
            I just cannot relate to someone so willfully obtuse

            Not only that, that non-existent being had will, and didn’t want to be insi de me; I trapped it in there. Just so I could remove it, later.

            You did create/trap him/her there by your admission
            He/she had no say
            You could have prevented this dependency on you by being sexually responsible
            But you didn’t

            Then you talk about birthdays. Why do birthdays matter? Does something special happen when we’re born?

            No
            Do you?
            It’s just a further stage of development to me

            Seemingly? Have you actually perused any of the embryology text books you refer to?

            Yes actually I have
            Did you read the link I provided regarding 12-14 week old twins in utero?

            Do you know that when we are 16 weeks old in our mothers wombs we can hear her voice?
            We can hear the music she listens to and taste the food she eats
            And that we react to sounds and light?
            At 20 weeks our mothers can feel us moving around (we started moving earlier than that though)

            I still have the 4d sonogram if my second son when he was 20 weeks old
            He was smiling in my womb
            I’ve juxtaposed that sonogram next to his 4th grade class picture
            He’s got the same smile now that he had in my womb

            But a dehumanizer like you wouldn’t even blink an I over having had him pulled out limb by limb because “he can’t feel it” at that particular stage of his development

            Humans only reproduce other humans” Never said otherwise. Said that takes 40 weeks, not two minutes.

            And sometimes it’s only 22 1/2 weeks

            Yes, potential: 1 out of 4 will never spontaneously live.

            So now probability of survival is what determines who is human and who isn’t?

            Do you think children under 5 in certain parts of Africa aren’t really human because their chance of survival into adulthood is very low?

            (You’ve thrown a few into the trash yourself, mistaking a used tampon holding a tiny little corpse for “garbage.”)

            Most likely not, since I’m smart enough to avoid penis in vagina sex during ovulation.
            And I don’t use tampons
            But there’s a big difference between natural death and death by an act of aggression

            Yes, you really should. Also, don’t limit yourself to embryology but expand out to include all science about human reproduction. (Fair warning: you might start thinking about women as human beings.)

            I already do think of women as human beings. You’re the one dehumanizing an entire class of humans
            Unlike you, I don’t have to dehumanize an entire class of humans in order to give humanity to another
            Of course, I believe in equality not superiority
            You and all pro aborts are the opposite of that

            <"It was not a choice” Yes, it was. You had both the right and the means not to bear your child. You chose to. Most women do, m ost of the time. "

            No it wasn’t
            I had no right to tear him limb from limb then as I don’t now

            (Trust women.)

            Not if they’re going to kill their offspring

            Would you advise young women about to attend a frat party to trust men?

            Is that what we’re calling PTSD and clinical depression with suicidal ideation, these days, cowardice?

            Nope never said that either

            “I didn’t run away.” I didn’t, either.

            Yes you did. Killing your offspring is the epitome of cowardice

            “I saw him safely into this world” Good on you. Your choice.”

            Yes good on me
            But it wasn’t a choice
            It’s no ones choice to determine who can live and who cannot

            There was no baby and was never going to be one, so your feelings are wildly misplaced.

            Yes there was
            So no my feelings are not misplaced

            Furthermore, you’re not sad for me; you’re judgmental as can be.

            Pot meet kettle

            So I have suspicions about your ability to feel sad about what happens to human beings, in the first place.

            Right back at you sista

            You’re not depressed; you’re delusional.

            Says one of the most delusional people I’ve ever encountered

            You have no idea if and when a woman is pregnant, so you’re just indulging in self-righteousness.

            What does that have to do with being pro life or pro abortion?

            We’re not spreading lies; we’re telling the truth.

            You’re spreading pro abort propaganda and lies

            Wanting to survive is “selfish?” It’s almost like I thought I had a right to life, or something. Wonder where I got that silly notion?

            Did I say that wanting to survive is selfish?
            I said you killing your child was selfish
            Survival doesn’t depend on the death of others
            This isn’t the Walking Dead

            By the way, you sound angry. Very angry.

            Lol
            You’re only saying that because I said that about you and you cannot deny it so you have to project; like I said, I’m not the only one here to pick up on your anger issues.

            I’m very rarely angry
            Pro-life Tip: an ejaculation (or 2) a day keeps the anger away
            Correction: I’m never angry ;-)

            Try aiming it at the men who raped you, denying you agency over your own body, not at me.

            I got help; I’m over it
            I’ve even forgiven him
            I’ve helped to council other girls and boys who have been in our situation
            It’s clear you’re not over what happened to you

            I believe you have complete agency over your own body, and would never use it against your will.

            I believe the same thing—only I’d believe it of you even if you were at a different level of human development than I

          • Basset_Hound

            PJ, if memory serves, the one who was “dismissive” of someone else’s feelings (calling them “sentimental tripe” rather than “twaddle” was this guy….

            “Are you guys serious?! I grieve the loss of my imaginary childhood friend please pass me a tissue…not to mention my pet unicorn! Oh how I miss my little rainbow!

            Gimme a break! This is sentimental tripe at its best (I happen to believe abortion is immoral) but to introduce this into the argument is dilute the collective IQ by half. Nonsense.

            No genuine grief here unless you’re the mother. Other than that send condolences to a PO Box in fantasy land.”

            http://liveactionnews.org/sister-of-three-aborted-babies-our-grief-is-real/

            And he was a pro-abort.

          • TheDingus

            Just a few questions at random:

            What do you think it means to be human?

            Kindly explain how a fetus in the womb is engaging in society.

            Explain why the fetus has the right to impose on my life and well being.

            What is life without freedom?

            What’s the good of having a “right to life” when exercising it makes one a selfish coward?

          • PJ4

            You have yet to answer even one question I have posed, but I will still oblige

            What do you think it means to be human?

            Belonging to the species homo sapien

            Kindly explain how a fetus in the womb is engaging in society.

            Just as a new born infant, the child in the womb cannot really engage in society save for already having perpetuated his/her parents genetic code. I should have put in an and where I put in an or.
            Sorry.

            Explain why the fetus has the right to impose on my life and well being.

            Explain why you have the right to create a child and then have him or her destroyed because “oops”.
            Why do you have the right to impose death on the developing child that you yourself created?

            He/she never had the ability to “impose” on your life and well being until you created the dependency.

            For someone who doesn’t believe that we are human beings in our mother’s wombs, you certainly want to attribute human characteristics to that stage of development.
            Why?
            You cannot have it both ways

            What is life without freedom?

            What good is freedom without life?

            I believe I already asked you this question, but you have yet to answer

            What’s the good of having a “right to life” when exercising it makes one a selfish coward?

            Wut?

            Exercising one’s right to life is not cowardice.
            It’s simply living.
            Taking someone else’s life because you find them inconvenient is cowardice

          • TheDingus

            “You have yet to answer even one question I have posed, but I will still oblige”

            I answered your questions, but the reply was too long to post. I will oblige and post them a few at a time. They’re lengthy because the subject is more complex than a bumper sticker, so frankly I’m unsure of the point. Why discus anything with someone who dismisses their own sapience as unimportant? (Or is it just my sapience that’s unimportant?)

            “You’re not paying attention You affecting the child’s body is the equivalent of what your abusers did” Not possible. It didn’t have a vagina, and it couldn’t feel or suffer. I do have a vagina, and I get to say what goes into it and what comes out of it. You just believe you have a good reason to decide for me what happens to my vagina, and a rapist doesn’t. Pay attention: no means no, even when said to a saint.

            “You killing your baby is much more akin to what rapists and pedophiles do” Rapists and pedophiles violate the bodily autonomy of others by assaulting their sexual organs, precisely what you want to do. Actually, you’re worse. They just want to do it for a little while: you want to do it for months.

            I didn’t kill my baby. I decided not to have a baby.

            “Why? Bc you don’t think the baby deserves to live just because of who the father is?” Babies deserve to live. Babies have been born. They have a right to THEIR OWN life. No one has the right to SOMEONE ELSE’S life.

            What you propose puts the right to choose into the hands of any guy who can slip a Rufie into a woman’s drink, unequivocally making her responsible for what happened. The rapist doesn’t bear the child.

            WHO the father might be isn’t the question: HOW he decided to try and become a father is. By way of a crime? Nope. No means no.

            “Besides, if that (and health of the mother) were the only reason(s) for abortion ever, you and I wouldn’t even be having this conversation.”
            I had an abortion to save my life. You’ve been belittling that all along. You should stop lying to yourself.

            I’m an adult human being with rights. I don’t have to get permission from outside authority to seek medical care. Do you?

            “Only a sociopath would have no emotion over killing their child and continue to deny that she did”

            I believe it was Goebbels or Hitler who said that the trick to the Big Lie is to repeat it over and over until people believe it. But whoever it was also said that the Big Lie can only work so long as you can shield people from the effects of it. You can’t shield women from knowing they’re pregnant, or convince anyone that pregnancy and becoming a parent has no affect on people.

            “Belonging to the species homo sapien”

            Home sapiens, not sapien. Let me give you the definition:”Latin, literally ‘wise man’.” Let me give you the definition for human being: “A man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance.”

            You think that’s a BS definition. You think “Sapeince” means “human DNA!” and “human being” means “human DNA!” There’s more to it than that, whether you’re too dishonest or just too dumb to acknowledge it. (We’ve certainly established you think it’s clever to argue in circles. It isn’t.)

            “Just as a new born infant, the child in the womb cannot really engage in society” That is correct. However, women DO engage in society. So I must ask: why do you find “engaging in society” important at all? Half the Homo Sapeins who do it aren’t doing anything important, according to you.

            “save for already having perpetuated his/her parents genetic code.”

            The man and woman are perpetuating their genetic codes. When their offspring becomes sexually mature and may engage in reproduction, THEN they’ll be perpetuating their own genetic code.

            I asked: “Explain why the fetus has the right to impose on my life and well being.” Another question unanswered. You act like there is only one side to consider. There isn’t. It’s flatly delusional to pretend there is.

            “Explain why you have the right to create a child and then have him or her destroyed because ‘oops’.” I have the right to decide whether or not TO create a child. If the “creation” is complete when Daddy groans, then let the “new life” get on with it’s life, by itself. Because I have the right to have it removed from my body, for two reasons: I’m the one it arose from and the one giving life to it, and I am not compelled by law or morality to give life, any more than you are; and, it’s my body, so I may control how it functions, just as you may. (Control YOUR body, not mine.)

            “Why do you have the right to impose death on the developing child that you yourself created?”

            Not imposing death; withholding life. Not “created,” creating. If it’s already created, and has it’s own life, then there shouldn’t be any issue with it living by itself.

            “He/she never had the ability to “impose” on your life and well being until you created the dependency.” I didn’t create the dependency; biology did. However, if I created the dependency, I may end it.

            I know a woman whose 40 year old son still lives at home with her. He’s abusive and immature, if not schizophrenic. He remains dependent upon her. She’s kicking him out. Does she have the right to? Why, or why not?

            Does a woman have the right to give up her baby for adoption, thereby ending the newborn’s dependency on her? (But wait: didn’t she create that dependency?)

            “For someone who doesn’t believe that we are human beings in our mother’s wombs, you certainly want to attribute human characteristics to that stage of development.” We aren’t human beings in our mother’s womb; we are genetically human, and might become human beings, given enough time and favorable circumstances. Meanwhile, human beings have the right to liberty, to define their own circumstances. Woman are not brainless incubators, as you would prefer them to be.

            “You cannot have it both ways” First, you’re the one defining it as having it “both ways,” not I. I’m also not trying to have it both ways: you are. If you can have it both ways – the fetus is “independent” even when it’s not – then I can, too.

            I asked: “What is life without freedom?” Question unanswered. (Don’t worry, I don’t expect you to ever answer it. It’s clearly too complex a topic for you.)

            “What good is freedom without life?”

            If one cannot possibly exercise “freedom” what is the point of having it? A corpse cannot exercise “freedom.” A developing blastocyst cannot exercise “freedom.” A woman CAN.

            I asked: “What’s the good of having a “right to life” when exercising it makes one a selfish coward?” and you answered, “Wut?”

            I had an abortion to save my life. You’ve been calling me a selfish coward for doing so. So I repeat: What’s the good of having a “right to life” when exercising it makes one a selfish coward?
            Or are you too much of a coward to answer?

            “Taking someone else’s life because you find them inconvenient is cowardice”

            My wanting to stay alive was a matter of “convenience?” What?

            I did not take someone else’s life. First, there was no “someone” else, second, it didn’t have it’s own life, separate from mine.

          • Cynical_Meliorist

            I read this line above, and I had to set my drink down and chuckle for a moment.

            “Pay attention: no means no, even when said to a saint.”

            If *only* you actually meant this and were honest about it.

            Let’s enumerate.

            “No, I do not hold that position.”
            “No, I don’t believe that to be true.”
            “No, you’re purposely taking this out of context.”
            “No, I never said such a thing.”
            “No, I don’t support such things as genital mutilation.”
            “No, babies don’t happen by magic.”
            “No, I honestly -do- wish you well in your endeavors.”

            Seems to me, if “no means no”….then you should look to your own arguments and the responses you receive when someone actually *does* say “No.”

            As you say…”Own it.”

          • PJ4

            Bwahaahahaha

          • PJ4

            Why discus anything with someone who dismisses their own sapience as unimportant? (Or is it just my sapience that’s unimportant?)

            Here we go again: You imagining things and imputing to me what you think I might
            be doing or feeling. Do you constantly live in your imagination?
            I’m beginning to see that you do

            Not possible. It didn’t have a vagina, and it couldn’t feel or suffer. I do have a vagina, and I get to say what goes into it and what comes out of it.

            Again, you profess your clearly stated belief that as long as a person doesn’t feel or remember what is happening to them, it’s ok to violate their body.

            You just believe you have a good reason to decide for me what happens to my vagina, and a rapist doesn’t.

            Seriously, you’re not good at this clairvoyance thing

            Pay attention: no means no, even when said to a saint.

            Wtf are you talking about?? Of course no means no.
            Where did I say otherwise?
            OH… I get it… you’re living in your imagination again.
            I keep forgetting.
            Sorry.

            Rapists and pedophiles violate the bodily autonomy of others by assaulting their sexual organs, precisely what you want to do.

            Um, no, that’s not what I want to do, but thank you for assuming again.
            You never tire of being wrong, do you?
            I’ve found most pro aborts, you in particular, are quite fond of being wrong

            Actually, you’re worse. They just want to do it for a little while: you want to do it for months.

            Actually, you’re worse, they didn’t kill you
            You killed your baby
            No matter how many times you repeat to yourself that you didn’t, it doesn’t change the fact that you committed a horrible act.

            I didn’t kill my baby. I decided not to have a baby.

            Yes, you did, but whatever you need you do to sleep well at night, I guess
            What’s that thing you said about “if you repeat a lie enough times….”
            Yes, you are the living example of this
            Goebbels would be oh so proud of you!

            Babies do not create themselves. (No, really.)

            You don’t say!
            (Sarc off)

            Notice how I have to let you know that I’m being sarcastic. People of even average intelligence would understand that … but with you, I have to spell it out as clearly and as slowly as possible.

            Babies deserve to live. Babies have been born.

            Babies are also alive in the womb ;Unless of course you can find me any medical text to prove
            otherwise
            I noticed how you completely dismissed every text I presented to you.
            Of course you did.
            You have nothing to counter it save for your imagination, your feeeeeeeelings and silly beliefs.

            They have a right to THEIR OWN life. No one has the right to SOMEONE ELSE’S life.

            Funny you say that as you robed your child of his/her life (that was your child’s life, not yours)

            What you propose puts the right to choose into the hands of any guy who can slip a Rufie into a woman’s drink, unequivocally making her responsible for what happened.

            Ok, you’ve convinced me
            You’re clinically unstable
            I finally get that about you
            You don’t have to keep proving it to me with these fantasies of yours
            Everyone here already knows who you are

            The rapist doesn’t bear the child.

            No way!!!
            (Sarc off)

            WHO the father might be isn’t the question: HOW he decided to try and become a father is. By way of a crime? Nope..

            So now the way they came about their existence decides the child’s worth?
            Might wanna tell her and several others that they shouldn’t really be here because of the way they were conceived.
            Wow, on top of being delusional and unstable, you are also horrible cruel.

            No means no.

            Didn’t we already establish this?

            I had an abortion to save my life. You’ve been belittling that all along. You should stop lying to yourself.

            No I haven’t
            I just question your statement.
            You’ve been about 90% dishonest about everything on here from the science of embryology to imputing false feelings and intentions into perfect strangers.
            Why should I believe that you were in imminent physical danger that required you to kill your own child.
            Was it ectopic? In that case it’s not even considered an abortion.

            I’m an adult human being with rights. I don’t have to get permission from outside authority to seek medical care. Do you?

            You’re an adult??? Omg I thought you were a 10 year old from your incessant ravings, whining, ignorance of basic biology and tantrums.

            It was either Goebbels or Hitler who said that the trick to the Big Lie is to repeat it over and over until people believe it. But whoever it was also said that the Big Lie can only work so long as you can shield people from the effects of it. You can’t shield women from knowing they’re pregnant, or convince anyone that pregnancy and becoming a parent has no affect on people.

            It was Goebbels as I mentioned earlier

            And…… relevancy?

            No one is trying to shield women form knowing they’re pregnant or that pregnancy and becoming a parent has not affect on people.
            I mean really…. Wth are you talking about?

            Belonging to the species homo sapien” Home sapiens, not sapien.

            Does it make you feel smarter to correct people’s typo’s?

            Let me give you the definition:

            Oooh goody, I love definitions!

            “Latin, literally ‘wise man’.” Let me give you the definition for human being: “A man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance.”

            What’s your point?
            It’s a good thing your definition doesn’t exclude the child in the womb.
            But
            Are people who are not “wise” considered non-human? Are babies who have yet to speak and lack a superior mental development not human to you?

            You think that’s a BS definition

            I do?
            News to me
            Again, clairvoyance, not your strong point
            I keep picturing you as Professor Trewlany from the Harry Potter books–she was an old fraud too

            You think “Sapeince” means “human DNA!” and “human being” means “human DNA!”

            I do??

            Since when?

            I hate to break this to you, but, you’re straw manning again.
            Sapience comes form the Latin sapiencia meaning wisdom
            1st declension.
            I taught my 11 year old how to decline this noun over the summer. So now he’s ahead of all the other kids in Latin class. :-)

            And now.. here’s a few definitions for you:

            Fetus: An unborn offspring, from the embryo stage the end of the eighth week after conception, when the major structures have formed) until birth.

            http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=3424

            Offspring: 1. a : the product of the reproductive processes of an animal or plant : young, progeny
            b : child

            2 a : product, result
            b : offshoot
            http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/offspring

            The word fetus (plural fetuses) is from the Latin fetus, meaning offspring, bringing forth, hatching of young.

            http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/fetus

            There’s more to it than that, whether you’re too dishonest or just too dumb to acknowledge it. (We’ve certainly established you think it’s clever to argue in circles. It isn’t.)

            As I’ve mentioned before, I feel as though I’m arguing with a very immature 10 year old

            You make silly assumptions, throw a tantrum, insist I’m thinking or saying something I’m clearly not and then come to the wrong conclusions

            I’m beginning to feel bad for you now
            Perhaps it’s a bit unfair for the regulars on LAN to debate you. Clearly you’re nowhere near our level of intelligence or maturity

            That is correct. However, women DO engage in society. So I must ask why you find “engaging in society” important at all? Half the Homo Sapeins who do it aren’t doing anything important, according to you.

            I said that women aren’t important?
            When?
            Please quote me directly.
            Thanks.

            The man and woman are perpetuating their genetic codes. When their offspring becomes sexually mature and may engage in reproduction, THEN they’ll be perpetuating their own genetic code.

            Right… the child is the perpetuation of the parent’s genetic code.
            Exactly what I said… what was the point in you rewording it?

            I asked: “Explain why the fetus has the right to impose on my life and well being.” Another question unanswered. You act like there is only one side to consider. There isn’t. It’s flatly delusional to pretend there is.

            I explained that the child isn’t imposing on you. He/she was placed there by you. You made him/her “impose” on you, yourself.
            Then you decide to impose death on the child.
            You’re the only delusional one here

            I have the right to decide whether or not TO create a child.

            Yes!
            That happens before pregnancy

            If the “creation” is complete when Daddy groans, then let the “new life” get on with it’s life, by itself.

            The new life cannot live independently yet.
            He/she has been created, but it doesn’t end there.
            He/she has to keep growing before he/she can live on it’s own.
            You sound very insensitive toward the plight of others.

            Because I have the right to have it removed from my body, for two reasons: I’m the one it arose from and the one giving life to it, and I am not compelled by law or morality to give life, any more than you are; and, it’s my body, so I may control how it functions, just as you may. (Control
            YOUR body, not mine.)

            A new human life from the moment of conception would not have arisen from you had it not been for the father as well. Unless you believe we reproduce asexually (And quite frankly, I wouldn’t put it past you as you are do seeped in a world of fantasy that it’s almost fitting)
            It takes two to reproduce, read a biology book
            It’s quite obvious that you’ve never even been in the same room as one

            And fyi, we do have moral and sometimes legal obligation to rescue someone in danger of death depending in which state one resides
            It’s called “duty to rescue”
            A parent is obligated to save their child
            http://definitions.uslegal.com/d/duty-to-rescue/

            Would you witness someone being raped and just let it happen bc the law or your sick morality doesn’t oblige you to stop it?
            Didn’t you say you were a Christian. Isn’t a tenet of Christianity to do unto others as you
            would have them do unto you?

            Not imposing death; withholding life.

            Actually, a surgical abortion doesn’t just “withhold life”; it involves physically damaging and ultimately destroying the child’s body
            But you’re playing semantics and going through crazy mental gymnastics again

            Not “created,” creating. If it’s already created, and has it’s own life, then there shouldn’t be any issue with it living by itself.

            Do you think an infant can survive on it’s own and live by itself? It’s separate from it’s mother but not independent of her.

            I didn’t create the dependency; biology did.

            No you, did by your irresponsible actions.

            However, if I created the dependency, I may end it.

            Not if you’re imposing death on someone (the child in the womb)

            I know a woman whose 40 year old son still lives at home with her. He’s abusive and immature, if not schizophrenic. He remains dependent upon her. She’s kicking him out. Does she have the right to? Why, or why not?

            So now you’re comparing an adult to an infant?
            Excellent
            Any more non-parallels you’d like to throw out there?
            And yes, she does have a right because he can live on his own or the state can take of him
            Kicking him out of her house will not result in his imminent death

            Does a woman have the right to give up her baby for adoption, thereby ending the newborn’s dependency on her? (But wait: didn’t she create that dependency?)

            You are seriously reaching here. She’s not killing the child

            Again, you’re way off on your comparisons

            Adoption doesn’t kill
            Abortion kills

            We aren’t human beings in our mother’s womb; we are genetically human, and might become human beings, given enough time and favorable circumstances.

            You’re seriously separating human from human being?
            Ok genius, give me one medical text to back up your absurd assertion
            Just one

            Meanwhile, human beings have the right to liberty, to define their own circumstances.

            Meanwhile you’re excluding an entire class of humans to suite your liking and ease your conscience (if you even have a conscience)

            Woman are not brainless incubators, as you would prefer them to be.

            You’re projecting here again but I’d like you to quote me where I ever said that we are incubators. Please

            First, you’re the one defining it as having it “both ways,” not I. I’m also not trying to have it both ways: you are. If you can have it both ways – the fetus is “independent” even when it’s not – then I can, too.

            *sigh*

            Let’s go through this one more time.
            (Although really, I don’t know how much more I can dumb it down for you)
            I said the child is a new individual life, not that he/she can live independently of you.
            See the difference?

            Also, nice try on the tu quoque fallacy

            I asked: “What is life without freedom?” Question unanswered. (Don’t worry, I don’t expect you to ever answer it. It’s clearly too complex a topic for you.)

            Lol, you couldn’t answer my question .And in answer to yours: it’s still life and with life there is
            hope and with hope there is endless potential

            What good is freedom without life?” Given: one must have life for freedom to be meaningful. If one cannot possibly exercise”freedom” what is the point of having it? A corpse cannotexercise
            “freedom.”

            Never said it could

            A developing blastocyst cannot exercise “freedom.”

            Who said it could?

            A woman CAN.

            Do people call you Einstein?

            I asked: “What’s the good of having a “right to life” when exercising it makes one a selfish coward?” and you answered, “Wut?”

            Yes, to illustrate the sheer idiocy of your question… but since I didn’t dumb it down for you enough, you missed it.

            Sorry… I will always remember to dumb things down for you from now on. I promise.

            Also, after asking wut I answered you…. But you must have missed that.

            I had an abortion to save my life. You’ve been calling me a selfish coward for doing so. So I repeat: What’s the good of having a “right to life” when exercising it makes one a selfish coward? Or are you too much of a coward to answer?

            Go back and read my response .

            I answered you

            Not my problem if you’re too much of a dullard to read what I wrote. I can’t be responsible for your shortcomings

            “Taking someone else’s life because you find them inconvenient is cowardice” My wanting to stay alive was a matter of “convenience?” What?

            No I didn’t say that

            I did not take someone else’s life. First, there was no “someone” else; second, it didn’t have it’s own life, separate from mine.

            It’s the child’s body, not the mother’s that ends up in a biohazard bag and dumped outside the clinic
            Interesting that your fellow pro aborts disagree with you though

            “We – in the states – have dealt heavily, up to now, in euphemism. I think one of the reasons why the “good guys” – the people in favor of abortion rights – lost a lot of ground is that we have been unwilling to talk to women about what it means to abort a baby. We don’t ever talk about babies, we don’t ever talk about what is being decided in abortion. We never talk about responsibility. The word “choice” is the biggest euphemism. Some use the phrases “products of conception” and “contents of the uterus,” or exchange the word “pregnancy” for
            the word “fetus.” I think this is a mistake tactically and strategically, and I think it’s wrong… It is morally and ethically wrong to do abortions without acknowledging what it means to do them. I performed abortions, I have had an abortion and I am in favor of women having abortions when we choose to do so.
            But we should never disregard the fact that being pregnant means there is a baby growing inside of a woman, a baby whose life is ended. We ought not to pretend this is not happening.”
            — Dr. Judith Arcana, abortionist “Feminist Politics and Abortion in the US” Pro-Choice Forum(Psychology and Reproductive Choice) Sponsored by The Society for the
            Psychology of Women.

            Nobody wants to perform abortions after ten weeks because by then you see the features of the baby, hands, feet. It’s really barbaric. Abortions are very draining,
            exhausting, and heartrending. There are a lot of tears. … I do them because I take the attitude that women are going to terminate babies and deserve the same kind of treatment as women who carry babies … I’ve done a couple thousand, and it turned into a significant financial boon, but I also feel I’ve provided an important service. The only way I can do an abortion is to consider only the woman as my patient and block out the baby[.]
            –John Pekkanen. M.D.: Doctors Talk About Themselves (Delcorte Press: New York, 1988) 90-91

            Who’s word do you think I should take?
            Yours, or an abortionist who has performed thousands of abortions?
            Hmmmm… let me think….

            Third: since when is having a child a matter of
            “convenience?” Is that what your kids are, “convenient?”

            Reading comprehension much?
            I never said having a child was a matter of convenience
            Killing your child, is.

          • TheDingus

            Were I to attempt to respond to this astonishingly ugly screed filled with abuse and ad hominem attacks, it would once again be too long to post. It would also be pointless since you clearly believe yourself to be the best thinker in history, that all philosophical, ethical, legal, spiritual and scientific contemplation and conclusions that took place before you got here are arbitrary and ill-defined. (Here you come, to save the day! LOL)

            Suffice to say that you have proven my thoughts are not assumptions and falsehoods; in fact the arrogance and viciousness of anti-choice activists are worse than I thought.

            I can safely say your answer to the question posed in this article is “sympathy for women who decline to produce children harms the anti-choice movement; we must try to blast them into the deepest wells of shame and guilt possible.”

            Good luck with that.

            Oh, and see a shrink. Not for yourself; so you can talk to someone who understands depression; that it’s a physical illness; and that when a person starts talking about killing themselves, they are in imminent danger of dying. If you pick up some empathy about people having “feeeeelings” along the way, so much the better, though I doubt you have that capacity. (A remedial English class covering grammar, spelling and punctuation wouldn’t go amiss, either.)

          • PJ4

            Were I to attempt to respond

            You’d fail miserably as you have every other time and embarrass yourself even further than you already have
            You know it
            I know it
            Everyone here knows it
            That’s why you cannot

            to this astonishingly ugly screed filled with abuse and ad hominem attacks, it would once again be too long to post.

            Just as a warning I’m engaging in one of your own tactics right now:

            Yes because telling Griffon that he gets off on 11 year old having to give birth, telling CM that he must support female genital mutilation, assuming pro lifers don’t care about holding men responsible for their actions, accusing pro life men of not caring about their children, and every other hateful thing of which you’ve accused us isn’t an ad Hominem attack, right?
            And the incorrect assumptions you’ve made about all of aren’t astonishingly ugly screeds, right?
            Oh I forgot
            You’re a liberal
            And liberals have a double standard
            When liberals are invective and do the attacking it’s righteous and good.
            So sorry to have forgotten
            (sarc off )

            It would also be pointless since you clearly believe yourself to be the best thinker in history, that all philosophical, ethical, legal, spiritual and scientific contemplation and conclusions that took place before you got here are arbitrary and ill-defined. (Here you come, to save the day! LOL)

            It would also be pointless since you clearly cannot produce any science and ethics to back up your claims
            Well, except perhaps his one: http://www.bioedge.org/index.php/bioethics/bioethics_article/ethicists_give_thumbs_up_to_infanticide

            Unfortunately you have skewed philosophy, a history of violence and the legal system (for now) on your side

            More protection though.

            I see you’ve accurately described your own hateful diatribe on here to a Tee

            Good job! Like I said. you’re doing y work for me. Thanks!

            Suffice to say that you have proven my thoughts are not assumptions and falsehoods; in fact the arrogance and viciousness of a nti-choice activists are worse than I thought.

            Right back at you sista!
            In fact, the ignorance and arrogance of the pro death Gosnelesque cult to which you belong, is worse than I could have ever imagined. Thank you for confirming.

            I can safely say your answer to the question posed in this article is “sympathy for women who decline to produce children harms the anti-choice movement; we must try to blast them into the deepest wells of shame and guilt possible.

            I have a lot of sympathy for post abortive women who suffer the pains of losing their child
            But people like you who are proud of killing their offspring are like rapists who brag about the people they’ve raped
            You don’t have to produce children
            In fact, people like you shouldn’t.
            Do the world a favor and get your tubes tied or make sure any man you’re with has had his dose of RISUG http://www.healthline.com/health-news/male-birth-control-procedure-in-trials-012313
            However, you’re conflating “having to produce children” with not killing the child that already exists
            Not surprising.
            What’s a pro abort argument without the hysteria and hyperbole?
            Remove those two elements from your comments on here and you’re left with nothing.

            Oh, and see a shrink. Not for yourself; so you ca n talk to someone who understands depression; that it’s a physical illness; and that when a person starts talking about killing themselves, they are in imminent danger of dying.

            People get help for depression and suicidal thoughts all the time and it doesn’t involve killing your offspring

            Well, maybe it does for people like you and her

            If you pick up some empathy about people having “feeeeelings” along the way, so much the better, though I doubt you have that capacity.

            I have a lot of empathy for people with feelings
            You have no idea what I’ve done to help women and children in need

            I don’t have empathy for sociopaths, perpetual victims and people who try to justify the evil they do by dehumanizing an entire class of people
            Would you have empathy for unrepentant pedophiles and rapists?
            You don’t think they should be shamed for the horrible things they have committed?
            Not surprising.

            I hope you pick up empathy for the most defenseless and helpless in our society.
            But that would mean that you’d have get over your might equals right
            mentality
            You don’t believe in equality
            You believe in superiority
            All pro aborts do.

            (A remedial English class covering grammar, spelling and punctuation wouldn’t go amiss, either.)

            You too
            And a remedial biology class covering human reproduction wouldn’t go amiss for you either
            Wait, never mind
            As I said before, you’re much more of a useful tool to the pro life cause if you stay ignorant and callous
            So don’t educate yourself.
            Don’t change.
            And keep helping more and more people to come over to the pro life side.
            Thank you for all your help in our efforts.

          • PJ4

            Suffice to say that you have proven my thoughts are not assumptions and falsehoods; in fact the arrogance and viciousness of anti-choice activists are worse than I thought.

            Oh, so what you’re saying is that you don’t like being treated the way you treat others!
            Sorry.
            I’m not a Christian
            I believe in treating people the way they treat me (and others)
            I’ve been treating you the way you’ve been treating the rest of us.
            You don’t get a pass just because you’re a consummate victim.
            Apparently you can dish it out, but you can’t take it
            That’s classic narcissist behavior–typical of the pro abort.

          • Basset_Hound

            >>>I know a woman whose 40 year old son still lives at home with her. He’s abusive and immature, if not schizophrenic. He remains dependent upon her. She’s kicking him out. Does she have the right to? Why, or why not?<<<

            I have a 22 year old son. He is autistic and nonverbal. When he was 11 he began to exhibit extreme, aggressive behaviors, particularly towards his younger sister. WE "kicked him out" by obtaining out of home placement for him. We were well within our rights to do so. We did NOT kill him.

          • TheDingus

            That’s my point: clearly “dependency” is not a reason to step in and direct what other people do in their personal lives, at risk to themselves and their families. How would you feel if someone said “you can’t do that, I say you created a dependency and now you must see it through, no choice.” (Needless to say, I wouldn’t kill an 11 year old, either.)

            Choosing not to have a baby is not killing anyone. Men do it every day, and no one says “but that could’ve become a baby, you (insert judgmental adjective here) killer!” even though every human baby ever born was completely dependent on a man’s sperm to exist. Men don’t lose their rights because future babies are dependent on them to exist. Neither do women.

          • PJ4

            *eye roll*

            Again…. you’re being dishonest
            You’re willfully obfuscating choosing not to have a baby with killing the one that’s already in existence in the womb.

            No one gives a crap whether you don’t get pregnant or not.
            What part about that don’t you get????
            How many times does it need to be repeated to you before you finally understand?
            The world is so much better off if people like you don’t get pregnant.
            But for some reason… that hasn’t sunk in.
            You keep repeating the tired old rhetoric over and over despite everything anyone on here has said.
            Why are you being so purposely dim?
            Oh.. I get it.. you want to be an asset to the pro life side now…
            Good one! Thanks again!

          • Basset_Hound

            How would you feel if someone said “you can’t do that, I say you created a dependency and now you must see it through, no choice.” (Needless to say, I wouldn’t kill an 11 year old, either.)

            Sorry, but this is one more time your “analogies” and “parallels” don’t apply.

            For one thing, “dependency” IS indeed a “reason to step in and direct what other people do in their personal lives” . We were under all sorts of “directives”.

            We couldn’t neglect our son.
            We couldn’t abuse our son.
            We couldn’t exploit our son sexually or offer him up for other people to do so.
            We could not kill our son, no matter how “depressed” we felt. No matter if we “decided” he wasn’t human (according to Peter Singer he’s not).

            So no, we wouldn’t see those “restrictions” in the same light as you did in your ridiculous analogy, because there’s simply no comparison.

            So, no we are saying that you can’t kill your child in the womb, just as I couldn’t kill my 11 year old. They’re both human beings, and they’re both worthy of protection.

            We the unhip, the uncool Hobby Lobby stitchin’ bitches get this point while you, in all your self-proclaimed sagacity do not.

          • MamaBear

            Basset, you see life totally different from her. For you, your children, in the womb, age 11, capable or handicapped, are both your responsibility, one of sacrificial love.

            Not only is human life sacred from conception until natural death, but you, I, many others who view life through pro-life lenses find ourselves taking responsibility for not just our own children, but spouses or parents when disease or accident disables. We are the ones who take meals to that sick neighbor or church member or drive them to doctor’s appointments. Who don’t ask for reward or notice when we give to others of our time or abilities.

            I’m not saying pro-abortion supporters never do those things, but the basic mindset is often “me, me, me,” rather than sacrifice for others. I can’t remember which one now, but recently we had a pro-abort with a long list of things she had done, which were very worthwhile, but the attitude of her comment seemed to be “look at how great I am!”

          • Basset_Hound

            But wait….didn’t Dingus say we don’t care about all those children once they’re born?

          • Cynical_Meliorist

            Since others addressed this vapid red herring of an argument, I wanted to get your input on something else we discussed previously.

            I’m under the impression, based on your statements, that aborting a viable child (say, around the 20 week mark or so) would be wrong and those who do it should be taken to task.

            You now have a perfect opportunity to demonstrate your stalwart stance on such an issue.

            Please make note of the [ ] to (attempt to) bypass moderation for this link and adjust accordingly.

            http://liveactionnewsdotorg/gofundme-pulls-abortion-funding-campaign-for-23-year-old-who-wants-to-drink-rockstar-not-parent

            This woman is aborting a child at what is basically now the 20 week mark, thus striking the line of viability based on criteria that groups such as PP support as a time frame.

            *edit* Just in case you want to be very specific, when this story was written, she was already into the 19th week, so an argument that she’s not “really at 20 weeks” wouldn’t work, since we’re already several days past that. If she were at say, 19 1/2 weeks, then she’d be at 20 by now. If nothing else, 19 weeks and 5 or 6 days isn’t going to statistically make any real, palpable, functional difference than being at 20 weeks and 0 days.

            If this course of action is as wrong as you believe it to be, then stating so in that comments section should be an easy endeavor for you, even given your disagreement with others here.

          • TheDingus

            Women and what happens to them in pregnancy and childbirth is a “vapid red herring?” Having your vagina ripped through to the bowel is a “vapid red herring?” Oh, wait: murder is a “vapid red herring” to you. You’re devoted to your misogyny, that’s for sure.

            People replied, but they did not address the point, any more than you will. Funny how you think I should answer your questions, when you won’t answer mine. Hypocrisy, thy name is anti-choice.

            No fetus is viable at 20 weeks, nor ever will be. Why do you think it takes humans 40 weeks to gestate, not 20? Is gestation a “vapid red herring” too? (What am I saying: to you it is; what matters is ejaculation.)

            But, not being a flaming hypocrite, here goes:
            Bailey sounds like an idiot. She should clearly not have gotten pregnant to start with, but we’ve discussed that: being free not to be pregnant as long as you’re not pregnant is moot. She should have had an abortion a long time ago, but sounds like she’s too effed up to have known she was pregnant until recently. Also, she lived in Arizona, which is an anti-choice state that makes getting early abortions difficult.

            Reading other sites, here’s what I gather her page said: “Bailey is currently unemployed, completely broke, in debt, and in no position to hold down a job due to severe symptoms of a rough, unplanned and unexpected pregnancy…. Having just moved to Chicago from Phoenix, Arizona, Bailey says she’s 23, likes to read and go to shows, and really, really doesn’t want to be a mom.”

            (She probably left Arizona because they think she was pregnant two weeks before she had sex.)

            Note: not a word about “would rather drink Rock Star than have a baby.”

            Also this regarding her pregnancy: “Sometimes the pain is so bad that I can’t get out of bed, and I can’t go to the bathroom. When I cough, it feels like my organs being shredded inside of me.”
            “Vapid red herring” right? (Diminishment of women, again and again and again… )

            Do you think this young woman SHOULD be a mom? Oh, what am I asking: you think she’s an incubator, in the first place. You’d probably retch to think of her caring for an infant, but you’d make her create one out of her own body, anyway. Lücifer Ryzing can help care for the baby; everything will be just fine if only she could be forced to have it! (And you call me vapid.)

          • Cynical_Meliorist

            “Women and what happens to them in pregnancy and childbirth is a “vapid red herring?”

            No. Again, you’re purposely either not wanting to address a point, or…you’ve just missed the message itself. The entire bit about men, at the end of your last post there, was what was called a “vapid red herring”. Of course, by taking it another direction, you can then make it look as if i’m being an evil, mustache-twirling villain. I didn’t think I had to explain this, but apparently I can be wrong. So please, check your faux outrage and claims of misogyny at the door.

            “People replied, but they did not address the point, any more than you will.”

            Fine, then I’ll do so. If a guy, or a girl, didn’t actively create a pregnancy, then your entire “argument” is nothing more than overblown fluff with no substance. That’s why no one wants to really argue it…it’s not an actual argument. It doesn’t require a rebuttal. It’s just bloviating on your part about an action that has zero actual moral or ethical issues. If a man masterbates, he’s not destroying a product of conception.

            I shouldn’t, again, have to point out such simplicity.

            ” Funny how you think I should answer your questions, when you won’t answer mine. Hypocrisy, thy name is anti-choice.”

            I did answer your questions. Which ones did I miss? As a pure matter of fact, we spent literally 40+ pages going back and forth, including question/answer sections and replies. If you’ve got a question that you asked me which wasn’t answered to your satisfaction, then ask me and don’t beat around the bush. It’s not as if i didn’t try to appropriately or accurately answer what you gave to me. That, specifically, is why I wanted you to answer my question…I’d spent so long answering yours, I figured I was due for one myself.

            “No fetus is viable at 20 weeks, nor ever will be.”

            I could point out that you, yourself, made mention technology was pushing that way, and that you’d have to answer your own ethical questions, but that’s also an Argument to the Future should I do so. Even if I acquiesce to your claim, 20 weeks is incredibly far along, and is certainly in the later term.

            “Why do you think it takes humans 40 weeks to gestate, not 20? Is gestation a “vapid red herring” too? ”

            Because…human gestation takes 40 weeks total? Are you looking for some other answer to that question? And no, it’s not…why infer it is? Seems petty to even ask.

            “(What am I saying: to you it is; what matters is ejaculation?”

            And why does this matter, if it doesn’t involve conception? I mean, the product of such conception is what the entire debate about is…not the ethical problems of men rubbing it out. If that’s the case, then every orgasm you’ve ever had would also be ethically suspect, using your line of reasoning. Again, it’s not an argument. It’s not what the topic at hand is about. It’s a red herring, supplanted for no other reason than you really can’t answer the full debate in any other meaningful way.

            “But, not being a flaming hypocrite, here goes: Bailey sounds like an idiot.”

            This is a good start. I didn’t look to see if you actually put it in the other story or not, so that your objection would be noted in a place someone would see it from a more current standpoint.

            “but we’ve discussed that: being free not to be pregnant as long as you’re not pregnant is moot. ”

            This is something we’ve discussed, but it’s only moot when *you* wish it to be. Telling someone who doesn’t want kids or want to be pregnant not to actually do so, to you, is the work of evil, women-hating sociopaths. Remember before, I took your “don’t want an abortion, don’t get one” and literally changed one word? Oddly enough, you had no answer for that which was cogent.

            ” She should have had an abortion a long time ago, but sounds like she’s too effed up to have known she was pregnant until recently.”

            This is pretty telling….but likely not how you’d want it to be. But, I won’t spar over this one much.

            “Also, she lived in Arizona, which is an anti-choice state that makes getting early abortions difficult.”

            Assuming facts not in evidence, as they say. We’re talking about the present. It isn’t going to come as a huge shock that getting an abortion anywhere at say, 5-6 weeks, is much easier than say….20. Based on what’s out there to read about it, she’s known for quite some time she’s pregnant, and didn’t do anything about it (either in the pre-supposition that getting pregnant when she really didn’t want to “because she was effed up” as you say, never really apparently fit into the equation, or because she was too lazy or indifferent otherwise). The laws in AZ are not punitive in that respect, and based on your previous discussions with me, I’d hazard the guess than not having open abortions paid by tax dollars and available up until the instant of viability would be something you claim as a difficult matter.

            ” “Bailey is currently unemployed, completely broke, in debt, and in no position to hold down a job due to severe symptoms of a rough, unplanned and unexpected pregnancy….”

            Of course, there’s no definition of what “rough” entails, so we can pretty much go in any direction at that point. Since she didn’t abort previously, and she’s not specifically listing something we can identify as a legitimate complication, then “rough” could be just about anything one imagines. Too speculative.

            “Bailey says she’s 23, likes to read and go to shows, and really, really doesn’t want to be a mom.”

            I’m afraid, in context, that this ship has already sailed. Just what that is.

            “Note: not a word about “would rather drink Rock Star than have a baby.”

            Then you should scratch this note and try again. Her own ad in GoFundMe makes a point of mentioning said energy drinks as a reason, along with smoking and (for whatever reason) giving money to her friends in jail as why she wants an abortion. You did read her post, yes?

            “Also this regarding her pregnancy: “Sometimes the pain is so bad that I can’t get out of bed, and I can’t go to the bathroom. When I cough, it feels like my organs being shredded inside of me.” “Vapid red herring” right? (Diminishment of women, again and again and again… )”

            It’s only but so cute when you use words and phrases that I’ve used (I know imitation IS flattery, but it’s ok at this point, really) and try to throw them back at me, but sadly it does nothing other than show you’re just bitter. Specifically, her pain is unfortunate and I would hope she sought out medical care for such things. However, we’re also left with “rough” again being speculative. We’re left with someone who, that you *yourself* call “effed up” to paint a sad picture of woe. If she’s that “effed up”, then can we trust that this kind of reporting is accurate? Is she simply overstating the message for sympathy? One could point out that (again….YOU said she was effed up, so…..) with her carefree looking lifestyle and a priority list that even some children would think is preposterous, that she might just be overstating her case…just a smidgen?

            “Do you think this young woman SHOULD be a mom?”

            Loaded question, but not surprising. No matter how one answers this, you take it and run with it in a direction it’s never intended. I might as well as “Have you stopped poisoning your husband yet?”, because it’s the same loaded type of tripe. You already know that no one believes in *forcing* women to be mothers, if they don’t want to be. We’re not lining women up in facilities to knock them up and turn them back loose like a tiger in the wild. Your own issues and projection here simply want the answer to be “yes”, so that you can keep using the same horribly exaggerated (or, in some cases, completely invented on your part) arguments you did before. Why do you ask such questions, knowing that I’ll see through your misanthropist veneer? I mean, you already *assume* the answer, like your statement right after that:

            “Oh, what am I asking: you think she’s an incubator, in the first place. ”

            That’s not a question, nor is it a question linked to the actual one before it. There’s no question mark, no “Do” in front of “you think” with the remainder of your incubator nonsense. You take an answer that you want, and then pre-suppose that said statement IS the answer, and then give me grief about it. This is the same problem as last time…you’re *not* asking, you’re telling me what I think, and then grilling me about your own implanted argument that was *never* made. In this instance, no…a woman shouldn’t be used as an incubator, but no one is suggesting that be the case, or that she was somehow forced into that position. There are zero signs of rape or abuse here, and so it’s not a logical stretch that this woman has chosen to “incubate” for 5 months already on her own volition. She’s asking for several thousand dollars, when the typical abortion she would (and could) have gotten 4 months ago is a few hundred dollars.

            In short, don’t ascribe malfeasance to a point of view that you give *to* me, when you’re the one who wholesale created it in the first place.

            “You’d probably retch to think of her caring for an infant, but you’d make her create one out of her own body, anyway.”

            That’s foolish. Who would be upset if she took care of her own child? Why *would* anyone be upset at that? If she wants to, great. If not, there’s placement agencies and adoptive services galore, unless by your estimation, she’s too “effed up” to know how Google or a phone book works.

            “but you’d make her create one out of her own body, anyway.”

            Not at all. She created a life of her own volition, without force. She’s carried it to the 20 week mark without a gun to her head, or threats of violence or legal problems. Legally, she could have aborted months ago, and while morally she’d be culpable, it’s within her legal right to do so. Apparently, you’re still hung up on the idea that people can have empathy for situations AND still tell someone that their actions were wrong. Another instance where I’m not shocked, but still saddened to see it.

            ” (And you call me vapid.)”

            I did, and in context I’m right. Sadly, the entire point of this (and likely most everything we’ve discussed) has gone over your head.

          • TheDingus

            “No. Again, you’re purposely either not wanting to address a point, or…you’ve just missed the message itself.”

            My last post concerned what happens to women in childbirth, and listed every thing you think it’s acceptable to have happen to women as long as it’s just a few of them. Among the things you find acceptable are suicide, murder, and having their bodies ripped open.

            You have not addressed any of that.

            “The entire bit about men, at the end of your last post there, was what was called a “vapid red herring”. Of course, by taking it another direction, you can then make it look as if i’m being an evil, mustache-twirling villain.”

            A man who accepts the deaths of women is evil.

            Yes, I know what you think: men may may decide not to use their sexual organs to create children, even for completely frivolous and selfish reasons. It’s only women who must use their sexual organs to create children.

            “If a guy, or a girl, didn’t actively create a pregnancy, then your entire “argument” is nothing more than overblown fluff with no substance.”

            The following is not “fluff,” it’s reality: creating a pregnancy is not the equivalent of staying pregnant nor of having a baby. Not even close. 75% of conceptions fail. Some of the rest of the time, the woman decides not to bring the pregnancy to term. There is no baby until one is actually born. The twinkle in a would-be dad’s eye is not a baby; and a woman who is a few days or weeks post-conception doesn’t have a baby yet, either.

            “If a man masterbates, he’s not destroying a product of conception.”

            A man who masturbates is choosing not to procreate, even though he biologically could. A woman who aborts is doing exactly the same, choosing not to procreate even though she biologically could.

            “I did answer your questions. Which ones did I miss?”

            All the ones that would bring you up against the pure illogic and misogyny of your position. Here are some: is it ok if women die, so long as it’s just a few of them? Doesn’t that mean no woman has a right to life, since we can’t know which women might die? Are rights based on percentages, or are they inalienable? Do inalienable rights belong to men and fetuses, but not to women?

            They’re not difficult questions. You just find the answers difficult.

            “I could point out that you, yourself, made mention technology was pushing that way, and that you’d have to answer your own ethical questions.”

            No technology can breathe for someone who has no lungs.

            “Even if I acquiesce to your claim…” The facts are the facts. Your acquiescence is not required.

            “20 weeks is incredibly far along, and is certainly in the later term.”

            Not really; it’s half-way. But I’m sure you’ll not acquiesce to that fact anymore than you do any other fact that gets in your way.

            “Because…human gestation takes 40 weeks total? Are you looking for some other answer to that question? ”

            Why, was the question. Since you believe gestation is complete at 20 weeks, indeed, it’s complete at conception, I’m curious why you think it takes 40 weeks in the real world.

            Dismissing 40 weeks of pregnancy is the very definition of dismissing women.

            “And why does this matter, if it doesn’t involve conception?”

            Why does it matter if it does involve conception? Conception is meaningless half the time: it results in someone having a slightly late period. Considered against women being living human beings with rights, privileging conception over every other consideration is ludicrous.

            “I mean, the product of such conception is what the entire debate about is…not the ethical problems of men rubbing it out”

            I have no ethical problems with men “rubbing it out.” I think people have the right to control the functioning of their reproductive organs. You’re the one who thinks some people don’t, not I.

            It’s also you who thinks the “entire” debate is about the disposition of the products of conception. I think there are other points to the debate, such as, who has the right or the authority to determine the disposition of the products of conception? You? The government? The woman who conceived and might gestate for dozens of weeks? SOMEONE will. (It isn’t going to be you; sorry.)

            “If that’s the case, then every orgasm you’ve ever had would also be ethically suspect, using your line of reasoning.”

            Sure, if you think women ovulate by orgasming. (At this point I can believe you will think anything, rather than consider reality.)

            “It’s a red herring, supplanted for no other reason than you really can’t answer the full debate in any other meaningful way.”

            Writes the guy who thinks the “full” debate is: ” A man came inside you so your rights ceased to exist.” LOL

            “Telling someone who doesn’t want kids or want to be pregnant not to actually do so, to you, is the work of evil, women-hating sociopaths.”

            Nope. Telling them that if they are pregnant they must remain so and they must have kids whether they want them or not is the work of women-hating sociopaths. You know full well there are no babies without women, and you would use women’s bodies against their will.

            Are you seriously suggesting you still don’t realize you’re trying to use women’s bodies to achieve the outcome YOU want, against THEIR will?

            “Oddly enough, you had no answer for that which was cogent.”

            According to you there are no answers that are “cogent” other than your own. As I’ve already said, the hubris is astonishing.

            “Assuming facts not in evidence, as they say. We’re talking about the present.”

            The requirements of women in Arizona before they can have an abortion are facts in evidence. They boil down to having to get to a one or another of different clinics three different times, and only being able to have some kinds of medication abortions under strictly defined rules.

            Ironically, in states where it’s easy to get early abortions, like California, the abortion rate is LOWER than in the fascist states where people want to make them hard to get. So we know that you don’t actually care about preventing abortions.

            “The laws in AZ are not punitive in that respect”

            Yes, they are. Maybe she didn’t want to discuss her sex life with a self-righteous stranger bent on forcing her to give birth, who, like you, refuses to acknowledge any possible negative outcomes to pregnancy and childbirth. Maybe she didn’t have the money for extra insurance, and for two or three trips to a clinic, and didn’t want an ultrasound wand stuck up her vagina, either. I don’t know what her circumstances were (though you seem to be omniscient). But then, I don’t think her personal life is my business, the way you take for granted that it’s yours.

            “I’d hazard the guess than not having open abortions paid by tax dollars and available up until the instant of viability would be something you claim as a difficult matter.”

            Women pay taxes and are entitled for representation for them. I think we all should have access to healthcare, paid for by tax dollars. The current system, of treating human health as a commodity for profit, is barbaric.

            “Of course, there’s no definition of what “rough” entails”

            Yes, there was. Of course, to you they couldn’t possibly be true. Anyway, even if women have a “rough” time during pregnancy, so what? It’s fine by you if they end up on a slab at the morgue.

            “I’m afraid, in context, that this ship has already sailed. Just what that is.”

            She’s given birth to a living child? No, she hasn’t. That ship is still being built (or perhaps has already been dismantled).

            “You did read her post, yes?

            It’s been taken down, so, no. I didn’t read the propaganda at your anti-choice link, either.

            “Specifically, her pain is unfortunate”

            Translation: her pain is meaningless.

            “I would hope she sought out medical care for such things.”

            With what money? She has sought medical care for those things. You just don’t consider it legitimate.

            “We’re left with someone who, that you *yourself* call “effed up” to paint a sad picture of woe.”

            Look, I get it: you don’t think women’s suffering matters. That ship, where you pretend to be concerned about human beings suffering, has not only sailed, it’s beyond the horizon.

            “… with her carefree looking lifestyle and a priority list that even some children would think is preposterous, that she might just be overstating her case…just a smidgen?”

            Of course she is. All women who don’t want to produce babies are lying selfish killers, aren’t they?

            “Loaded question, but not surprising.”

            Loaded, how? YOU want her to give birth. Why is it loaded to ask what life might be like for her offspring? Or does LIVING really not matter?

            I notice this about you who are anti-choice: you claim to care about human life, but the more complex that human life becomes, the less you care. Strange, that.

            “You already know that no one believes in *forcing* women to be mothers, if they don’t want to be.”

            I know no such thing. You would force women to gestate unwanted children and give birth to them, thereby forcing them to be mothers. You have to deliberately work to make that a reality, because right now women are not required to gestate and give birth. So yes, you would force women to be mothers.

            Or is it that you think a woman pops out a baby, puts it in a bin at the fire station, and ceases to be the mother of a child at that point? They’re mothers before they give birth, but not after? I couldn’t make this level of misogynistic delusion up, seriously.

            “We’re not lining women up in facilities to knock them up and turn them back loose like a tiger in the wild.”

            Where are all the homes for women who don’t want to be mothers you’re building to make it tenable for women to become mothers? Or should they give birth like tigers in the wild?

            “I mean, you already *assume* the answer, like your statement right after that:”

            Feel free to answer the question: do you think this young woman SHOULD be a mother?

            “This is the same problem as last time…you’re *not* asking, you’re telling me what I think, and then grilling me about your own implanted argument that was *never* made.”

            I’ve now asked the same question twice. You’ve made a lot of ad hominem attacks but you’ve yet to answer. Feel free.

            “A woman shouldn’t be used as an incubator, but no one is suggesting that be the case, or that she was somehow forced into that position.”

            You CONTINUALLY suggest that women should be used EXACTLY like incubators: their bodies MUST produce babies. Their will isn’t in it. Their stories are all made up hogwash. Their reasons for not wanting to produce a baby are no good, ever; even if they told you they’re afraid their partner will murder them.

            Your dishonesty is beyond belief.

            “That’s foolish. Who would be upset if she took care of her own child? Why *would* anyone be upset at that?”

            So, you think when she pushes that baby out, the hormones will turn her into a model mother? She’ll stop smoking, taking drugs and hanging out with criminals? The child will be in no danger, at all? What are YOU smoking?

            “If she wants to, great.”

            She already said she doesn’t want to. You’re just so used to dismissing women, you don’t remember.

            “If not, there’s placement agencies and adoptive services galore, unless by your estimation, she’s too “effed up” to know how Google or a phone book works.”

            She’s not an incubator; she’s under no obligation to produce a child for someone else.

            “Not at all. She created a life of her own volition, without force.”

            The life’s not finished being created. You know this very well, otherwise you would not be upset at the idea of her removing it from insider her. If it’s “created” then let it get on with it’s life. What’s the problem?

            I’ll tell you the problem since you’re too dishonest to acknowledge it: that life is not “already created.” It’s in the PROCESS of being created.

            “Legally, she could have aborted months ago, and while morally she’d be culpable, it’s within her legal right to do so.”

            Legally she can abort now too. The fetus is not viable. (Your say-so does not moral culpability make, your egoistic fantasies to the contrary not withstanding.)

            “Apparently, you’re still hung up on the idea that people can have empathy for situations AND still tell someone that their actions were wrong. Another instance where I’m not shocked, but still saddened to see it.”

            Wake me up when your empathy is demonstrated in some meaningful fashion. Hint: saying “it’s ok if women are murdered so long as it’s just a few of them” doesn’t go a long way to demonstrating your empathy. .

            “Sadly, the entire point of this (and likely most everything we’ve discussed) has gone over your head.”

            “The entire point of this” is that I subjugate myself to whatever you say. I refuse and you don’t like that. I have news for you: women in general aren’t going to subjugate themselves to your beliefs. Feel free to live by them, yourself. Everything else is morally and legally off limits.

          • Cynical_Meliorist

            “My last post concerned what happens to women in childbirth, and listed every thing you think it’s acceptable to have happen to women as long as it’s just a few of them.”

            In the other reply, you bemoaned how honest you were being, yet your first statement here is one that’s again…nothing but a complete lie. No one thinks that. I’ve repeatedly told you *why* this is not the case, despite your outright refusal to even represent my point in any way that’s remotely honest. Go back and read those again (I would place emphasis on the comments I made stating that murder, or anything else negative for that matter, was NOT ok….i know it’s hard to understand, but give it a go), and try and process them with the idea that you’re completely taking them out of context, on purpose, to push a point that virtually no one holds.

            I’m sorry Dingus, but no…no one finds murder, suicide, or mutilation acceptable. Do I really need to spell this out any differently? It’s as if the concept that people don’t actually hold the view you think they do is foreign to you.

            A man who accepts the deaths of women is evil.”

            When you find someone who does this, let us know so we can tell him he’s wrong. I’ll wait for that.

            “It’s only women who must use their sexual organs to create children.”

            So, *you* believe children are created via magic? See how easy it is for me to distort your meaning? I’m sorry, but no one believes that women magically get a visit from a stork or whatever else you want to fantasize about. Women are biologically the only ones who can gestate a fetus….is that not somehow clear? It still takes two to tango, however, in some way or form.

            “The following is not “fluff,” it’s reality: creating a pregnancy is not the equivalent of staying pregnant nor of having a baby. Not even close. 75% of conceptions fail. Some of the rest of the time, the woman decides not to bring the pregnancy to term. There is no baby until one is actually born. The twinkle in a would-be dad’s eye is not a baby; and a woman who is a few days or weeks post-conception doesn’t have a baby yet, either.”

            Some corrections for the slow seats. First, creating the pregnancy morally has a factor you choose to ignore. Sorry, but you don’t get to do it just because you don’t like it. Second, yes, conceptions fail, and more often before anyone even knows that there was a conception to begin with anyway. It’s unfortunate, but are you expecting people to get weepy over something they didn’t know about to start with anyway? Factually, “baby” is an interchangable term, and your use of ambiguity arguments don’t work well. Common usage, for example, bears the following:

            Women don’t have fetus showers.
            People don’t ask “when’s the fetus due?”
            Women don’t tell other people they’re expecting a “clump of cells” in 9 months.

            So while your description of “baby” is personally limited to the results after a fetus leaves the birth canal, you might want to tell billions of other people about your remarkable discovery on the verbal front.

            “All the ones that would bring you up against the pure illogic and misogyny of your position. ”

            When I read this, i didn’t even need to get to the next sentence to know you were going to lie about something. It hurts being right, repeatedly. Let me answer your questions, again, for like the 7th time. Please make note of it, so you don’t have to look foolish when asking again.

            “: is it ok if women die, so long as it’s just a few of them?”

            No. I stated as such. Your misaligned and incorrect interpretation of my view on you using murder stats to justify on-demand abortion have skewed your ability to read plain English. See, I used one word right there. No. Negative. Nada. Zero. Nil. Is there further explanation needed?

            “Doesn’t that mean no woman has a right to life, since
            we can’t know which women might die?”

            Every woman has a right to life, just as pro life people believe a fetus has the equal right to life. Isn’t this the core argument you keep railing against? Why did you need this spelled out for you?

            “Are rights based on percentages, or are they inalienable? ”

            This one was an interestingly loaded question, but one I can turn against you. If say, the right to life is inalienable, then how do you explain your own position of denying it to a fetus. It’s human, right? It’s alive, right? Inalienable, or intrinsic if you prefer, doesn’t have a starting and stopping point. It would be all encompassing and….well, intrinsic, not to belabor the point. Your own question is one that undermines your very position. That being said, *legally*, rights *are* in some cases dictated that way, for good or ill. However, falling back on the law, while trying to automatically tie it to morality or ethics…..not a good idea, and doesn’t work. So please, consider the “inalienable” part of those things such as right to life, while you completely argue a contradictory position about it.

            “You just find the answers difficult.”

            The answers are difficult, but I’ve articulated them so many times as to be rather droll at this point to repeat. A difficult subject will not have easy, boiler plate answers. If you were logically, morally, or ethically correct….I’d be forced to side with you. Clearly, that’s not the case and you’ve done nothing to actually prove….well…..anything you’ve said at all.

            “No technology can breathe for someone who has no lungs.”

            Lungs are fully formed at 34 weeks…so does that mean it’s ok to kill it at 33? Maybe 32, not to really cut it close? At what point does that become acceptable? Notice that, previously, I called you out on your Fallacy of the Heap, to which the response I got was…nothing.

            “Not really; it’s half-way. But I’m sure you’ll not acquiesce to that fact anymore than you do any other fact that gets in your way.”

            20 weeks is 50% of the way through the process…which can be considered rather far along. It’s not as far as say, 24, but more than 16. I’m sorry you’re under the impression that your opponents don’t understand things like “50%”, or the difference between the numbers 20, 40, 16, 24, or anything else you can name. Your problem, you fix it.

            “Why, was the question. Since you believe gestation is complete at 20 weeks,”

            Back to the “I don’t want to represent his argument honestly” department for revision. Gestation is 40 weeks. Viability is 23-24 weeks. 20 weeks is halfway through the process, and it’s incredibly clear you’re not just removing a “clump of cells” at this point. How is any of that not immediately obvious? You claim to make honest arguments, but you, time and again, make massive and purposed errors like this.

            “Dismissing 40 weeks of pregnancy is the very definition of dismissing women.”

            Well, when you find someone who dismissed this, then again, please let us know. This hasn’t been done, no matter how you want to try and make it so.

            “Why does it matter if it does involve conception?”

            You want to talk about logic, then answer a question with a question. Try again.

            I have no ethical problems with men “rubbing it out.” I think people have the right to control the functioning of their reproductive organs. You’re the one who thinks some people don’t, not I.”

            False. I don’t care if anyone masturbates at all. I don’t seek to control that function or dictate its use. Again, unclear as to why you think this is the case, when it’s patently absurd. Even reading it aloud makes me laugh at how ridiculous this point of view would be. Is that not the same with you?

            “Sure, if you think women ovulate by orgasm. (At this point I can believe you will think anything, rather than consider reality.)”

            Really? This is the best you’ve got? Your own comment was that ejaculation was the end all-be all of it. I responded with my comment, and this is your rebuttal? The absolute, outright denial of what was said, and replacing it with something completely different. Let me spell it out for you. You gave me your view. I commented. You then took your OWN view, ascribed it to me, then argued as if it was the most stupid thing said yet. Sorry, own your own part of the argument. Orgasms, in case you don’t get it, don’t cause ovulation or pregnancy as a whole.

            Oddly, the fact that you state i’ll “believe anything” is a “LOL” moment, in truth, because you’re telling me that I’ll believe anything…as long as it comes from you first. Yeah, you’re *completely* honest about your position and everything else. Got it.

            “Are you seriously suggesting you still don’t realize you’re trying to use women’s bodies to achieve the outcome YOU want, against THEIR will?”

            So, this lauded “agency” you keep talking about is fine to a point, but not really? I mean, at what point does your agency of action have a limit? Remember that discussion? Free speech limitation part? Any of that ringing a bell? I’m not using a woman’s body for anything against her will. That would be rape. If a woman willingly acts and gets pregnant, what force was used to achieve that? Seriously, shouldn’t have to explain this to you. The point that pro-life people make is that there is a line to be drawn morally…an argument you still don’t get and don’t want to get, because then it would make you review your own actions in a different light….or not, since rationalization and inaccurate viewpoints are the watchwords of your discussion.

            “They boil down to having to get to one or another of different clinics three different times, and only being able to have some kinds of medication abortions under strictly defined rules.”

            GASP! 3 times!?!? You mean, they have to actually wait and think their actions through? How absolutely barbaric, that we don’t let people make permanent, life altering decisions at the drop of a hat sometimes! Perish the thought that the state has a responsibility to administer and regulate specific health care regulations for the good of the citizenry, and that the state of AZ took it seriously enough to examine the issue at length.

            Seriously, your own position is just….wow. It really is vapid.

            “Yes, they are. Maybe she didn’t want to discuss her
            sex life with a self-righteous stranger bent on forcing her to give birth, who,
            like you, refuses to acknowledge any possible negative outcomes to pregnancy
            and childbirth.”

            Her sex life isn’t anyone’s business. The abortion part of it would be, to a doctor……or do you think that someone else is doing the abortions too? Maybe like the folks at Starbucks are branching out? Google maybe? Again, also factually incorrect. How could i agree that in the case of medical necessity, abortion is perfectly fine (and morally acceptable) AND at the same time refuse to see such problems?

            I don’t want to say this, but I will. You’re out of your depth. It’s time to let this go. Your arguments are devolving into nothing more than virtual puddles of spittle. You can’t even be bothered to fact check yourself at this stage.

            “Women pay taxes and are entitled for representation for them. I think we all should have access to healthcare, paid for by tax dollars. The current system, of treating human health as a commodity for profit, is barbaric.”

            Actually, I don’t disagree. I do, however, think that it’s equally barbaric to force people to pay for it.

            “She’s given birth to a living child? No, she hasn’t. That ship is still being built (or perhaps has already been dismantled).”

            *makes a whiffing noise, and runs my open hand past the top of my head*

            “Translation: her pain is ultimately meaningless.”

            No translation needed. I meant exactly what I said. Also, her pain isn’t meaningless, but if she’s massively over exaggerating it, then yes…maybe we need to see how much empathy we should give someone who is malingering or grossly overstating their case. Do you REALLY feel bad for people, if they were to lie and malinger in such ways, to such a point? Just to make sure you get it, not saying SHE is….that’s a general statement/question bit to get you thinking.

            “Look, I get it: you don’t think women’s suffering matters. ”

            Again, I’ve said the exact opposite repeatedly and here you are again telling ME what to think. You talk repeatedly about people wanting control over others, yet it doesn’t occur to you that you’re trying to wholesale exercise it over someone else…right down to dictating what they think and how they feel.

            Who’s controlling now?

            “Of course she is. All women who don’t want to produce babies are lying selfish killers, aren’t they?”

            Your silly snark didn’t answer the question. Is it possible, or is it not possible, that she’s doing so? Either she is, or she isn’t…as much as either/or statements bother me usually. It’s one or the other. Do you even bother to acknowledge that it’s remotely possible she’s doing it for attention and overplaying the hand? Or, is that patently impossible?

            “I notice this about you who are anti-choice: you claim to care about human life, but the more complex that human life becomes, the less you
            care. Strange, that.”

            I find that the opposite, and you clearly don’t flush this out with any detail, so….there’s that. I do find it hilarious that you go from this woman being really “Effed up!” to being “complex” when there’s a slight bit of pushback. Strange, that. Word games galore!

            “I know no such thing. You would force women to gestate unwanted children and give birth to them, thereby forcing them to be mothers. ”

            So, if I use your logic against you, and say “Don’t want to be pregnant, don’t have a pregnancy!”….in the same vein as your “don’t want an abortion?” line of thinking….then what? Ideologically, they are no different. It’s literally a one word change. I don’t want women who have no desire to gestate a child to do so. I also don’t want women to destroy those lives that they don’t really want either…if I just say that it’s “complex”, do i get a pass from you? :)

            It’s not really complex though…you’re free to make those choices all day. You, however, don’t even acknowledge that it’s possible there are moral or ethical concerns for the process. To you, those don’t exist. This is, by your own admissions and statements, a direct projection of your situations and experiences. Not science. Not rational thinking. Not logical discourse, the use of a syllogism, or anything else of that mentality. Own it, at least.

            “Or is it that you think a woman pops out a baby, puts
            it in a bin at the fire station, and ceases to be the mother of a child at that
            point? They’re mothers before they give birth, but not after?”

            What a foolish notion. Biologically, the woman is the child’s mother in any instance. Why ask such questions with obvious answers? It’s like you enjoy wasting your time belaboring points no one holds and asking questions to which you already know the answer.

            “Where are all the homes for women who don’t want to be
            mothers you’re building to make it tenable for women to become mothers?”

            Most of this is nothing more than a fallacy of relative privation, but it is an interesting point. You’ll be happy to know that CPC’s across the country assist in things such as housing and job placement. I would invite you to research this on the internet and see it for yourself. Factually, we don’t need to build brand new homes, per se…..but you’ll likely try to argue that because we aren’t, it’s the worst thing ever. Save your energy for something else.

            “Feel free to answer the question: do you think this young woman SHOULD be a mother?”

            Likewise, feel free to LISTEN to the answer to the same question you’ve been given like 5 times or more. Your question of “should be” is equivocation. You’re asking it in the context of “Are women, or this woman good for just breeding and nothing more?”. The obvious answer is no, yet you’d find a way to twist this around. Virtually no one believes that women are only good for breeding and nothing else. No one believes that women should shut up and just get to “baby making” right now.

            With that bit of common sense out of the way, my personally feeling is that this woman is pretty messed up. She has no real priorities in life that benefit her, but as I told you before, your point is a tu quoque argument. Two wrongs never make it right. Should she be? That’s not for me to decide, right? Do I think she’d be GOOD at it? Based on the limited evidence at hand, I can’t say she would be..however, people put into situations like this have a funny way of coming out ahead sometimes. I’m sorry, but my ability to predict the future is pretty limited. I can only predict your responses, at this point.

            “You CONTINUALLY suggest that women should be used
            EXACTLY like incubators: their bodies MUST produce babies.”

            Wrong again, sunshine. We, as a group, simply suggest that women who are *already* producing a child commit a moral or ethical error when destroying that child. Again, don’t you know what the argument is all about?

            “Their stories are all made up hogwash.”

            This is a variation (just so you’re aware, variation means not exact…glad I could clear that up) of an Existential Fallacy…you’re using a universal premise (all of their stories are hogwash) to arrive at a particular conclusion (HER story therefore must be true). Again, I’m asking if THIS woman’s story has been embellished. Can you at least answer if that’s remotely possible? And if it is, then what? Should we still believe she’s in some massive level of hardship if that’s not the case? Even you should be able to answer this honestly.

            “Your dishonesty is beyond belief.”

            Yet, everything you’ve said this about wasn’t true from your end. There’s nothing dishonest about it all. Most of the time, when you claim something is dishonest, it’s a rehashing of something you said and ascribed to me. Dishonest, indeed.

            “So, you think when she pushes that baby out, the hormones will turn her into a model mother? She’ll stop smoking, taking drugs and hanging out with criminals? The child will be in no danger, at all? What are YOU smoking?”

            If she were taking care of the child, then would it not be possible for her to stop doing those things? I mean, you’re saying that if it’s not one way, it MUST be the other. Another logical fallacy on your part. What are YOU smoking, to think that everything is so black and white…or better yet, what rationalization do you use for such a concept? I think if she has the child, she *possibly* could shape up and do well. She could give it away for adoption. She could be the worst parent ever.

            Did you ever stop to think that your ability to see such a bleak future was…..perhaps…maybe…..just not all that great? I mean, no one else can see the future, so….pray tell how you’re able to?

            Is it magic? ;)

            “She already said she doesn’t want to. You’re just so used to dismissing women, you don’t remember.”

            Actually, the boyfriend did as he’s the one who wrote the article to start with, but you’re right…she’s made that claim. I’m not “dismissing” her…I’m saying she’s doing something morally incorrect. Again, not sure why this is unclear.

            “The life’s not finished being created.”

            Totally want the number of your dealer.

            No, Dingus. This is wrong. The life *is* finished being created. It’s not finished *growing*. Are you really so blind and obtuse as to believe that dead things grow and are later born alive? What 16th century science text are you reading? Remember, conception….creation of life….you yourself argue this previously! Now, it’s in inconvenient fact you choose to gloss over.

            “I’ll tell you the problem since you’re too dishonest to acknowledge it: that life is not “already created.” It’s in the PROCESS of being created.”

            No, dear lady. It’s already *there*. How do you remove a life that’s not there? You cannot kill what’s not alive, yet abortionists and their supporters regularly agree that is exactly what they’re doing. Again, you don’t even understand or articulate the actual position your side holds well. Life was created at conception……very easy concept. That is something that develops…not “process of create”…there are such things as tenses when using words. Yours is grossly incorrect. Even now, i still have to laugh at you calling me dishonest, when THIS is what you give me.

            “Legally she can abort now too. The fetus is not viable. (Your say-so does not moral culpability make, your egoistic fantasies to the contrary
            not withstanding.)”

            Yes, she can. No one said she couldn’t. No, the fetus isn’t viable for a few weeks…but really, a few weeks is the difference in life and death? Who knew it was THAT tenuous of a position? ROFL!

            My say so isn’t what’s going on here. The entire pro life position doesn’t hinge on my word and verse. That’d be fun, but it’s not the case. The moral case for such things has been made repeatedly, by women and men brighter and more publicly known than me. Your lack of moral concepts does nothing to diminish this process, or even the fact that *your* side accepted that argument decades ago.

            “Wake me up when your empathy is demonstrated in some meaningful fashion. Hint: saying “it’s ok if women are murdered so long as it’s just a few of them” doesn’t go a long way to demonstrating your empathy.”

            The real hint should be that, were you awake this entire time, you’d already be well aware that such a position isn’t one that anyone here holds. You wouldn’t need to be given a wake up call, were you to even acknowledge this basic and now often repeated concept. Did you miss the section before where i said the exact words “Murder bad”….followed by very simple words to keep you from making *this* kind of mistake? Clearly, I will have to start using finger paints and puppets…otherwise, I fear the basics are being lost on you.

            “”The entire point of this” is that I subjugate myself to whatever you say.”

            Again, disagree or agree as much as you like. No one wants to “subjugate” you, and your projection from your own misadventures and poor decision making skills previously only color this statement to the point of it being silly. I just want you to actually own your part of the discussion and not continually insert or reinvent mine to something it’s not.

            Doesn’t seem hard, but clearly it’s been a struggle on your part.

            ” I refuse and you don’t like that.”

            I don’t like a lot of things. Like asparagus. My main beef with you has been that you do exactly what i’ve stated immediately before this, repeatedly. That you can’t be honest, and call others dishonest to try and cover your trail. That you refuse to even acknowledge there might be a possible ethic or moral consideration at all, in any way shape or form…even though your much lauded and touted “faith” would dictate otherwise.

            “I have news for you: women in general aren’t going to subjugate themselves to your beliefs.”

            Great, then since I don’t want that, we can move on from this and not discuss it again as if it’s the entire point, right?

            ” Everything else is morally and legally off limits.”

            Ahhhhh, shutuppery. Love seeing that. To me, that’s the sign of a lost argument. Well, that and the fact you’ve never rebutted a single thing I said with a single rational, logical response.

            Again, this “faith” you have which states that anything you believe is something I’d love to see.

            I think we’re pretty much done here, don’t you agree? I mean, no logic, no rebuttals, dishonest arguments and inserted items are all you’ve given me. What more could you say that would sway me? That would even give me a hint that you’re being intellectually honest about even your position, much less mine?

            I won’t wait for that answer to be given. Clearly, asking you to be honest, open, and not completely one sided would be some form of medieval subjugation ritual….because who needs the truth and facts when you have rationalization and false narratives? Or is that narcissistic to bring up to someone like yourself who is completely and inherent’y dishonest?

            Don’t reply. For your own sake. You’re, again…out of your depth.

          • TheDingus

            Just hitting a few points before wrapping this up:

            “…creating the pregnancy morally has a factor you choose to ignore. ”

            It’s immoral to have sex? Or is it only immoral for women to have sex? I’m pretty sure you mean there’s a morality question if women dare to have sex for reasons other than procreation. If you don’t mean that, then your statement is laughable. (Heck, it’s laughable, period.)

            Rape is immoral. Sex is not.

            Furthermore, other people’s sex lives aren’t any of your business. At all. Not even a little bit. Really. And REALLY not the government’s business. (Check out some history of governments controlling reproduction: Mao Zedong; Adolf Hitler; Nicolai Ceausescu Ceaucescu… the naivete with which the anti-choice community hurtles towards handing the government control of our sex lives is appalling.)

            “Women don’t have fetus showers.” No. They have baby showers usually quite soon before the baby is due (note: due, not, already here: future tense). They do so to have what they need BEFORE the baby is here. It’s kind of hard to get swaddling blankets and such into a woman’s cervix.

            “Women don’t tell other people they’re expecting a “clump of cells” in 9 months.”

            You’re doing it again: pretending a few hours after conception is EXACTLY THE SAME as nine months later. It’s delusional.

            AFTER nine months they MIGHT have a baby. That’s why they say “expecting” and not “I have a baby!” Again, future tense.

            That doesn’t means a clump of cells is already a baby. Quite likely the clump of cells stage will never reach the baby stage. (Note: different stages. Note: present vs. future.) All made possible by the functioning of the woman’s body. ALL OF IT. Put the clump of cells stage into a Petri dish, then tell us what happens. (Or lie about it, some more.)

            To declare, without explaining why or how, that the life the woman makes possible is separate from her, even as it takes place inside and because of her, and can take place no other way, erases women.

            “Your misaligned and incorrect interpretation of my view on you using murder stats to justify on-demand abortion have skewed your ability to read plain English.”

            The following does happen: women are murdered while pregnant, because they are pregnant. Women commit suicide while pregnant, because they are pregnant. Women die of complications of pregnancy and childbirth. Where safe, legal abortion is not available, women die of botched self-induced and black market abortions. You STILL want abortion to be illegal. Women WILL die, and YOU ARE FINE WITH THAT. Keep telling yourself it’s just collateral damage, or you don’t really mean it, or it’s only a few of them (as you certainly have done, several times): the bottom line is that you accept women’s deaths.

            Furthermore, because we cannot know which women will die, all women lose their RIGHT to life under such a system.

            “how do you explain your own position of denying it to a fetus. It’s human, right? It’s alive, right? Inalienable, or intrinsic if you prefer, doesn’t have a starting and stopping point.”

            Easily: a fetus is not alive by itself. The woman is. The fetus may be genetically human, but is not an individual human person. The woman is. How many times do I have to say the following: if the fetus is individually alive, take it out of the body of the woman who doesn’t want it inside her, and let it get on with its life. If, by taking it out of the woman’s body, it dies, it was not individually alive.

            The only person being completely one sided in this discussion is you. I’ve included the woman and the developing embryo over and over and over. You keep insisting the only moral, ethical, philosophical and legal consideration is the developing embryo.

            Inalienable rights do have a starting point: birth. A fetus in the womb has no way to exercise rights; indeed, no need for them. The anti-choice movement’s whole push is to give GOVERNMENT the AUTHORITY to compel birth ON BEHALF OF the fetus, since the fetus has no rights nor any way to exercise rights. Women have rights, and may exercise them. The government has no authority to strip those rights without due process.

            Why can’t you acknowledge what is so plainly obvious? Unlike you, I see clearly that either the developing embryo has rights (defended by a third party), or the woman does, as you say, intrinsically. We CAN NOT extend rights to both.

            I don’t think a zygote or a developing fetus is an individual human person because they cannot function as one, not biologically and not in practice. But the woman IS an individual human person. If you disagree, you should say so.

            Then there’s this absolute howler: “…The life *is * finished being created. It’s not finished *growing*.

            Do you think men inject tiny, fully formed babies in women’s stomachs, where they just *grow*??? LOL! (And you insist you have a firm grasp on reproductive biology!)

            Gestation is the process of development. It happens between the mixing of two people’s DNA and the working of the woman’s body. By itself, that “created life” can’t grow, much less develop what it needs to live.

            I asked why you think gestation takes 40 weeks and of course you did not answer. But you know why: that’s how long it takes to CREATE an organism capable of individual life. Reproduction is the PROCESS of creation. It’s not done the moment it begins. That’s male supremacist bovine excrement, and nothing more.

            But here’s the heart of the issue: I have a right to think what I do. You have a right to think what you do. The difference between us is that I respect your right to think what you do, and to live your life accordingly. You utterly, completely (not to mention insultingly) don’t think I have the right to live my life according to my beliefs. Instead you advocate I should bear and give birth to children because of what YOU believe.

            AIn’t happening. It’s that simple. Women are not going to bear and give birth to babies because you think they should. Because they have to take care of them, not you. Because it’s their body, not yours, and not the government’s.

            I agree this conversation is over. I suggest you go have a nice long philosophical chat with a human embryo, since according to you they are living individual people.

            Or maybe a cat embryo. Same difference: either way you’ll get nothing back. But that’s ok, because you just want to impose your views anyway. Might as well do so on something that can’t argue back.

          • Cynical_Meliorist

            “It’s immoral to have sex?”

            This is laughable. Is this what you’ve been reduced to? You can’t find a way to argue the point any other way? Pathetic. And.. the answer is: if you believe in the same book and all you claim to, you’d have to force yourself to answer “Yes” to this question every time unmarried people have sex. My answer is “i dont know…it depends on the situation and context on something that bears research).

            A person’s gender and the like has zero to do with morality. Of course, only a misanthropist would believe so, right? :)

            The morality isn’t over who’s screwing who. It’s about something completely different. Glad you make it obvious when you’ve missed the point entirely.

            “Rape is immoral. Sex is not.”

            Congratulations. Something that finally makes sense!

            “Furthermore, other people’s sex lives aren’t any of your business. At all. Not even a little bit. Really. And REALLY not the government’s business.”

            Again, more common sense you’ve twisted around. Screw as many people as you want. The issue isn’t over their sex lives, and your massive equivocation and lack of understanding about what is being discussed (your lovely Godwin there notwithstanding!) is plain to see.

            “the naivete with which the anti-choice community hurtles towards handing the government control of our sex lives is appalling.”

            So, it’s ok to use government to force laws you like into existence (and using dubious legal reasons at that, it could be argued), but when someone seeks to place restrictions on the law (which is the duty of citizens when they exercise the little used “redress of grievances” clause), suddenly it’s government force? No, sorry. Nice try.

            ” No. They have baby showers usually quite soon before the baby is due (note: due, not already here: future tense). They do so to have what they need BEFORE the baby is here. It’s kind of hard to get swaddling blankets and such into a woman’s cervix.”

            Again, way to completely miss the point. We cant get those blankets into her womb either. This does nothing to address the fact that we don’t have fetus showers, or ask people when their fetus is due. You conveniently glossed over this when you have no argument against it and then post this tripe as a result. As a matter of fact, any fetus would still be a “future tense”….you didn’t even bother to apply your own argument to your own sentiment to see if it completely undermined your own overall position or not. Lovely!

            “You’re doing it again: pretending a few hours after conception is EXACTLY THE SAME as nine months later. It’s delusional.”

            Morally, there isn’t. There’s a difference between stages of growth, just as there is between a newborn and a toddler, or a toddler and a 5 year old, or a 5 year old and an 8 year old, or an 8 year old and a “tween”, or a “tween” and a 15 year old, and……you hopefully get the point. The entire argument is that morally, the purposed destruction of any of these for convenience by the mother is morally objectionable. You do know *what* we’re arguing about here, yes?

            This is still the same ableism-ageism-location argument. You have *zero* rebuttals for it. You state it’s silly. You offer nothing else. Must be fun thinking that debates are all about saying “i don’t like it!” and running away.

            “That doesn’t means a clump of cells is already a baby. Quite likely the clump of cells stage will never reach the baby stage. (Note: different stages. Note: present vs. future.) All made possible by the functioning of the woman’s body. ALL OF IT. Put the clump of cells stage into a Petri dish, then tell us what happens. (Or lie about it, some more.)

            Of course, you don’t actually say what I lied about, most likely because saying such would put you immediately back to the “you’re making arguments for me and knocking them down” camp. If you want to argue with yourself, use a mirror. Past this, no one is dismissing the mother in her role here….actually, you would be, in this statement. Will this “clump of cells” make it past that stage? Sorry, again, I can’t see the future. This, however, isn’t just a mere “lump of cells” by the time women sometimes have an abortion (6 weeks+…you know, when a heartbeat can be detected. Do you know of other things we dismiss as a clump of cells that we can hear their heartbeat? Just curious)/

            Of course, the point of how many survive, or their age/current ability/location is again…an argument you have never overcome and never will. You struggle here in a manner which is incredibly futile, given you have no logical rebuttal.

            “The following does happen: women are murdered while pregnant, because they are pregnant. Women commit suicide while pregnant, because they are pregnant. Women die of complications of pregnancy and childbirth. Where safe, legal abortion is not available, women die of botched self-induced and black market abortions. ”

            Yes, those things sadly happen. They also happen less than 2% of the time. What part of the idea that you’re using the exceptions to justify the rule do you not understand? It’s logically an invalid way to argue your point. It doesn’t make them ok, me pointing this out doesnt’ mean i’m fine with it when it happens, no matter how many times you repeat such nonsense. What matters is that using 650 cases of women dying in childbirth in the US to justify abortion, which is done over 1,000,000 times a year or more just in the US alone, is statistically and logically incorrect. if you even bothered to look at those statistics, you’d see that what killed most of the women were conditions they possessed before they were pregnant anyway. But, hey..fact’s don’t matter? Obviously they don’t, see not only do you keep saying I really want this to happen and like it (which is, for the 20th time, categorically false and incredibly stupid), but that you keep touting stats which are incorrect, such as your back-alley abortion errors there.

            “Keep telling yourself it’s just collateral damage, or
            you don’t really mean it, or it’s only a few of them (as you certainly have
            done, several times): the bottom line is that you accept women’s deaths.”

            It’s not just C.D. or something unimportant as a topic. It’s illogical and incorrect to use a vast minority of statistics to logically argue a mass majority of cases as being totally fine.

            Are you really just this dim, as to not realize the difference after being told half a dozen times or more? I’m not fine with it, no matter how many times you say it. I’m not fine with it, regardless of how many nit-wit ways you choose to say it. I’m saying you can’t use it statistically to argue a point logically.

            Get over yourself and grow up, please.

            “Easily: a fetus is not alive by itself. The woman is.
            The fetus may be genetically human, but is not an individual human person.”

            This contention would therefore make the woman and the fetus the same organism. You already know this is biologically as wrong as it gets. You already know that age/ability/location isn’t a valid argument in the topic. You already know that a fetus is alive, regardless of need (a need which the mother, 99% of the time created with her full agency, as you like to point out). You know these things, then dismiss them momentarily to make your point. In fact, the only way to make any of your sophomoric points is to dismiss these easily identified scientific items away and then make a case based on your own personal experiences. Nope, no dice here.

            “You keep insisting the only moral, ethical,
            philosophical and legal consideration is the developing embryo.”

            Incorrect as usual. I’m saying that the mother AND fetus deserve equal measure to both. You can’t give it all to one, take all from the other, and call it equal. Amazing that this needs to be explained to you at all. The concerns you speak of are being applied to the embryo specifically because it’s the target, however. We don’t need to argue the ethical or moral considerations of killing the mother as a rejoinder. That would be insane, and completely run counter to the entire idea. We don’t want to kill the mother or anything akin to it. Since they already have rights, such as you’ve pointed out, wouldn’t arguing for something they already have be a rather large waste of time?

            Again, you didn’t bother thinking your argument out and applying it to your position before putting it here. You’re embarrassing yourself.

            “Inalienable rights do have a starting point: birth.”

            Even just a simple dictionary definition of inalienable, or intrinsic, would correct this error. You are using words either selectively to get to a point you can’t sustain otherwise, or you’re purposely avoiding the idea and falling back into a position of equivocation and ambiguity. If something possesses a trait intrinsically, such as value, then birth isn’t the time it starts. Please, read a book.

            Why can’t you acknowledge what is so plainly obvious? Unlike you, I see clearly that either the developing embryo has rights (defended by a third party), or the woman does, intrinsically. We CAN
            NOT extend rights to both.”

            Because, as demonstrated repeatedly, what’s “obvious” to you is completely idiotic and asinine to anyone else with more than 2 firing neurons.

            What you “see clearly” is known as a Bifurcation Argument. It’s a fallacy, albeit an informal one. When coupled with everything else though, it brings your arguments down like a house of cards. You never say why we can’t give rights to both, you merely engage in an “either/or” argument which is fruitless and logically easy to dispel. There’s no reason we can’t give rights, in some measure, to both. In fact, the very things you are railing against here are *meant* for that purpose. You did know that, right?

            “Do you think men inject tiny, fully formed babies in women’s stomachs, where they just *grow*??? LOL! (And you insist you have a firm grasp on reproductive biology!)”

            Again, simply more rhetoric and lack of understanding. Who doesn’t know how reproduction works here? Raise your hands…Dingus, yours should be up.

            Of course they don’t inject tiny bodies or some such stupidity. At this stage, I’m thinking crayons might be needed to illustrate even an easy point. the child develops, from a single cell stage, into the embryo/fetus and is later born and progresses into the infant stage. No one here is misunderstanding what happens. The problem here is you don’t even understand basic English. The “clump of cells” does what while in the womb? The embryo does what while it’s there? The fetus does what while it’s there?

            Notice that every one of those statements has a very simple point that you fail to grasp repeatedly. The life, which you claim isn’t really alive and there, is actually there already and growing. It’s already present. If something wasn’t really there, or really alive…then why is it actually there, and why is it actually growing? Dead things don’t grow, and things which don’t exist wouldn’t need to be removed. What part about this is confusing?

            “Gestation is the process of development.”

            Which is the *entire* point I made before…and now you’re borrowing my own argument, which you say is massively incorrect and that I’m ignorant to hold, to PROVE your argument. How absolutely predictable. You can’t use my argument as proof for your own, while saying my argument is flawed and incorrect.

            “It happens between the mixing of two people’s DNA and the working of the woman’s body. By itself, that “created life” can’t “grow,” much less develop what it needs to live.”

            God, finally. You say something not completely devoid of facts. Of course, no one is disputing this part, so why bother mentioning it? Again, do you even know WHAT was being discussed at this stage?

            “I asked why you think gestation takes 40 weeks and of
            course you did not answer.”

            I did answer. It’s plainly right there on the response section to the comment. You’re free to read it again anytime.

            “But you know why: that’s how long it takes to CREATE
            an organism capable of individual life. Reproduction is the PROCESS of
            creation.”

            Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. It’s like I should just put that on repeat.

            The life is *already* created. How does something that hasn’t been created also grow at the same time? That’s physically, temporally, completely impossible. How is this not anything other than immediately and inescapably obvious? The organism was ALREADY created….seriously. This is the level of argument you’re making?

            There is a wide margin of distance between “creation” and “growth”. Seriously, Websters. Anytime you want. Online. Reproduction happens when a life is created AND then develops from that point to birth. It’s not magic….or is it?…..the fact you’re arguing that something is being “created” for 9 months is complete fantasy and nothing short of delusional. The “creation” happened at conception. This is sound, proven science. The growth happens AFTER creation of the new life.

            Even just having to tell you this makes me wonder exactly how many steps you can take while walking and chewing gum at the same time. Clearly, whatever medication you’re on is the good stuff.

            “But here’s the heart of the issue: I have a right to
            think what I do.”

            That’s the heart of AN issue. Not THIS issue…but I didn’t expect you to make the distinction anyway. At least you’re honest in this case.

            “The difference between us is that I respect your right
            to believe what you do, and to live your life accordingly.”

            Based on your comments to me, I don’t believe this to be the case. You’ve demonstrated anything other than respect, for sure, but certainly nothing more.

            “. You utterly, completely (not to mention insultingly)
            don’t think I have the right to live my life according to my beliefs.”

            If your belief is that destroying innocent life is perfectly fine, then yes…I’ll have to insult your belief system. It would be especially true since your belief system that you’ve laid claim to multiple times is one that takes the exact opposite view from yours as a whole.

            I think you have the right to live your life however you choose. However, the moment you start making life and death decisions for a second life, it requires a bit more discussion and introspection that just “let me do what I want”. Such is the argument of children and selfish adults who never grew up. Such is the argument of people who selectively give rights or take them away based on nothing more than their whims. Such is the argument of people who, without any other thought, act and do things believing that consequences dont matter, as long as they can medically be erased.

            Such is the argument you’ve given.

            Ironically, the same mentality that I’ve stated there is also completely the opposite of the very faith that you again laid claim to…that there are consequences to things regardless of your like or dislike in the matter. You state one thing, and say you believe in the exact opposite.

            Such is the argument you’ve given, without a second thought that it was as hypocritical and callous as possible. However, that’s your problem to deal with, and not mine. I can only point out where you logically and practically make errors. Whether you fix them or not is up to you.

            “Instead you advocate I should bear and give birth to children because of what YOU believe.”

            If you choose to never have children, then so be it. No one would have anything to say about it. But again, there’s a wide gulf of difference between your active choice to never have children, and your active decision to destroy the one you’re carrying for convenience sake (which again, is 99% of the time according to Guttmacher). I believe you should either not have kids, if that’s your desire, or have them, but not destroy them at a whim. Life and death situation, sure…mother wins. Any other time, it’s just not what you believe it is. and your repeated arguments have demonstrated you don’t even know what your own position entails, much less mine.

            “AIn’t happening. It’s that simple. Women are not going to bear and give birth to babies because you think they should.”

            I suppose it’s a good thing that I don’t believe this anyway. I would say move on, but you won’t. You’ll keep using this line, because this absolutely fabricated lie you’ve created is the only thing you have left.

            “Because they have to take care of them, not you. Because it’s their body, not yours, and not the government’s.”

            I would point out that it’s not their bodies…plural, you know…since there’s all that “Creation” going on and whatnot. Still think it’s just one organism or two? If you say one, you live in a fantasy land where science doesn’t apply. If you say two, well….your own arguments on this point are instantly defeated. Player’s choice…whichever you like is fine.

            “I agree this conversation is over. I suggest you go have a nice long philosophical chat with a human embryo, since according to you they are living individual people.”

            At this stage, I’d likely get a better one from an embryo than you, unfortunately. Of course, your barb about this is nothing more than a weak, nonsensical parting shot because lets face it…you have no actual arguments based on fact, logic, science, or anything more than your own screwed up universal view based on negative events in your life. I’m sorry those things have happened to you…I truly am, from the bottom of my heart. It doesn’t, however, give you license to do whatever you want, think whatever you want without fact or basis, and to claim others who actually have to live in the real world should come over to yours.

            “Maybe at some point you’ll detect that you’re getting nothing back.”

            Content wise, that’s been the case for quite some time. If you don’t respond, then I have no need to type anything and it won’t show on my feed. Pretty simple to understand. Seems you didn’t, however.

            ” But that’s ok, because you just want to impose your views anyway.”

            It’s funny that “impose” and “debate” are the same with you. Not surprising, but still funny.

            ” Might as well do so on something that can’t argue back.”

            Well, not to belabor the point, but…that’s been the case since your second or third post. Once you devolved into your current line of thinking, the “Argue back” part really was kind of moot on your end.

            Fare thee well! :)

          • TheDingus

            So, the conversation isn’t over? Whatta surprise.

            “This is laughable. Is this what you’ve been reduced to? You can’t find a way to argue the point any other way?”

            You wrote there is a moral factor to having sex. You did not say what it is. Me assuming you think there’s something immoral about having sex arises from your statement. I think there’s nothing immoral about having consensual sex, and nothing immoral about having consensual sex for reasons other than procreation. People agree to have sex without agreeing to have children every day, all over the world. Homosexuals have sex. Infertile people have sex. Women past child bearing age have sex. 80 year old men who have no intention of begetting another child have sex. Billions of people use contraceptives in order to deliberately have sex without procreating.

            Is there a “moral factor” to those people having sex for reasons other than procreation, or not? Or does the “moral factor” only arise in females of child bearing age? If so, you’re discriminating against women, on the basis of their gender.

            “The morality isn’t over who’s screwing who. It’s about something completely different. ”

            By all means, feel free to explicate what the “moral factor” to having sex is. Kindly explain if it applies to everyone, or just girls and women who are menstruating.

            As for the Bible, I look to it for some spiritual information, and the use of language. The 2,000 year old patriarchy it’s steeped in is a distraction. God is Spirit, not gender. God created death and life, not just life. God gave us all – even females – brains and free will. God created gender for purposes that are obviously not restricted to reproduction. (Indeed, human reproduction fails more than it succeeds, by miles.)

            I’ve looked high and low: can’t find a single solitary word from either God or Jesus that women may not use contraceptives and may not end their own pregnancies. Not. A. Single. Word. In fact, Jesus is famous for saying “you who are without sin, throw the first stone” at a woman adulterer; and for ministering to prostitutes who we can easily deduce have had abortions (contraception being iffy back then, while you can find the ritual for performing a holy abortion in the Old Testament; hint: spoiled barley is an abortifacient even if you don’t pray over it and put holy water in it).

            I add all that up and conclude that having a baby after having sex is not morally compulsory. You believe it is. Again: fine. Feel free to have all the babies you want. Feel free to never have sex without risking conception. Your choice. Capiche?

            “Again, more common sense you’ve twisted around.”

            Writes the guy who pretends he can know a woman is or was pregnant without knowing she had sex. LOL!

            “When someone seeks to place restrictions on the law (which is the duty of citizens when they exercise the little used “redress of grievances” clause)”

            What is your grievance? What actual, direct harm does it do you if a given woman doesn’t have a baby? You don’t even know if it happens. You walk by women every day who were pregnant last week who aren’t pregnant now. Do you spend every day wailing and weeping?

            Here’s your grievance, in toto: the THOUGHT offends your BELIEFS. Well, no one has any responsibility or is under the slightest compunction to live according to your beliefs instead of their own, to avoid causing you distressing thoughts. People have the inalienable right to their own beliefs and thoughts.

            In order to place the restrictions you want into law, you have to strip people of their fundamental rights. You keep pretending that’s a minor detail. It isn’t.

            “Morally, there isn’t. There’s a difference between stages of growth”

            The stages we’re discussing are made possible by a human being who is an individual, with already extant and inalienable rights.

            “The entire argument is that morally, the purposed destruction of any of these for convenience by the mother is morally objectionable.”

            According to you. No matter how often you insist I have to agree with you, I still don’t. I think forcing women to bear children they do not want and cannot care for is morally objectionable.

            “You do know *what* we’re arguing about here, yes?”

            Sure. Babies and children and pregnancy and childbirth are just matters of “convenience.” Changing your whole life and taking the risk of being killed by your own body on the say-so of complete strangers to prevent them feeling mental distress is perfectly reasonable…. in La La Land.

            You’re all mad as hatters. Arrogant and dishonest, to boot.

            For instance, one reason I posted on this site, under this article, was to see if it’s possible for anti-choice activists to be even slightly capable of empathy and concern for women. The answer is a resounding hell, no. The more complex the life, the less you care and the more aggressive, dismissive and insulting you become.

            “This is still the same ableism-ageism-location argument.”

            Not at all. Take that little “person” out of the body of the big person who doesn’t want it inside her (what touches her body is her right to determine) and by all means let it get on with its life, whatever ability or age it is. The issue is the “location” – which is a ridiculous term for a HUMAN BEING. Are you a “location?” (‘Round and ’round we go, with women being inanimate things, in this case, “locations.” Can you look us up on Google maps?)

            I state it’s silly because it is. It’s also misogynistic: it erases women and what THEY are able to do.

            “Of course, you don’t actually say what I lied about”

            You consistently lie about the fact that a zygote, embryo or fetus is not alive by itself, instead referring to them as SEPARATE and INDIVIDUAL. You consistently lie about the role of women’s bodies in reproduction.

            “Past this, no one is dismissing the mother in her role here”

            Saying this does not make it so. You insist gestation is a minor detail. You demonstrate it again in this very post: that reproduction has TAKEN PLACE IN ITS ENTIRETY at conception. Again: flat out delusional. One is only able to reach such a conclusion by dismissing the biological role of women, or pretending they can perform that role without impacting their person hood, their liberty and their rights.

            “Do you know of other things we dismiss as a clump of cells that we can hear their heartbeat? Just curious”

            You dismiss women every day of the week. They have actual, fully formed and spontaneously beating hearts. You don’t even need a device to hear them; you can just put your ears to their chests. Heck, you can tell their hearts are beating by the way they’re breathing and talking to you, not decomposing.

            You’re trying to get sentimental about heart beats. Funny thing is, you’re not sentimental about women’s heart beats, even though those very hearts make fetal life possible in the first place.
            Clearly you don’t care very much about heartbeats, since you don’t care about half the people who have them. But somehow I’m supposed to be wracked with shame and guilt because of fetal heartbeats? Flagrant hypocrisy.

            “Yes, those things sadly happen.”

            And you’re deliberately working to ensure they happen more. I call that malice aforethought.

            “They also happen less than 2% of the time. What part of the idea that you’re using the exceptions to justify the rule do you not understand?”

            What part of, every time you write “but it’s just a few” it means YOU DON’T CARE IF WOMEN DIE do you not understand? You try to make this about me and my argument; I go to the bottom line. The bottom line is, you’re fine if 2% (and more, since outlawing abortions will raise the percentage) of pregnant women die. So, everyone has an INALIENABLE right to life EXCEPT pregnant women, according to YOUR argument.

            You say that’s logically invalid, but I fail to see why. You’re perfectly willing to accept, even deliberately increase, the percentages of dead women, are you not? Then you say it is acceptable because 1,000,000 unwanted embryos are more valuable than 650 women. (Not to those women and their families, they’re not.) There’s a problem: each and every one of those ~650 women HAS A RIGHT TO LIFE. You don’t get to impose the death penalty on them without due process of law. You really don’t based on their gender. Equal protection under law ring any bells?

            Still waiting for you to even remotely address that.

            Do you know there are ~4,000,000 live births in this country every year? Women in America are beating the natural odds: one in four naturally pregnancies end in miscarriage; women abort at the rate of one in five.

            You want to stop abortions? That’s a goal I can get behind. Here’s how: work on making contraception cheap, even free, and widely and easily accessible. Work on making sure women get paid equally for equal work; help lift people from poverty. Make child care and Pre-K schooling widely and affordably available. Make paid parental leave the law. Make serious inroads against rape and domestic violence. Those actions will bring down the rate of abortions.

            Instead, what you want to do is control women, even unto killing them, deliberately and with malice aforethought.

            “It’s not just C.D. or something unimportant as a topic. It’s illogical and incorrect to use a vast minority of statistics to logically argue a mass majority of cases as being totally fine.”

            Only if you believe individual women have no inalienable right to life. Every one of them.

            “I’m saying you can’t use it statistically to argue a point logically.”

            I can’t use DATA to argue LOGICALLY? Mad as a hatter.

            “This contention would therefore make the woman and the fetus the same organism.”

            Yes, that is correct. Does the ovum belong to woman; i.e., is it part of her organism? Yes, it is. Is the womb that makes embryonic life possible part of her organism? Yes, it is. The lungs that introduce oxygen? The woman’s. The heart and circulatory system that moves the oxygen? The woman’s. The mouth, throat, stomach, bowels, liver and kidneys that introduce nutrition and deal with waste? The woman’s. The endocrinal system? The woman’s. Tell me where I’m wrong. Without the woman THERE IS NO LIVING EMBRYO. Tell me where I’m wrong. Without the embryo, there IS the woman. Tell me where I’m wrong.

            I’ve said it already several times: in pregnancy you have ONE PERSON who is reproducing, not two people or two separate organisms. If the embryo were SEPARATE it would be DEAD, and no longer an organism. The woman is alive, either way.

            You’re doing it again: demanding that I agree with you. I do not agree with you, because you’re wrong. Biologically a developing embryo is not individually alive and a pregnant woman is.

            “I’m saying that the mother AND fetus deserve equal measure to both.”

            Cannot be done. You have to strip women of their inalienable rights to achieve it.

            “We don’t want to kill the mother or anything akin to it.”

            But you will allow their deaths. That’s all I need to know.

            “Even just a simple dictionary definition of inalienable, or intrinsic, would correct this error.”

            I believe I’ve asked these questions before, but let me try again. How does an embryo in the womb exercise their “rights?” Do they peaceably assemble with other embryos in other wombs? Do they have the right to bear microscopic arms? Do they have a religion, and how do they exercise it? Do they have teeny-weeny little presses to publish the non-existent thoughts they don’t have because they don’t have brains? Do they need more privacy than they already enjoy?

            I assume you get the drift. But again, it hardly matters. What matters is that WOMEN HAVE RIGHTS ALREADY. Unequivocally. You keep avoiding the question: why, if it’s ok to strip women of their rights, is it wrong to strip embryos of rights they positively can’t exercise, and, in legal fact, do not have?

            “What you “see clearly” is known as a Bifurcation Argument. It’s a fallacy, albeit an informal one.”

            Yes, I’ve cottoned on that you believe every argument I make is a “fallacy” in one way or another. Might as well just admit you think reality is a fallacy. Which makes you… mad as a hatter.

            “You never say why we can’t give rights to both,”

            You need me to spell it out? (Of course you do. It’s not like this debate has been going on for 40 years, or anything.)

            1) Women have the right to freely exercise their own religion. Not all religions prohibit abortion (the best efforts of the Roman church to Catholicize all of Christianity notwithstanding).

            2) Women have the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, free from unwarranted searches and seizures. This means you or the government can not know if she’s pregnant, or not, since pregnancy takes place in her person. Her medical records are her effects, not yours or the government’s. You want to know if Suzie’s person was pregnant last week (meaning, to also know if she’s had sexual intercourse with a man) but is no longer pregnant today, and why? Get a warrant. You need probable cause to get a warrant. What’s the probable cause? “She had SEX! I know she did!” Having sex is not a crime.

            3) Women have the right to be free from slavery or involuntary servitude unless convicted of a crime. (Again: having sex is not a crime.) They do not have to labor for someone else (whether the fetus, you or the government) because they are female, because…

            4)… ALL persons have the right to equal protection under law. And…

            5) Women have rights to life, liberty and property, which again cannot be stripped from them without due process of law. You can’t strip these rights from them simply because they are female and capable of producing babies. They have to be convicted of a crime. Do I really have to write it again? (Probably.) Having sex is not a crime.

            6) Embryos have no rights under law. If they did, they wouldn’t have MORE rights than other people, such as, the right to use someone else’s body against that person’s will.

            7) Not all rights have to be enumerated to exist, but all government authorities do. The government explicitly does not have the authority to strip people of their rights based on their gender and without due process.

            “The life, which you claim isn’t really alive”

            I’ve said it’s not alive BY ITSELF. (Raise your hand if you think embryos develop all by themselves, in magic incubators attached to no one.)

            “Again, do you even know WHAT was being discussed at this stage?”

            Women’s right to end their own pregnancies.

            “The life is *already* created.”

            Fine. If reproduction is complete when daddy comes, take the zygote out of the woman’s body and let it get on with its life. You keep insisting it has its own life. Does it, or doesn’t it?

            “How does something that hasn’t been created also grow at the same time?”

            How? In this case, by means of the woman eating and breathing for it, among other things. Seriously, are we back to “embryos develop in magic incubators attached to no one,” again?

            “That’s the heart of AN issue. Not THIS issue”

            According to you. I disagree with you. You dismiss the entire argument as being of no concern. To whom? (The arrogance is off the charts.)

            “I think you have the right to live your life however you choose.”

            Except for that 40 weeks of gestation, that might kill me and will definitely change my body for the rest of my life; those hours of labor that also might kill me and rip apart of my sex organs; the lifelong knowledge of having a child; the possible life long responsibility of caring for the child including all the costs, and the daily, significant sacrifices… somehow, you have the right to “let me” live those intimate, personal, life altering events based on YOUR beliefs.

            Let’s see if I can make this clear: No, you don’t.

            “Such is the argument you’ve given, without a second thought that it was as hypocritical and callous as possible.”

            After long and hard thought, I regard an insensate embryo that cannot feel a thing and is not alive by itself to be worthy of less concern than a sentient woman who can feel, a sapient human being who can think, an individually alive person who already has rights. You think that’s callous; I think your complete dismissal of women is callous.

            “I believe you should either not have kids, if that’s your desire, or have them, but not destroy them at a whim.”

            You’re still calling clinical depression with suicidal ideation a “whim.” UFB.

            “Life and death situation, sure…mother wins.”

            Pregnancy is always a life and death situation. You do not and can not know if a woman will die because of a pregnancy. 75% of conceptions end in the products of conception being dead, as well.

            Women have the same right to make life and death decisions as men do. Or are you going to tell me you don’t have a right to defend your own life if it means killing someone else? Do you have the right to not take risks with your body, such as choosing not to donate a kidney, even if it means someone else will die?

            “I would point out that it’s not their bodies…plural, you know”

            Even if we grant, for the sake of argument, that there are two bodies, the woman’s body remains hers, does it not? I am compelled to ask whether you think a woman’s body is hers at all, at this point. Do you?

            “I’m sorry those things have happened to you…I truly am, from the bottom of my heart.”

            Not buying it for one second. If you had your way, I’d have died a few decades ago. Just an easily dismissed statistic. You know what’s ironic? No baby would have been born then, either. You would only have accomplished what I believe you really want: controlling my life and punishing me – with the death penalty no less – for being sexually active outside of patriarchal control, or not being Catholic, or being selfish and dumb, or something.
            Save it for your credulous anti-choice colleagues.

          • Cynical_Meliorist

            “So, the conversation isn’t over? Whatta surprise.”

            It’s “What a surprise”, since you’re fond of correcting others.

            Also, it shouldn’t be a surprise. I did tell you last time that if you don’t reply and don’t engage, that I’d have nothing to say. You replied, and your first comment is faux surprise at receiving said reply. It’s like you didn’t even bother reading it.

            “You wrote there is a moral factor to having sex.”

            No. I wrote that there is a moral component to abortion. Please, feel free to post the quote where I said having sex was immoral. I’ll wait for you to find it. We’ve got all day. But to belabor the point…

            ” Me assuming you think there’s something immoral about having sex arises from your statement. ”

            A statement, I’d point out you *did* *not* put down. I could be contrary and argue over it, but the fact is that there is no comment where I said this, or roughly implied sex is immoral in and of itself. Abortion…you know, what happens after sex creates a life that you purposely go out and do…is where the moral argument is to be found. This is not a hard concept to wrap your head around, but yet you completely missed the point anyway.

            ” I think there’s nothing immoral about having consensual sex, and nothing immoral about having consensual sex for reasons other than procreation.”

            Excellent. We agree on something. Care to move on?

            “People agree to have sex without agreeing to have children every day, all over the world. Homosexuals have sex. Infertile people have sex. Women past child bearing age have sex. 80 year old men who have no intention of begetting another child have sex.”

            Of course, since your argument is based on all of this fluff, thanks for the stats but they weren’t necessary?

            “Is there a “moral factor” to those people having sex for reasons other than procreation, or not?”

            You tell me, since you seem fascinated with the question, and especially since it’s not what I wrote or implied anyway. You tell me if your religion, which you’ve talked about several times, says these things are wrong or not. It’s your question, your conundrum, and your argument. I can’t answer your question for you, especially since I never implied or segued into this part of the conversation from the start.

            “Or does the “moral factor” only arise in females of child bearing age? If so, you’re discriminating against women, on the basis of their gender.”

            Since it takes two to create a child, then it would stand to reason that the male would also bear half the responsibility. Sorry, no discrimination there. It’s all in your head.

            “By all means, feel free to explicate what the “moral factor” to having sex is. Kindly explain if it applies to everyone, or just girls and women who are menstruating.”

            Other than it’s not the argument I was making anyway (but you knew that), the “moral factor” of the equation is abortion. You know, the entire topic this whole website is devoted to, and the topic on which you chose to engage? The entire debate that’s been going on here since moment one? You mean THAT moral factor? If you need an explanation, feel free to go back and comb through the absurd number of pages where this has been told to you. You seem to repeat yourself often, about wanting answers, yet you’ve already been given them at great length. I wanted to make these responses shorter, but you refuse to oblige even that.

            Don’t think, by the way, that your whole “oh you responded!”, and then go on for another 8 pages after you’re supposedly “wrapping this up” from your end didn’t go unnoticed.

            “As for the Bible, I look to it for some spiritual information, and the use of language. The 2,000 year old patriarchy it’s steeped in is a
            distraction. God is Spirit, not gender.

            “So, it’s a reference item when you agree, and a tool of the patriarchy when you do not. Good to know.

            “I’ve looked high and low: can’t find a single solitary
            word from either God or Jesus that women may not use contraceptives and may not
            end their own pregnancies.”

            There’s nothing there about chemical weapons either, but maybe it’s just because we didn’t read deeply enough?

            “and for ministering to prostitutes who we can easily deduce have had abortions”

            And deduced how? Are you now a scholar on ancient texts with non-printed words? Please, continue.

            “I add all that up and conclude that having a baby after having sex is not morally compulsory.”

            Your math is likely skewed, at least in some critically flawed way. Your “math” came up with the fact that pro life people (me, specifically) also must be totally fine with those who participate in genital mutilation (an argument, by the by, which was wholesale created by you, applied by you, and never once mentioned previously to your interjection). Again, chemical weapons aren’t in there…so those are ok? Nukes, while we’re at it? The fact that you’re morally bankrupt in practically every facet of our discussion (from your own interjections, to the base assertions and lies you’ve created, right down to your own incorrect interpretation of a text you basically admit to cherry picking). Sorry, your adding skills here are dubious, at best.

            “Writes the guy who pretends he can know a woman is or was pregnant without knowing she had sex. LOL”

            Where did that come from? See, your addition skills *are* suspect. You’re adding things that don’t even exist. Please, feel free to quote me on where this came from…anytime. I, in fact, said over 6 times that I cannot know the future…which is the exact opposite of this garbage.

            “What is your grievance? I would have thought that such an item was obvious at this point. Clearly, more evidence your math skills aren’t up to par. You can’t even find the total of easy addition and subtraction items.

            “What actual, direct harm does it do you if a given
            woman doesn’t have a baby?”

            Practically none. Of course, there’s a difference between “this woman isn’t having a baby” and “this woman purposely destroyed a baby for her selfish convenience”. You simply choose to ignore any moral or ethical concerns that might exist, which is something I pointed out before that you didn’t bother to work into your rather long replies. Again, your own culpability in these kinds of matters make that almost impossible to glean an honest answer from in any event.

            “Here’s your grievance, in toto:”

            Other than the fact that the Wizard of Oz has nothing to do with this…here you go again telling ME what MY position is….rather than actually using my position and addressing it.

            Your misanthropy and mental issues are starting to show.

            “In order to place the restrictions you want into law,
            you have to strip people of their fundamental rights.”

            And which right is being stripped? The right to kill your own offspring? Doesn’t seem like a right….doesn’t seem like it’s codified into law as a right. How strange. Beyond this, it’s nothing more than you rearranging the argument. No one wishes to strip people of “fundamental rights”. You’re going to have to try harder.

            “According to you. No matter how often you insist I have to agree with you, I still don’t. I think forcing women to bear children they do not want and cannot care for is morally objectionable.”

            Yes, according to me. And about 100 million+ others, but who cares about that? It’s not a popularity contest. On the other hand, you don’t have to agree with me at all. If you’re wrong, you’re welcome to continue being wrong. You’ve certainly not done anything to logically correct any errors on my part, and have made no convincing argument. The difference here is, if you proved me wrong, I would have to agree with you and change my view, or else I’d be totally wrong. You, on the other hand, can be presented with every logical argument on the planet that’s correct, yet wouldn’t change your view at all. Quite the striking difference. I think forcing women to bear children is simply a dodge on your part. No one is insinuating that we get women pregnant for only that function. If anything, since you refuse to admit there’s even a possibility of any moral or ethical items involved, then your argument never would consider them, and must generate incorrect statements like that.

            “Sure. Babies and children and pregnancy and childbirth are just matters of “convenience.” Changing your whole life and taking the risk of being killed by your own body on the say-so of complete strangers to prevent them feeling mental distress is perfectly reasonable…. in La La Land.”

            A land, no doubt, you find very familiar given your arguments and rewording of others’ discussion points. No, Dingus. The entire discussion is over the moral and ethical problems that abortion causes. You were told this early on. You were told this again, and again, and again. It’s still the same argument, no matter how many times you want to revise it, reword it, or supplant it with whatever cracked out version you choose to use today.

            “For instance, one reason I posted on this site, under this article, was to see if it’s possible for anti-choice activists to be even slightly capable of empathy and concern for women.”

            Your original post at the very beginning wasn’t about this, and it’s dishonest to call it. Your first line in fact was this “Not interested in a bunch of creepy, lying stranger’s “mercy and love.”

            That’s not “looking for empathy”. That’s anything BUT looking for empathy. If you want empathy, you’ll find plenty. You choose to not see it, purposely.

            “The more complex the life, the less you care and the more aggressive, dismissive and insulting you become.”

            Because complexity shouldn’t equate a death sentence. Even you would be forced to agree with that position, given your previous statements. I do like how you went from saying that Bailey was “effed up” to “complex”…way to try and soften your original position to try and wedge it in later. Didn’t work, but nice try. I’m not dismissive or aggressive in those facets either. You’re on the receiving end of someone being dismissive because your arguments are pure bunk with zero logical backing. You’re finding me aggressive, because after 2 weeks I still won’t let you get away with the same dog and pony show of telling me what I think, despite *repeated* statements to the contrary. I’m sorry, but after a few weeks, there’s only but so many nice ways to say that you’re completely wrong and misguided…especially in the face of your completely rude, offensive, and incorrect diatribes about what someone else thinks and feels. If you wanted nice, then likely you shouldn’t be so aggressive towards someone who would otherwise have pleasant conversation. You brought this one down on yourself.

            “. Take that little “person” out of the body of the big person who doesn’t want it inside her (what touches her body is her right to determine) and by all means let it get on with its life, whatever ability or age it is.”

            Because THIS is totally scientific. Are you still in that La-La Land you mentioned? Seems like.

            “The issue is the “location” – which is a ridiculous term for a HUMAN BEING. Are you a “location?” (‘Round and ’round we go, with women being inanimate things, in this case, “locations.” Can you look us up on Google maps?)

            The location of a fetus is a ridiculous item…even though the fetus being THERE is the *entire* point of your reason for getting rid of it? Again, you didn’t even think about your own argument and offer me this instant gaffe. Thank you. Only you believe living beings are inanimate objects (your statements about a fetus being proof, over and over and over again). Sorry, but I don’t want your argument. You keep it.

            “I state it’s silly because it is. It’s also misogynistic:
            it erases women and what THEY are able to do.”

            So, because you say so, it must be. Where have we heard this line of thinking from you before? No one is “erasing” women, and your claims of evil men hating women and blah blah blah….it’s old and not worth even saying much about past “it’s wrong”.

            “You consistently lie about the fact that a zygote, embryo or fetus is not alive by itself, instead referring to them as SEPARATE and INDIVIDUAL. You consistently lie about the role of women’s bodies in reproduction.”

            Yet again, you offer not even one snippet, one quote, one thing I’ve actually said as a rebuttal. If it were so important, wouldn’t showing some proof actually be in order? I’ve stated that a fetus is alive, that it’s a seperate and distinct entity unto itself, and that during gestation it resides within the mother. We’re not charting new scientific territory here. You’re the only one who doesn’t actually understand any of this. You’re the one who completely lies about the role of women in reproduction. Please, humor me and tell me EXACTLY where I’ve made those errors. Show your work. And not “well, you meant this”….and give me some half arsed rewrite of something taken out of context.

            Show me. Come on. Give me your best shot. Actually try and prove me wrong, with correct statements and not just an interpretation. Go ahead. I’ll wait.

            “Saying this does not make it so. You insist gestation is a minor detail.”

            Of course, for all of my “insisting”….it was never actually said. Kind of like everything else you’ve claimed I stated

            “You demonstrate it again in this very post: that reproduction has TAKEN PLACE IN ITS ENTIRETY at conception.”

            Only if you have no concept of basic English. I stated directly that creation had already taken place at conception and that growth occurs. Your own statements are that creation takes 9 months. It doesn’t. Growth and birth take 9 months. What was created happened at conception. Again, basic language skills would apply here and help you get past this easily noticed stumbling block.

            “You dismiss women every day of the week. They have actual, fully formed and spontaneously beating hearts. You don’t even need a device to hear them; you can just put your ears to their chests. Heck, you can tell their hearts are beating by the way they’re breathing and talking to you, not decomposing.”

            So, when i asked if you knew of other “clumps of cells” we can hear heartbeats from…..this was your answer. A non-answer to a question. Just wanted to note the dodging and inability for you to actually stay on topic.

            “You’re trying to get sentimental about heart beats.
            Funny thing is, you’re not sentimental about women’s heart beats, even though
            those very hearts make fetal life possible in the first place.”

            I wasn’t aware that feelings were conveyed via text in such ways. I was simply pointing out a biological trait and an easily identifiable marker for the conversation. Do you get all weepy over this and then think I must as well? Sorry, but no.

            “Clearly you don’t care very much about heartbeats, since you don’t care about half the people who have them. But somehow I’m supposed to be wracked with shame and guilt because of fetal heartbeats? Flagrant hypocrisy.”

            If that were all true, then you’re right, I’d be a hypocritically hypocritical hypocrite. Sadly for you, I do actually have empathy for those “other half”, and also for the ones you believe are nothing more than human waste and disposable lives. I’ve stated before that you care nothing for those things, and this justifies it while completely letting me demonstrate, yet again, how off base your personal mathematics skills are in total.

            “And you’re deliberately working to ensure they happen
            more. I call that malice aforethought.”

            Please, describe how i’m doing so. I’m curious, since it’s the opposite of what’s really being done or discussed. Back to our old “opposite everything he says” argument for you.

            “What part of, every time you write “but it’s just a
            few” it means YOU DON’T CARE IF WOMEN DIE do you not understand? You try to make this about me and my argument; I go to the bottom line. The bottom line is, you’re fine if 2% (and more, since outlawing abortions will raise the percentage) of pregnant women die. So, everyone has an INALIENABLE right to life EXCEPT pregnant women, according to YOUR argument.”

            I’m sorry, but no. Do I need to use caps lock more to demonstrate your error?

            NO. NOT OK WITH 2%. .

          • PJ4

            Zing!
            Again
            Have you noticed how she’s too scared to respond to me?
            Lol
            She cannot counter any of the evidence with which I’ve presented her, so she choses to dismiss it
            *sigh*
            Gotta love her for her increasing cowardice

            Good job on increasing the devolving of her “arguments”

            You rock

          • TheDingus

            “It’s “What a surprise”

            It’s “whatta surprise” when being ironic in reply to a disingenuous hypocrite.

            “I did tell you last time that if you don’t reply and don’t engage, that I’d have nothing to say.”

            If you have nothing to say, feel free to commence not saying it any time you wish. Your choice.

            (There’s that word again.) You don’t get to tell me if I have something to say or not, however.

            Quote what you wrote? Certainly. On 09/12 you wrote: “First, creating the pregnancy morally has a factor you choose to ignore.”

            We may safely dismiss from discussion those people who create a pregnancy through IVF, since it’s certain they want to get pregnant and would only abort for medical reasons, and I assume their morality meets with your approval.

            Most people “create a pregnancy” by having sex. (But don’t take my word for it; please, ask a doctor or a scientist.) Therefore, you believe having sex morally has a factor.

            “Excellent. We agree on something. Care to move on?”

            You’re lying again. We clearly don’t agree it is not immoral to have sex without wanting to have a baby. You believe any one who has sex and conceives must have a baby nine months later whether that was their intention or not. I take from that you believe that if a woman conceives without intending to, she has a moral obligation to gestate the pregnancy; that the very act of having intercourse imposes a moral obligation upon her. (Do tell me where I’m wrong; me trying to discern what you are too cowardly to spell out is getting absurd.)

            I believe if a woman “creates a pregnancy” (ie, has sex) without intending to, she may end that pregnancy without committing any immoral act, whatsoever.

            “You tell me…”

            Your cowardice in defending your own positions is once again duly noted.

            ” You tell me if your religion, which you’ve talked about several times, says these things are wrong or not.”

            My religion considers sex a sacred gift from the Great Spirit, which may be engaged in in all manner of ways, including ritually, without ever intending pregnancy or resulting in offspring. (Powerful women who lived and practiced such beliefs were stripped of their roles as Priestesses and designated “prostitutes” by the patriarchs of the early Christian church. That’s on the patriarchs who edited the Bible, not me.)

            Sex may be the most powerful act there is (with or without producing a child); it may be a pleasant roll in the hay; it may be a victim of child rape searching for closeness and answers; or it may be rubbing one out in the shower without ever intending to produce a child.

            Does that answer your question?

            (If it remains unclear to you, while I believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ, I am not a Christian of any denomination. I read other spiritual texts besides the Bible, and engage in spiritual practices without priests. It turns out God is perfectly capable of communicating with individual people without intermediaries, almost as if God is the Supreme Being.)

            “… it would stand to reason that the male would also bear half the responsibility.”

            Not possible. Only women gestate and give birth.

            “So, it’s a reference item when you agree, and a tool of the patriarchy when you do not. Good to know.”

            It’s a reference when it genuinely speaks to my spirit, and a tool of patriarchy when used as a tool of patriarchy. Not my fault you can’t separate the two. But then you’re such a dyed-in-the-wool patriarch, that’s no surprise, either.

            Sometimes a thing can have more than one meaning, and more than one use. Too complex a concept for you?

            “There’s nothing there about chemical weapons either, but maybe it’s just because we didn’t read deeply enough?”

            So you’re asking who would Jesus commit mass murder via chemical weapons against? Seriously? (Kind of puts the lie to that whole “thou shalt not murder” and “love thy neighbor as thyself” bit, doesn’t it?)

            “And deduced how?”

            By thinking for a few seconds. (You should try it,

            instead of regurgitating anti-choice talking points all the time.)

            A prostitute may have sexual intercourse several times a day, day after day, with men who ejaculate. The natural result of such actions, particularly when birth control is unavailable or ineffective, is that sooner or later the prostitute will conceive. It’s quite likely she will conceive more than once over the course of a several year career. Just the odds. (Do you really not know where babies come from? You insisted so vociferously that you do!) How successful would a prostitute be if she were constantly pregnant, or said “hang on a tick, I need to go put my eight children out of the room first?”

            I don’t have to be a scholar to have done some reading. (Or do you imagine women can’t read?) I read enough to learn that spoiled barley was used as an abortifacient during and before the time of Jesus. As I said, there’s reference to it in the Old Testament. (You could look it up – Numbers 5:12 onward.)

            Is it news to you that women have always had abortions? (You’re much less cynical than you pretend to be, aren’t you?)

            “Your math is likely skewed, at least in some critically flawed way.”

            You just don’t like the sum.

            “… pro life people (me, specifically) also must be totally fine with those who participate in genital mutilation (an argument, by the by, which was wholesale created by you, applied by you, and never once mentioned previously to your interjection).”

            I said you’re attitude reminded me of the men who so blithely commit genital mutilation. I also told you about women having their perineum sliced from vagina to anus and women having their vaginas torn so deeply in childbirth their bowels are perforated: both examples of genital mutilation. That you’re okay with forcing women to experience such mutilations against their will is on you. I just notice that you are.

            “…feel free to quote me on where this came from…”

            I don’t have to quote you. You think it’s your business if a woman is pregnant or not. Women become pregnant by having sex. Therefore, you will know if a woman has had sex by making it your business to know if she is pregnant.

            You cannot be this completely stupid. (Oh who knows: maybe you can.)

            “I would have thought that such an item was obvious at this point. ”

            Why? You constantly refuse to state things plainly.

            “What actual, direct harm does it do you if a given woman doesn’t have a baby?” “Practically none.”

            Equivocation. Not “practically:” it does you no actual, direct harm if a given woman doesn’t have a baby. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Zero. You don’t even know if it happens.

            “You simply choose to ignore any moral or ethical concerns that might exist…”

            I’ve spent years thinking about this and days discussing it with you, yet you still insist I’m ignoring the moral and ethical concerns. Demonstrably, I am not. I’m answering YOUR moral and ethical concerns. That I don’t share them, and the reasons I don’t share them, I’ve stated time after time.

            You’re an egregious liar.

            “…rather than actually using my position and addressing it.”

            The only direct statement I have from you as to what your grievance is was “there are moral and ethical considerations.” These take place in your mind, do they not? They arise from your beliefs, do they not? I mean, please, do not let me put words in your mouth. If instead you are not considering moral or ethical questions in your mind, say so. (The evidence all says otherwise, however.)

            “And which right is being stripped?”

            Not a right: at least seven, by my count. I listed them all.

            People don’t have a right to kill their own offspring. They do have a right to choose not to have offspring. Women have offspring by being pregnant for 40 weeks and giving birth. They don’t have “offspring” when a man ejaculates and conception occurs; half the time they just have their period.

            “No one wishes to strip people of “fundamental rights”.

            ROFL. That’s precisely what you want to do. You have to, to force women to gestate against their will.

            “Yes, according to me. And about 100 million+ others, but who cares about that?”

            Isn’t that a logical fallacy of some kind? (LOL!)

            I don’t care about you or those 100 million + others, other than the threat you pose to girls and women. Even if you were a majority (which you are not) the majority does not get to strip individual rights from even one person.

            “The difference here is, if you proved me wrong, I would have to agree with you and change my view, or else I’d be totally wrong.”

            I’ve proved you wrong many times. You just refuse to acknowledge it (mainly by ad hominem attack) precisely because if you were intellectually honest, you would have to change your views. That dishonesty has been a prominent feature of the anti-choice movement from the start: it doesn’t matter what facts there are, what laws there are, what religious beliefs there are, what rights people have…

            It’s why you refuse to answer direct questions. It’s why you skip questions with answers that are too uncomfortable. It’s why you skew words and language. It’s why you can’t do simple arithmetic, why you wonder if prostitutes have abortions: it’s why disingenuity is a badge of honor among you folks.

            The arrogance and dishonesty goes on and on, and you STILL maintain your self righteousness. Unbelievable.

            And it’s all actually pointless. I have NO QUARREL WITH YOU BELIEVING WHATEVER YOU LIKE. Believe it all day long. Live YOUR life according to your own beliefs. Just stop trying to force ME to. THAT’S the quarrel.

            “The entire discussion is over the moral and ethical problems that abortion causes.”

            That you SAY abortion causes, which you then go on to define for me, insisting I must agree with your every definition.

            I disagree with you. I don’t think abortion causes any moral and ethical problems, any more than a man ejaculating into a tissue does. Have I not been clear on this point?

            One of the moral and ethical problems of this discussion is about choice, also known as liberty. Not abortion – abortions will always happen and the only public question is should they be safe and legal or unsafe and illegal – but that IT’S NOT YOUR BUSINESS what other people do IN THEIR PRIVATE LIVES. This is a moral problem you “solve” by saying “yes it is!”

            Another moral and ethical problem is that outlawing abortions kills and causes other direct and significant harms to girls and women. Too sticky an ethical problem for you?

            “Because complexity shouldn’t equate a death sentence.”

            Unless you’re a pregnant woman.

            “I do like how you went from saying that Bailey was “effed up” to “complex”….”

            The two states are not mutually exclusive. Of course, you dismissed Ms. Bailey as human being a long time ago, didn’t you?

            That you can’t tell that Bailey, a living breathing thinking feeling adult human being capable of reproduction, if not too bright and effed up, is more complex than a brainless embryo relying on Bailey to exist in the first place, is your problem. (But it sure is a howler.)

            “I still won’t let you get away with the same dog and pony show of telling me what I think,”

            I’ve asked you many times to tell me what you think. Half the time you haven’t answered, at all. Much of the rest of the time you’ve opined that the question is illegitimate so you don’t have to answer. A lot of the rest of the time you’ve resorted to ad hominem attacks and pretending perfectly logical and scientifically accurate arguments are “fallacies.”

            You are egregiously dishonest.

            “Because THIS is totally scientific. Are you still in that La-La Land you mentioned? Seems like.”

            And there you go: dancing around the point, again. YOU keep insisting the embryo is individually alive. YOU keep insisting the embryo has its own abilities, that the problem is it’s AGE. Not I. I know perfectly well that when you separate an embryo from the body that keeping it alive, it will be dead. That’s the whole reason for the anti-abortion stance, isn’t it? Women must remain pregnant or the embryo dies? Isn’t that also the science of it?

            You’re deliberately as obtuse as a railroad tie. It’s quite unbecoming.

            “The location of a fetus is a ridiculous item”

            Calling human beings “locations” is the ridiculous item.

            “So, because you say so, it must be.”

            Not at all. Feel free to ask any authority you like if women make fetal life possible. (Get back to me with their answers, mmmkay?)

            “Yet again, you offer not even one snippet, one quote, one thing I’ve actually said as a rebuttal. If it were so important, wouldn’t showing some proof actually be in order? I’ve stated that a fetus is alive, that it’s a seperate and distinct entity unto itself…”

            So when I say you call the fetus a separate and distinct entity unto itself, I’m lying, but when you say you’ve said it, you’re not. ROFL… (I didn’t have to look very far for that one.)

            “when i asked if you knew of other “clumps of cells” we can hear heartbeats from…..this was your answer.”

            Don’t look now, but every living thing is “clumps of cells.” Honest. Some “clumps of cells” have differentiated and function with far more complexity than others. A zygote is literally nothing but a clump of undifferentiated cells. Again, do not take my word for it. I’m sure you can find an enlarged picture of that clump of a few cells that have yet to differentiate on the web (an actual picture would require a microscope to see).

            You might try comparing them to a picture a fully grown living woman, just as a reference.

            “I wasn’t aware that feelings were conveyed via text in such ways”

            What a liar you are.

            “I do actually have empathy for those “other half”…”

            You don’t have a single solitary ounce of empathy for them, or you’d leave them alone to live their lives without your interference. There are numerous reasons why you ought to.

            “Please, describe how i’m doing so.”

            I have assumed you’re all for requiring and coercing women to gestate and give birth against when they themselves would choose not to, and therefore against their will. I have assumed you’d be fine if no woman anywhere can get a safe, legal abortion. (Well, maybe with permission from some man in authority who judges that, by golly, yes she IS bleeding to death!)

            Can’t imagine where I got such ideas… (/sarcasm)

            “NO. NOT OK WITH 2%.”

            Good – then you agree women should be able to have safe, legal abortions if they choose to. Right?

            You’re only kidding yourself, you know.

          • Cynical_Meliorist

            You had some much bullcrap in your posts, I had to split it in half. Part 1, right here.

            “It’s “whatta surprise” when
            being ironic in reply to a disingenuous hypocrite.”

            So, shouldn’t I
            have said that to you instead? Or, you just don’t like being corrected, which
            seems to be done rather often here. I thought you were wrapping this up? Why
            keep going after you’ve already lost? I’ll have “nothing to
            say”….just like I told you…when you don’t reply again. I was under the
            impression that was pretty clearly stated. Guess not. You’re still wrong,
            grammatically. Own it, right?

            “If you have
            nothing to say, feel free to commence not saying it any time you wish. Your
            choice.”

            You said you were
            wrapping it up. I said as long as you keep saying something, I’ll keep
            responding. You can respond as much as you want, but don’t feign surprise when
            I respond in kind. Your 7 new pages of the same thing over and over really isn’t
            making any headway here though.

            “Quote what
            you wrote? Certainly. On 09/12 you wrote: “First, creating the pregnancy
            morally has a factor you choose to ignore.”

            And that’s a great
            quote…except it’s not what I asked for, and it certainly doesn’t prove your
            point. That isn’t about sex being immoral. Read it again. It’s plainly
            conveying the idea that *pregnancy* is where the moral issue lies. It’s
            literally right there, in the quote. The very thing you swear I’m saying isn’t
            even there, and the very thing I’ve repeatedly told you that the moral issue
            entails *IS* there. Thanks for proving me right again!

            “Most people
            “create a pregnancy” by having

            sex.”

            Yes. Welcome to
            Biology 101. But 2 people having sex isn’t the moral issue. Didn’t you just
            post that FOR me? Your confusion is strange, since I’ve clearly stated this AND
            you’ve clearly stated my position (which, pro tip, it’s the *same* thing as I
            said before) for me as well. No, Dingus. Sex isn’t a moral issue, unless you’re
            talking religion and the like.

            The “create
            apregnancy”.the pregnancy….the life created as a result of that….is
            where the issue lies. How it was created is not. Now that we’ve cleared this up
            for you, lets move on.

            “You’re lying
            again. We clearly don’t agree it is not

            immoral to have sex
            without wanting to have a baby.”

            See the above
            paragraph. Since we do agree, and you even prove it for me, and now we can show
            that I don’t believe what you keep saying (even with your own post as proof, no
            less), then we can actively say either you don’t understand basic English,
            or…you’re so deep down the rabbit hole that any agreement we may have must be
            ignored.

            “I take from
            that you believe that if a woman conceives without intending to, she has a
            moral obligation to gestate the pregnancy; that the

            very act of having
            intercourse imposes a moral obligation upon her. (Do tell me where I’m wrong;
            me trying to discern what you are too cowardly to spell out is absurd.)

            You trying to
            discern the positions I’ve stated would require nothing more than a 3rd grade
            education and a working, basic knowledge of English. The intention to conceive
            or not isn’t the issue. That’s been stated before, or did you not read it? The
            act of intercourse, as I’ve stated multiple times now, establishes NO moral
            burden. The creation of a life (the pregnancy….(you know, the thing you
            copy/pasted me saying which contradicts your position, which was nice of you,
            so thanks!) is where the moral burden begins. The sex isn’t important. Please
            get that through your skull. Do you need smaller words?

            “Your
            cowardice in defending your own positions is once again duly noted.”

            What position? It
            was *your* question, based on something that was *never* said. You’re telling
            me what my position is, and then questioning it as if it were mine to start
            with. I’m sorry, but like i said last time…it’s YOUR question, based on an
            argument YOU created. You answer your own question, about your own points. I’ve
            answered mined repeatedly. Calling someone a coward for not playing your childish
            games, when you’re completely fabricating the argument from the ground up, is
            just asinine. If you want to ask a question, do so. I’ve given you no shortage
            of answers. But when you invent questions out of thin air, from the same
            argument you invented out of thin air, and then say it’s on me to defend *your*
            argument, then you’re out of line (and luck).

            “My religion
            considers sex a sacred gift from the Great Spirit, which may be morally engaged
            in consensually in all manner of ways, including ritually, without ever
            intending pregnancy or resulting in offspring.”

            That’s great. I
            don’t really see why this is still important, but whatever Native American
            ideals you hold are just fine. Moving on.

            “Does that
            answer your question?”

            Eh, not really. It
            was a long, round about blurb about your beliefs, but certainly not a rebuttal
            about how you arrived at them, cherry picked them, or selectively applied them.
            Still, good to know.

            “Not possible.
            Only women gestate and give birth.”

            So, men shouldn’t,
            and can’t, be responsible for helping making a child with someone else. That’s
            excellent news. Millions of men paying child support, who didn’t want the child
            to start with, can now rest easy knowing you’re on their side. Congratulations!

            “It’s a
            reference when it genuinely speaks to my

            spirit, and a tool
            of patriarchy when used as a tool of patriarchy. Not my

            fault you can’t
            separate the two.

            I quite did. In
            fact, my statement about you cherry picking it and selectively applying
            it….is pretty much what you’re saying right there. Again, you keep proving me
            right, yet you don’t realize it perhaps?

            “So you’re
            asking who would Jesus commit mass murder

            via chemical
            weapons against?”

            Not at all. But
            it’s also not in there, just like abortion isn’t something Christ covered.
            Since he’s a guy, maybe it’s His patriarchal view of things, as if he didn’t
            need to address it. Or, it’s addressed elsewhere. I’m sorry the very simple
            analogy was lost on you. I’ll try and keep them from being less complicated for
            you from this point forward.

            “He reserved
            that for a woman who had committed adultery, not a mass murdered, didn’t he? ”

            Interesting, that
            you make this point. He also told her to “Go, and sin no more”. He
            wasn’t condemning her, but he did judge her actions as wrong, and told her not
            to do it again. Food for thought.

            “By thinking
            for a few seconds. ”

            Likely, that’s the
            breadth and depth of your process on this entire subject. It’s pretty evident
            you’ve given nothing that’s been said any real thought. You conclude you must
            be right, because being wrong makes you culpable and morally responsible for
            your own actions. You rationalize those away and think everyone who disagrees
            with you is some mustache-twirling patriarch out to get you.

            Paranoia doesn’t
            suit you well.

            “(You should
            try it, instead of regurgitating anti-choice talking points all the time.)

            Ironically, this
            comes from the same person who has posted, to date, zero logical rebuttals of
            anything I’ve said. Not one. Moving on.

            “It’s quite
            likely she will conceive more than once

            over the course of
            a several year career.”

            Perhaps, but it’s
            also not 100%. I don’t pretend it does, and modern women would have ways to
            prevent that entirely, such as medical procedures to prevent pregnancy from
            ever happening to start with…you do know about those right? I just don’t
            pretend that women are completely clueless, like you, about their cycles. I
            don’t pretend that human life is disposable either, but that’s a different
            matter.

            “I don’t have
            to be a scholar to have done some

            reading. ”

            It would have been
            nice if you would have actually done some of that too, beforehand. It would
            have been valuable.

            ” (Or do you

            imagine women can’t
            read?) ”

            I just imagine you,
            like demonstrated before, cherry picked everything you’ve read. I mean, if you
            want a thumbs up for reading on Google about spoiled barley, please have at it.
            Otherwise, clearly what I was referring to was not what you’ve put here, and so
            another whiff right over your head.

            “You just
            don’t like the sum.”

            *Because* you used
            “bad math” to get it, and it wasn’t even the correct one. Why should
            I be completely fine with fallacious statements and completely erroneous
            conclusions? No one else is, and you shouldn’t be….but seem to not care. If
            the sum, logically reached, of your points was factually correct and not based
            on projection, rationalization, complete lies and nothing more than your own
            faulty emotional center…I’d have to examine your arguments and if they were
            correct, I’d have to agree with you. That’s how debate works….for rational
            people, anyway.

            “I said you’re
            attitude reminded me of the men who so blithely commit genital mutilation.”

            Actually, your
            comment was that I did, as a matter stated directly of fact, like it and want
            to see it done to others. Not reminded. Not maybe. Was. Directly. It’s right
            there on your response. You can’t even be honest about your own words, days
            after the fact. Are you too cowardly, as you phrase it, to own your argument as
            such? I mean, say this kind of completely dishonest tripe, and *then* follow it
            up with this:

            “That you’re
            okay with forcing women to experience such mutilations against their will is on
            you. I just notice that you are.”

            Point. Set. Match.
            You literally couldn’t finish the paragraph without doing it again. I stated
            i’m not, in fact, okay with it….repeatedly. This isn’t a
            “reminder”….it’s a direct statement that you’re forcibly inserting
            as my view, when its not and never has been to start with at any point.

            You’re so dishonest
            that you can’t argue your own points, or even quote yourself, without being
            patently dishonest about it. Amazing.

            “I don’t have
            to quote you. You think it’s your business if a woman is pregnant or not. Women
            become pregnant by having sex. Therefore, you

            will know if a
            woman has had sex by making it your business to know if she is pregnant.”

            I don’t think it’s
            my business if she’s pregnant or not, but you already knew that. The moral
            consideration is when abortion comes into the picture. If a woman wants to be
            pregnant, or never wants children and never conceives, it makes no difference
            to me. I would counter that, if i see a woman who is pregnant, it’s not some
            massive logical or intuitive leap to conclude that “oh, she probably had
            sex!”. I mean, wouldn’t that be kind of obvious?

            “Why? You
            constantly refuse to state things plainly.”

            Then right here,
            right now, state what you believe hasn’t been plain. State what hasn’t been
            completely explained to you repeatedly, exhaustively, for the last 3 weeks.
            What are you still unclear on?

            “You cannot be
            this completely stupid.”

            Since you’re the
            one who is so confused over things, this kind of rings hollow, eh?

            “Equivocation.
            Not “practically:” it does you no

            actual, direct harm
            if a given woman doesn’t have a baby. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Zero. You don’t
            even know it happens.”

            Unfortunately, this
            was a good try but it’s incorrect. “A” for effort. In the very
            generic sense, it “practically” doesn’t harm me. I am not injured,
            physically or emotionally, by such an experience someone theoretically has, or
            even by someone such as yourself telling me you did have this experience. Now,
            on the other hand, if someone I were with had done this, then there is, in
            fact, a level of mental and emotional damage that is inflicted on someone else,
            especially if they wanted that child. Of course, you never consider anyone
            other than yourself, so…this line of thinking is going to be alien to you.
            The difference between “practically” and “actually” in this
            case is the difference of degrees in proximity. Does something that happens to
            people you don’t know, and don’t even see, vex you greatly? Likely not. Does
            something that someone close to you would do that generally is seen as hurtful
            bother you after the fact? Of course. I thought that was pretty simple.

            As a man who was in
            that position, by the by, I can tell you it does, in fact create problems and
            negativity. *Your* situation doesn’t create guilt, or remorse, because I don’t
            know you. It’s nothing more than text on a screen. Closer to home, that’s a different
            story. Likely, you’ll never actually bridge the gap between these two
            differences, and that’s ok. I don’t expect you to, at this point, have any
            empathy for people beyond the edge of your own nose.

            “I’ve spent
            years thinking about this and days discussing it with you, yet you still insist
            I’m ignoring the moral and ethical concerns.”

            And yet, when it’s
            mentioned, you dismiss them as being important at all. You ignore them as you
            see fit. The fact that we don’t agree on them isn’t the point. The plain truth
            is, you don’t see them as concerns, and that’s fine. But past this, you don’t
            believe there IS a concern at all…that there isn’t one to begin with, which
            is different than thinking they’re not important. This is a critical
            difference, and a dishonest point for you to try and make otherwise.

            “You’re an
            egregious liar.”

            Yet, *every* thing
            you’ve posted so far vindicates my position. You quote me as if it’s proof of
            something, but even a cursory read would reveal that it’s *exactly* what I
            said, and was consistent. Every time you claim I’m being dishonest, you end up
            having to eat crow. Please, post exactly where I’m being dishonest. Prove it.
            Show me. You’ve tried it numerous times, only to have it demonstrated easily
            that you’re either completely incapable of reading, or you’re completely off
            your rocker and pretend one thing means another. Every instance of your claims
            that I’ve been dishonest have been shot down, and the comical part is YOU
            provided the very quotes which showed you were wrong. That takes special skills!

          • Cynical_Meliorist

            And, Part 2 of “Dingus can’t get it together”, fresh off the presses!

            “The only
            direct statement I have from you as to what

            your grievance is
            was “there are moral and ethical considerations.”

            So, the other,
            what…40 pages?…of text didn’t have anything? Of course, that would be a lie
            on your part. I’ve discussed, at length, of what those concerns were. Right to
            life issues. The moral culpability of people who purposely destroy their own
            offspring for convenience.

            Hell, the very
            things you argue *in* *this* *post* are direct statements. How did you miss
            that? How many times do you need to be told “No, that is not my position.
            My position is (insert direct statements)” before this becomes clear. You
            literally have crafted arguments against me based on direct statements you
            claim to disagree with……..and then come back and say there’s no direct
            statement.

            I couldn’t make up
            this level of ignorance if I tried. You clearly have no handle on this
            discussion. It’s painfully obvious in every statement you make.

            “Not a right:
            at least seven, by my count. I listed them all.”

            You did list 7
            things…and i responded appropriately and then had to ask again. Is that, too,
            unclear?

            “People don’t
            have a right to kill their own offspring. They do have a right to choose not to
            have offspring.”

            Isn’t that an interesting
            way of weasel-wording your argument? :) If you’re pregnant, your unborn
            offspring are present….remember? Even you admitted that previously. Sorry,
            bad argument on your part.

            “. It’s pure
            male supremacist malarkey to say “men create babies!” and gestation
            has nothing to do with it.”

            Well, since no one
            actually holds this position, it’s good that we can skip the malarkey, right? I
            mean, no one is saying this…it’s factually incorrect and basically a steaming
            pile of crap. Do men play a role, in some form or another? Sure. Takes two,
            right? Or do you think woman just get pregnant by looking at pictures, or
            through force of will? Clearly, you can’t even be honest about this facet of
            the discussion.

            “Isn’t that a
            logical fallacy of some kind?”

            It would, if it was
            saying that because 100 million people or more believe it, that it must be
            true. You DID notice i said it didn’t matter, at the end there, right where the
            sentence terminates, right? That wasn’t me being facetious…that was actually me
            telling it straight. Doesn’t matter how many believe it, in this case. The
            important thing is to note that it’s not just like 12 people in the middle of
            nowhere. It has far reaching,
            wide support…because there are people who logically reached the same conclusion.
            The “who cares about that?” was meant as a rebuff against something
            you said before, which is why that comment was there. Guess that wasn’t clear
            either. I would point out, for like the ump-teenth time that you’ve still not
            logically given me a rebuttal. But another “A” for effort.

            Sorry, but while I
            can see where you want this to be a fallacy, it’s not. Again, no reading
            comprehension. Oh well.

            “Even if you
            were a majority (which you are not) the majority does not get to strip
            individual rights from even one person.”

            Ironically,
            abortion supporters like you (who you claim are a majority) strip rights from
            unborn persons all the time. It’s sad that you can’t even own your part of the
            discussion, really. If your line of thinking here is correct, then your views
            would immediately be wrong (and trying to do the “they’re not
            people!” would fail, since I already derailed your argument there over the
            last few days too). This is just another example of you making an argument that
            you didn’t think through, and said something without realizing you undermine
            your own position.

            “I’ve proved
            you wrong many times. You just refuse to

            acknowledge it….”

            Well,then show me.
            Let’s see all of these wonderful logical rebuttals. Granted, you’ll likely just
            prove me right again by showing evidence like you did above….or, will you
            actually just make another argument to shove down my throat and claim it’s
            mine? Those aren’t “winning” items.

            Please, by all
            means. Post every single one of these victories. I will enjoy seeing that, and
            then totally dismantling them like I’ve done to everything else you’ve made
            this claim against.

            “It’s why you
            refuse to answer direct questions.”

            After, of course,
            directly answering your questions. Seems that whole “I’ve proven you wrong”
            would start with this, but….it’s patently false. You lose.

            “It’s why you
            skip questions with answers that are too

            uncomfortable.”

            Which is why i
            asked you, several times, to post the questions I missed so that I could answer
            them (which is a second slap in the face to your “you don’t answer
            questions” remark). You then post questions which you *already* had asked,
            and I would point to the answer in a previous post, or even answer them again.
            Again, this is patently false on your part. You lose again.

            “It’s why you
            skew words and language.”

            Of which, you’ve
            posted nothing to demonstrate this. Factually, I’ve had to correct you on this
            repeatedly. I’ve tried to define things in plain terms. I’ve asked you, at
            least 5 times in the last day, to tell me what’s ambiguous or what wasn’t
            clearly stated, so it could be corrected. You gave me nothing. Not a single
            thing, other than conjecture. The things you did post, again, were items which
            simply proved me right and made you look all manner of foolish in the attempt.
            If you think i’m skewing words, then say so. Ask for clarification. Point this
            out, show me what’s actually wrong, and actually argue the point rather than
            claim it and run away. You lose on this point, again.

            “It’s why you
            pretend to wonder if prostitutes have

            abortions”

            To kind of rephrase
            this…”It’s why *you* have to pretend that people wonder about if
            prostitutes have had abortions”. No one here would really wonder that…I
            would think that such a thing would be obvious. Obvious, but also morally wrong
            on their part. Again, how is that not clear? Do you really think you’re the
            only one who knows how anything works? You lose, again, for the fourth time
            here.

            “The arrogance
            and dishonesty goes on and on, and you STILL maintain your self righteousness.
            Unbelievable.”

            Arrogance,
            perhaps…but only towards you. You’ve earned it, after your mewlings and
            repeated character attacks. The rest, though….not so much. It’s only
            “unbelievable”, because you can’t get around a single argument here
            without some emotional tripe, outright fabrication of the argument, or
            dismissal of things you find personally uncomfortable. Your fifth loss

            “That you SAY
            abortion causes, which you then go on to define for me, insisting I must agree
            with your every definition.”

            There’s a comical
            irony about you complaining that someone made an argument for you, which you
            don’t like. I mean, that’s comedy gold.

            But fine, as I’m a
            gracious host in this respect…what terms are not agreed upon? Why did you
            wait 3 weeks to say it in this late hour? Did you not understand them? Is it
            just a way for you to worm your way out of an argument that you’ve lost
            otherwise? Please, go into as much detail here about terms we don’t agree upon.
            I’d be happy to address that (directly, as you can see…but you keep saying i
            dont do this!) anytime.

            “I disagree
            with you. I don’t think abortion causes any

            moral and ethical
            problems…”

            You were clear, but
            also dismissive. The fallacy here is that “because I don’t believe it, it
            must not be true”….I’m sure you’re incredibly familiar with this one. Of
            course, abortion *is* the ethical problem in the equation, but why quibble over
            such small details? This is good though. We disagree. Unfortunately, there’s
            more to it you wont like..but i’ll wait to see if you reply to this and go from
            there.

            “One of the
            moral and ethical problems of this

            discussion is about
            choice, also known as liberty.”

            And with liberty
            comes responsibility. There is no right, no freedom, which does not have this
            characteristic. We covered this before. The question, as far as philosophical
            items goes, is whether or not something like bodily autonomy trumps the right
            to life. Is that direct enough of an idea for you?

            “Not abortion
            – abortions will always happen and the

            only public
            question is should they be safe and legal or unsafe and illegal”

            So, because it’s
            always been done, it must be correct. Can we play “name that
            fallacy?” again with this?

            Even if it
            “always happens”…that does not again remove any ethical or moral
            concerns that might be attached to it. Your answer is a dodge, and nothing more.

            “The two
            states are not mutually exclusive. Of course, you dismissed Ms. Bailey as human
            being a long time ago, didn’t you?”

            They’re not
            mutually exclusive, but they are linked i this case. Of course, the one who
            dismissed her as being “effed up” was you, remember? Then, you
            realized you completely did so and changed your answer to “she’s
            complex”.

            It’s amazing how
            obtuse your own answers are, and how fast you have to scramble to correct them. Let’s see you make another one!

            “That you
            can’t tell that Bailey, a living breathing

            thinking feeling
            adult human being capable of reproduction, if ‘effed up, is

            more complex than a
            brainless embryo relying on Bailey to exist in the first

            place, is your
            problem.”

            I can tell she’s
            “effed up”…but on my end, I feel professional help and a better set
            of goals and likely friends would help improve her disposition. I wasn’t the
            one who called her “Effed up” and dismissed her as some idiot off the
            street. That belongs to you. The fact that she’s “more complex” is
            also, in context (i know you hate that word), morally the same as her unborn child.
            Remember, both have intrinsic value/inalienable rights…or do those only apply
            when you say so?

            “I’ve asked
            you many times to tell me what you think.”

            And i’ve answered
            with what I think, to which you promptly twist around to sound like something
            else. It’s been one of the core
            features of our discussions.

            “Much of the
            rest of the time you’ve opined that the question is illegitimate so you don’t
            have to answer”

            If the point or
            question isn’t really about this topic, and is nothing more than you injecting
            a red herring, why entertain it? You certainly didn’t argue hard when I pointed
            those out, about why they weren’t. You simply moved on to another inane point
            and tried to do it that way.

            “A lot of the
            rest of the time you’ve resorted to ad hominem attacks and pretending perfectly
            logical and scientifically accurate arguments are “fallacies.”

            Yes, I am totally
            guilty of those, but Pot…meet Kettle. I’m perfectly fine with dropping those,
            the moment you do. I’ve said before, I’d respond in kind. If you choose to
            engage me that way, I not so sweet as to let you badger me indefinitely. When
            you can drop them and debate properly, then you’ll notice mine evaporate
            immediately. Sounds fair, but I don’t think you’ll do it.

            “And there you
            go: dancing around the point, again. YOU

            keep insisting the
            embryo is individually alive, not I.”

            And embryology has
            demonstrate and prove it is. It is a distinct biological entity, with its own
            unique DNA through the combination of both parents. Your continued massive
            equivocation of “individual” is wrong, has been told to you as such,
            and yet you cling to it. The child is a seperate life within the womb…it’s
            not the mother’s life splitting off like an amoeba. It’s not some magical
            process otherwise. Your interpretation is that because it’s not born, out
            walking around, and has a picture on Facebook, that clearly it’s not an
            individual.

            I even pointed out
            where PJ had linked texts describing this very thing to you, which you
            promptly, conveniently, and predictably ignored. The easy distinction made here
            is one you refuse to acknowledge, no matter how many facts or how many texts
            you’re given. Acceptance of this one single fact would undermine the remainder
            of your argument. Please, cling to it bitterly some more.

            “I know
            perfectly well that when you separate an embryo

            from the body that
            keeping it alive, it will be dead.”

            Yet, it’s still a
            second life there. What’s confusing about that? Does pregnancy generate, in
            your opinion, something dead that later comes to life and grows? You’d be happy
            to know that Spontaneous Generation theories went out, sometime I believe on or
            before the 1700’s? Might need to be sure of the date, but we can be sure that
            people haven’t believed that for quite some time. Until you came along.

            “Calling human
            beings “locations” is the ridiculous

            item.”

            Except no one did.
            The fetus, while gestating, is located in the womb of the mother. What other
            location is being discussed here? Are you really just that ridiculously over
            your head, that this is the level of response? Apparently.

            “Feel free to
            ask any authority you like if women make

            fetal life
            possible.”

            Why ask when the
            answer is that women gestate the fetus and make it possible….as a common
            point of understanding that even small children understand. Is that direct
            enough for you?

            “So when I say
            you call the fetus a separate and distinctentity unto itself,I’m lying, but when you say you’ve said it, you’re not.

            ROFL…”

            Except that’s not
            what you’re arguing really. We both know this is simply your way of trying to
            back out of a position you’ve failed to defend. It’s pretty clear, based on the
            exchange from before, that what you beleive as “separate and
            distinct” is categorically different than what is being talked about. Of
            course, if you were to believe that a fetus was, in fact, both of those things,
            then you’d be countering your own argument that there is no moral or ethical
            component, since killing an innocent individual is morally wrong.

            See how that works?
            Please, however….quote yourself about how you’ve made the same point as me,
            in the same context, and yet I’m calling it wrong. Love to see it!

            “Don’t look
            now, but every living thing is “clumps

            of cells.”
            Honest. (Ask a biologist.)”

            How silly. So, is
            it ok for someone to shoot you in the head, because you’re just a clump of
            cells? How about your neighbor? Just another clump. See how silly and whimsical
            this line of idea is, and why it’s not used seriously by anyone in a debate?

            “A zygote is
            literally nothing but a clump of

            undifferentiated
            cells”

            Which, given the
            chance, develops far past that point. The idea that it’s a “clump of
            cells” is only to dehumanize a human life at this particular stage of
            development. If it’s not going to be human, then what is it? A dog? Cat? Bear?
            At what point are you not human?

            Don’t look now, but
            your callous cherry picking might show if you’re not careful.

            “You might try
            comparing them to a picture a fully

            grown living woman,
            just as a reference.”

            Sure, and I’d see
            two living beings at different stages of development, but both from the same
            species, both with the same typical growth patterns, the same biological
            processes when both are at equal times in development….all of those
            inconvenient items you forget to mention. Morally, the location of a person,
            the age of the person, or their current abilities…none of those make a
            difference in a moral discussion. Again, you lose.

            “What a liar
            you are.”

            This is, of course,
            completely proven by…oh, wait. It wasn’t. You didn’t say anything else,
            didn’t point to where a lie had been said, and didn’t rebuke me about it. Guess
            we’ll just have to guess what it was, right? That’s not very direct of you!

            “You don’t
            have a single solitary ounce of empathy for

            them, or you’d
            leave them alone to live their lives without your interference.”

            So, because I
            actually care what happens to innocent life, I in fact am actually displaying
            no empathy. Can you explain how someone displays empathy, and the complete lack
            of it….at the same time in the same subject? And here, you claim I’m skewing
            words and language. Pish posh.

            “I have
            assumed…….”

            And again, therein
            lies the problem. You do know the adage about what assuming does, I gather?

            Rather than assume,
            you could actually figure it out by reading (read: understanding) what’s been
            put here, but you’ve opted for another path.

            “I have
            assumed you’d be fine if no woman anywhere can

            get a safe, legal
            abortion.”

            If her life is in
            danger, i’m all for it. Unfortunately, “I don’t want to change my
            schedule” doesn’t really convey a message of life or death, now does it?

            “Good – then
            you agree women should be able to have safe, legal abortions if they choose to.
            That brings the maternal death rate right down,

            most particular
            maternal deaths from murder and suicide.”

            I would agree that
            women should have access to health care and other options. I would agree that
            people should make better choices (you can get behind that idea, right?) and
            not destroy innocent life for convenience. I believe that it’s better to spare
            life, mother or child, than destroy it without consideration. What brings
            maternal death rates down is better medical care, the elimination of diseases,
            and advances in technology. Those reduce those as well, without resorting to
            abortion.

            You, not
            surprisingly, didn’t think of that. Your view is very narrow and goes only one
            way.

            Oddly enough, the
            only thing I might even remotely be kidding myself about is that you’d answer
            questions honestly, represent your opponents position with some other than
            needing the line “I assumed”, and that you fleshed out your arguments
            to a better degree, rather than posting items which contradict you entirely and
            show I was right.

            Who is kidding who
            here? :)

            Are we about done?
            I mean, same thing as before. You respond, I’ll respond. You can drop the
            attitude anytime, and you’ll find mine goes away immediately. Or don’t, and
            then complain about it again. Your choice.

          • TheDingus

            Well, we could go ’round and ’round or I can posit some clearly stated questions based in fact, law, history and logic, and you may endeavor to answer them in a direct, reasoned, non-personal manner.

            .
            From the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

            Not all religions prohibit abortion.

            Explain why and how Congress may make some law prohibiting women from exercising their own religious beliefs allowing abortion, although it’s plainly stated Congress may make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

            From the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, are citizens of the United States… No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

            Explain why any State may abridge female citizen’s immunities and privileges (such as freedom from unwarranted search and seizure, and the right to exercise their own religion) and deprive them of life, liberty and property without due process of law.

            Explain why laws applying only to women are not unequal protection of the laws.

          • Cynical_Meliorist

            “Well, we could go ’round and ’round or I can posit some clearly stated questions based in fact, law, history and logic, and you may endeavor to answer them in a direct, reasoned, non-personal manner.”

            That would be much preferred. I won’t even make a jab about the subject change. Let’s endeavor to do this, then.

            “Not all religions prohibit abortion.”

            Perhaps. I’m not entirely familiar with ones that expressly label it as positive, but it could be pointed out that denominations such as the Episcopal Church (as a readily known example) have factions that support pro-choice. I don’t disagree here.

            “Explain why and how Congress may make some law prohibiting women from exercising their own religious beliefs allowing abortion, although it’s plainly stated Congress may make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.”

            There’s a few reasons this could be accomplished in this manner. An important distinction in stating this is that there’s no establishment of religion, specifically. The idea of a separation between church and state (while it would be something to debate exactly what was meant…I look to Jefferson’s letters specifically) isn’t what’s being infringed or changed in this case. You even note yourself that different religions have different beliefs, and while we can point out that a large majority of religions oppose abortion, following that line of thinking isn’t *itself* the endorsement of a state religion, or one religion over another for purposes of the law.

            Second, one doesn’t need to be religious to believe that abortion is immoral. Moral issues, principles, ethics, and things which run along in this vein, don’t need to be religious at all. In fact, I think religion tends to gum up the works when it’s wedged into the discussion.

            The context, as well, of the free exercise of religion, has limitations. For example, if your religion says it’s ok to set people on fire, as a highly unlikely example, you still wouldn’t be allowed to do so. There are practical examples of this in law, as we can both state easily, where a person’s religions beliefs don’t trump things like established common law (a fast example would be people who think paying income taxes goes against their religion…the courts have unilaterally rejected such arguments). That we have a freedom to practice religion, in many facets, doesn’t allow for the unabridged practice of religion and its dogma simply because we want it to be so.

            Using just those 3 things that come to mind first, I don’t believe the application you’re inferring with the 1st Amendment is correct.

            “Explain why any State may abridge female citizen’s immunities and privileges (such as freedom from unwarranted search and seizure, and the right to exercise their own religion) and deprive them of life, liberty and property without due process of law.”

            This would specifically require examples where, for instance, a woman was subject to that treatment. You would then have to bank it against whatever case law applies to that instance. Since we’ve discussed the exercise of religion above, the only thing left here would be the removal of rights. I would guess, based on our previous exchanges, that you believe outlawing on-demand abortion (and only the on demand function, for argument sake) would be a violation of this tenet. However, you also have to consider the end of the statement there.

            “Without due process.”

            In defining due process, for example, it’s equally possible one could make a case that Roe v. Wade deprived people of due process (born people, as a matter of statement…but if we allow religious belief to dictate abortion is ok, then the pendulum would swing back the other way and make it alright to make it illegal for the same reason), or that a viable fetus could be denied due process under the law. This last part is specifically important, since the Courts stated that there were to be restrictions, escalating in effect based on the age of the fetus…but certainly allow a bit of latitude to include allowing a viable fetus to be terminated. In fact, there is an excellent article posted here the other day about this specific case and a few errors contained in it, which may be of value.

            I would ask, based on this, what due process would be acceptable, if the result were to overturn Roe, or restrict abortion in such a manner as to remove the on demand function? Specifically, if due process were followed, would you simply accept that as the case?

            “Explain why laws applying only to women are not unequal protection of the laws.”

            Without chiding you about this, it’s a loaded question. There’s a limited number of ways to answer it, and all of them are designed to specifically make it appear as if women are being slighted, that there is misogyny involved, and other such answers. To be clear, you would have to state what law you want to discuss, and why you think it’s unequal.

            We could, as a matter of legal kindness, simply extend laws like this to men, but as we already know, men can’t gestate children. I could point out that, conversely, there is a rather large movement that, for purposes of balance, believe that women are massively favored in the court systems, and there are many father’s rights groups around the country who tirelessly try to make sure that the courts are being unilaterally fair. I don’t think it’s right to burden one side or other unfairly, but at what point do we start making laws for people to whom it never applies? Men can’t have abortions, so how else would we include them in the legal process in this regard?

          • TheDingus

            “Perhaps”

            The following religions do not prohibit abortion:

            (reference:.pewforumdotorg/2013/01/16/religious-groups-official-positions-on-abortion/)

            American Baptist Churches in the U.S.A.

            Buddhism

            Evangelical Lutheran Church in America

            Islam

            Judaism

            Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)

            And: the Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations; the United Church of Christ; the United Methodist Church; Wicca, and paganism.

            “An important distinction in stating this is that there’s no establishment of religion, specifically.”

            Nor can there be. Therefore, there’s no establishment of religion a US citizen must follow as a matter of law.

            “Second, one doesn’t need to be religious to believe that abortion is immoral.”

            One doesn’t need to be religious to believe abortion is moral, either.

            “That we have a freedom to practice religion, in many facets, doesn’t allow for the unabridged practice of religion and its dogma simply because we want it to be so.”

            Certainly depending on the impacts on others. (Please to note, so we don’t spiral downward: I understand you believe a zygote, embryo or fetus is already a person. I do not. You have the
            right to believe what you do, and I have the right to believe what I do.)

            If I am a Lutheran, a Jew, or a Wiccan, it is my religion that abortion is allowed. The government may make no law prohibiting me from exercising my religion. My exercising my religion does not impose on you the requirement that you have an abortion, so it does you no harm.

            The mention of “dogma” is dismissive. What is dogma to you or to me is deeply held sacred belief to someone else. For example, that people have free will, that life is made meaningful by the exercise of will, is a deeply held sacred belief to me. That judgement is God’s and not a strangers’ is a deeply held sacred belief to me. You cannot require me to jettison either, nor do I require you to jettison your beliefs.

            Laws prohibiting abortion would prohibit the free exercise of many religions. We’ve already discussed that a person’s abortion does not cause any harm or grievance to strangers who don’t know of it. They have no standing to insist that the exercise of the woman’s religion be curtailed. They positively do not based on their religion or morality, which she is under no obligation to share.

            The government has no standing to choose their religion or morality over hers, as doing so violates the establishment clause.

            “This would specifically require examples where, for instance, a woman was subject to that treatment.”

            Some hypotheticals: I’m a woman who knows abortion is not prohibited by my religion, but is a personal choice. I seek an abortion only to find they are not available. My right to exercise my religion has been violated without due process of law.

            Not being able to get a legal, medical abortion, I try to abort myself. I do a terrible job, begin hemorrhaging, and die. No one arrested me, charged me, found me guilty of any crime, but I have lost my life, without due process of law.

            Not being able to get a legal, medical abortion, I resign myself to involuntarily remaining pregnant. In labor my blood pressure shoots sky high and I have a stroke and die. My right to life is taken from me without due process of law.

            …I am violently sick for the first four months and can’t work (See: the Duchess of York.) My liberty and my possible earnings (my property) are taken from me without due process of law.

            ….The labor goes on for 37 hours. I did not want to labor to at all. My right to be free from involuntary servitude has been stripped from me without due process of law.

            … the pregnancy is slightly complicated and the pre-natal care and childbirth by Ceasarian section costs $20,000. I have been deprived of property (money) without due process of law.

            It comes down to if pregnancy and birth are voluntary or involuntary. Laws that strip women of their right to decide what happens to their own bodies, their own liberty, their own labor, and their own property without first having them arrested, tried and convicted of a crime, are unconstitutional.

            This is not a mental experiment: they are unconstitutional according to the Supreme Court of the United States.

            “for example, it’s equally possible one could make a case that Roe v. Wade deprived people of due process…”

            I do not see how.

            “or that a viable fetus could be denied due process under the law…”

            A fetus, viable or not, has no rights under law. The authority to regulate on behalf of a viable fetus was granted to the States, as long as due process is afforded to the woman regarding her right to life.

            ” what due process would be acceptable”

            The same as precedes the deprivation of any right: you must have probable cause to suspect a crime has been committed. You must get a warrant to search for or seize evidence. You must allow the accused a trial at law and a defense, and cannot require her to testify against herself. You must convict her. That’s what due process means. It’s individual and specific.

            Being female is not a crime. Having sex is not a crime. Being pregnant is not a crime. Not being pregnant is not a crime. Being Jewish rather than Catholic is not a crime.

            What due process would you find acceptable to discover if a woman is pregnant and must remain so even against her own beliefs, or was pregnant but is no longer, and how, and if she committed a crime?

            “…it’s a loaded question…”

            It is not a loaded question nor is it designed that way. It’s a straightforward question. The answers may be loaded, as you seem to recognize. But it’s not a bit of clever sleight of hand that there is no way to equally apply laws one way for women and another way for men. It’s just the truth.

            This is equal protection under law: if women do not have the right to choose whether to bear children (perform their role in reproduction) then men do not have the right to choose whether to beget children (perform their role in reproduction).

            This is also equal protection under law: “…we recognized the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child.” If men have the right to choose whether to beget children, women have the equal right to choose whether to bear children.

            This is unequal protection under law: men have the right to choose whether to beget children, but women do not have the right to choose whether to bear children. (That results in men being the owners of women.)

            “To be clear, you would have to state what law you want to discuss, and why you think it’s unequal.”

            A law prohibiting a woman from ending her own pregnancy, thereby preventing her from choosing not to bear a child.

            (Please don’t revert to “if she wasn’t pregnant she wouldn’t have to choose.” Assume she is pregnant and she will think about whether to bear the child, which involves her body, takes many months, and fundamentally affects her person. Because all women do think about it; most of the time they decide to have a child.)

            “We could, as a matter of legal kindness, simply extend laws like this to men, but as we already know, men can’t gestate children.”

            That’s an appeal to male privilege, because you’re mistaken. If people do not have the right to exercise their own religion or morality; if people do not have the right to be secure in their persons or effects; if people do not have the right to choose whether to reproduce, then the government can demand that men have their sperm harvested and they beget children. You probably think that’s ridiculous. You’re right. It is.

            It’s equally ridiculous to imagine the government can demand that women bear and give birth to children.

            I’m going to presume I don’t have to explain why the government has no authority to direct the functioning of men’s reproductive organs. Nor do they have the authority to direct the functioning of women’s. Equal protection under law is not a theory, it’s a right.

            “Men can’t have abortions, so how else would we include them in the legal process in this regard?”

            By forcing them to beget children. There are no babies without men. Or we could go an entirely different route: force them to not beget children. Chemically castrate them at puberty until they can produce proof they’re financially able to care for offspring, and an affidavit from a woman who wants to bear their child or children. That would end nearly all abortions, which is your basis for laws aimed at women, is it not? Why not aim laws preventing abortions at men? Why not make it men’s responsibility to ensure there are very few abortions by affecting how the male body functions?

            Allow me to provide the answer: because men are individual human persons with rights that may not be stripped from them without due process of law, based solely on their gender.

            Either people (men and women) may choose for themselves whether or not to become parents, or the government can choose for them. To insist we can have it one way for men and a different way for women, because of how their reproductive organs work, is a violation of the 14th Amendment. Men and women are people with rights, no matter how their reproductive organs work.

            (This is not a theoretical point. It was decided as a matter of Constitutional law in 1973.)

          • Cynical_Meliorist

            “The following religions do not prohibit abortion:”

            You quote Islam, which I can tell you already is a sticky subject. Also, there are specific parts of Islam (the Shiite community, being the first that come to mind) specifically state abortion is absolutely wrong at any time. Here is a link (dot removed to bypass mediation) which counters your claim. Some groups have a window where it’s allowed (40 days, even to 4 months), but afterwards completely outlaw it entirely.

            “http://www.islamawareness[dot]net/FamilyPlanning/Abortion/abortion3.html

            The remainder in the list seems…suspect. Baptists, especially Southern Baptists (not a small minority) oppose it outright. The others, you may have a point, but those two entries would be a stretch, at best, or incorrect if taken with all details involved.

            I would point out that not having a prohibition against something is *not* creative license for them to do go out and do it, either. The church I’m considering attending doesn’t prohibit the use of alcohol. That doesn’t mean I should bring vodka shots for Sunday School to share.

            “Nor can there be. Therefore, there’s no establishment of religion a US citizen must follow as a matter of law.”

            Again, your conclusion is flawed. There is no actual “Pro life Religion”. There is no Church of the Pro-Life, nor any other establishment thereof. Your “establishment of religion” is flawed because it’s equivocating that legal doctrine with the idea that someone who is religious is also pro life. Even in your own arguments, when the pendulum swings the other way, you would have to admit that these things are completely different or that the counter your overall argument. When someone writes an entire religious text based on abortion, starts a church based entirely on opposing abortion, registers for a C-style tax exempt status as an actual church, and creates an actual religion, then you might have a point. This isn’t the case, and citing the “establishment of religion” is incorrect and reflects the opposite view of what the law actually stands for at its base.

            “One doesn’t need to be religious to believe abortion is moral,either.”

            True, the pendulum here swings both ways. I can’t argue that. It’s the “why” in this case that matters, and frames the moral and ethical debate.

            “If I am a Lutheran, a Jew, or a Wiccan, it is my religion that abortion is allowed. The government may make no law prohibiting me from exercising my religion.”

            Actually, this is kind of wrong. There is no religion (that we’ve named so far, at least) where abortion is something you are, in fact, compelled to do. There is a large difference, as noted before, between allowing it and forcing it as a condition of belief. On the other hand, if those religions don’t believe that an unborn child is human, then their moral compass wouldn’t point to protecting that life anyway. Anecdotal in nature, but the handful of Wiccan women I know (one being a charming woman who leads a Coven) all believe that life came from the Goddess, and that destroying such life would be a direct rejection of Her Grace.

            Otherwise, we do outlaw or restrict practices when it puts others in danger or creates a lack of public safety. For example, the HL case specifically stated that while it was allowing the exemption for them, it would not allow for other things to be challenged, such as vaccinations. They stated this to prevent people from using religion to damage public health and safety. There are many examples of this, but that’s the best one legally I can come up with at 7 am, and it fits. Your religious beliefs don’t give you a blank slate to do what you want, anymore than it does me. That is, by definition, equal treatment.

            “The mention of “dogma” is dismissive.”

            Not at all. Dogma is simply the practices and worship methods laid down for a specific religion, to which they adhere and believe are completely true. There’s no dismissive nature in stating this, especially since we’re talking about religion as a whole, and therefore each one would have its own specific (and different) tenets. Dogmatic practice of Catholics isn’t what Wiccans do, or Baptists, or Lutherans. It’s not a dismissal. It’s a statement of fact. So when you say this:

            “What is dogma to you or to me is deeply held sacred
            belief to someone else.”

            You’re confirming my statement. It’s what I am saying. It’s not a slam, a contradiction, a lie, or a misstep on my part. We are in agreement over what dogma means and entails.

            “For example, that people have free will, that life is
            made meaningful by the exercise of will, is a deeply held sacred belief to me. That judgement is God’s and not a stranger’s is a deeply held sacred belief to me.”

            I believe that existence is sometimes also made meaningful by the denying of some pleasures, which some may not have a problem with at all. I would also caution that the term “judge” in Biblical context is often taken in the wrong way. For example, the “judge not, lest ye be judged” that is often touted by pro-abortion supporters is actually better (and more properly) translated from the text as “Condemn not, lest ye be condemned”. The remainder of the Bible teaches people to *judge* properly. To use discernment and proper thought. Not condemn. If we weren’t allowed to judge anything, we couldn’t even have this conversation because it would require a judgment call on someone’s behalf. I figure this is a distinction worth mentioning.

            “Laws prohibiting abortion would prohibit the free
            exercise of many religions.”

            Except that specifically having an abortion is neither a precept nor condition of belief for anything you’ve stated, or any religion we can name. Again, not caring is a completely different context than saying your religion specifically spells out and calls for it directly.

            “We’ve already discussed that a person’s abortion does not cause any harm or grievance to strangers who don’t know of it.”

            We have. We also discussed that the act itself, should it have a moral factor, would render this argument moot. Doing something in secret doesn’t change the moral or ethical ties that go along with it.

            “They have no standing to insist that the exercise of the woman’s religion be curtailed.”

            Again, the pendulum swings both ways. If religion specifically states this as abhorrent and immoral, then your own argument would be that we can’t curtail their religious belief on the subject. It ends up being circular.

            “The government has no standing to choose their religion or morality over hers, as doing so violates the establishment clause.”

            As a matter of law, this is incorrect. The law makes, and counters, moral arguments all of the time. Morality, as you point out, doesn’t equal religion. Since we already know that there’s no establishment of a religion involved, this makes the statement untrue. On the other hand, courts tackle moral issues regularly. Consider an easy example. Murder. Is murder morally right? Normally, no. But what about death from self defense? Or accidental death? Depraved indifference? Notice each of them carry a separate moral position, and a specific legal position. How and why those are applied can vary in some form, and how they’re seen by courts can also vary on evidence, the judge, the ability of lawyers to argue, the ability to convince a jury one way or the other, and items of other legal importance (the introduction of evidence, exclusion of evidence that would purposely find someone guilty but is not allowed on technical grounds, etc).

            “: I’m a woman who knows abortion is not prohibited by my religion, but is a personal choice. I seek an abortion only to find they are not available. My right to exercise my religion has been violated without due process of law”

            In this hypothetical, your negative conclusion is based on a positive premise. When you inserted “personal choice”, you created a dichotomy. In this case, if your religion prohibits such behavior, but you violate that tenet, then your beliefs are something we could point to and say you don’t really hold. You’re not following them because you don’t like them, even though it’s specifically disallowed. You wouldn’t, in this case, be exercising any religious belief at all…..you’d be violating your religious belief, and wouldn’t be able to do so and then claim your are being violated by someone else. Either your belief is violated by another, or you’re violating it yourself and claiming victim status afterwards. It doesn’t go both ways.

            “Not being able to get a legal, medical abortion, I try to abort myself. I do a terrible job, begin hemorrhaging, and die. No one arrested me, charged me, found me guilty of any crime, but I have lost my life, without due process of law.”

            If you’re mixing religion and law, then the question is “why are you having one?” Is it from an affair, which your religion specifically would likely say is also morally wrong? Is it because you’re acting in a manner inconsistent with your religion, such as sex out of wedlock? As before, you can’t claim violation of religious rights when *you* are the one violating them. Past this, if the reason was for medical necessity, you’d find no barrier which renders the example moot. If you did something that caused your own death, then there’s no process of law to follow. You took an action that resulted in your own demise. Who would you legally, in theory, act against? You’re the action taker, and legally, you would be responsible. You could try and sue yourself, but that wouldn’t go far. In this hypothetical, you didn’t exercise any due process or engage in a legal activity. It doesn’t work that way.

            “Not being able to get a legal, medical abortion, I resign myself to involuntarily remaining pregnant. In labor my blood pressure shoots sky high and I have a stroke and die. My right to life is taken from me without due process of law.”

            Again, if the life of the mother is at stake, as you’re saying here, then abortion would be a logical and ethical choice. I would think your doctors to be competent enough to notice this. As stated before, the risk of this happening is exceedingly rare. You can’t justify a rule based on the exception, no matter how unfortunate it is or how it ends up. It’s sad, and no one wants the mother or child to die, as we’ve talked about before…but we can’t use exceptions to justify rules.

            “I am violently sick for the first four months and can’t work (See: the Duchess of York.) My liberty and my possible earnings (my property) are taken from me without due process of law.”

            As a matter of law, you might have the right to sue or gain recompense. There are laws on the books for such things in most states. Your “liberty” being impugned would be a matter of subjective definition. If you were sick for 4 months from another cause, would you still have the same right? Likely. Would your liberty be taken from you in a case where you wrapped your own vehicle around a tree? Of course. Again, you can’t sue yourself. The “loss of liberty” here is not what likely rises to the legal definition, and you would have to show evidence and case law to justify the claim. So far, no abortion supporter has ever done so, but if you can, I would be interested in reading it.

            “the pregnancy is slightly complicated and the prenatal care and childbirth by Cesarian section costs $20,000. I have been deprived of property (money) without due process of law.”

            A few things that you might not include…insurance, forgiveness of debt by the hospital if you’re indigent, CPC’s helping pay delivery costs and medical expenses, the taking of a collection at your church (we’ve discussed religion already, so…fair game), or other such charity. Hospitals commonly dismiss all or some of a debt if the person cannot pay and has no means of doing so, citing it as an emergency situation (which legally, they cannot turn you away). This example would need specifics , but it’s completely possible (even likely, depending on the option) that you’re deprived of neither legal means nor financial gains.

            “… It comes down to if pregnancy and birth are voluntary or involuntary.”

            Legally, morally, or spiritually? If rape was involved, then it’s more complicated on some level. If we’re talking about 99% of cases, which aren’t from rape, then we have a different direction to take. Did you voluntarily act to get pregnant, either by lack of precaution and care, or failure of a birth control device? Again, details are needed, because the blanket statement about this isn’t sufficient to base a nuanced case on.

            “This is not a mental experiment: they are unconstitutional according to the Supreme Court of the United States.”

            They are, but when you equivocate terms like “labor”, which were not meant to encompass the description of what child birth was like, you muddy the argument. The Founding Fathers didn’t consider pregnancy labor the same as working in a field for 10 hours a day. These terms use the same word, but they *legally* are different. If this is incorrect, then please cite the correct case law.

            “A fetus, viable or not, has no rights under law.”

            This is factually incorrect. If a man fathers a child, and dies before the child is born, but stipulates in his will that his possessions go to the unnamed child, then that child is named the benefactor of the estate pre-birth. This has been steeped in common law since, if memory serves, not long after the Magma Carta was signed. At that point in history, it was done more for hierarchy rights for the Crown, for land owners and those higher in society, but eventually was adopted broadly. This law and its reverberations are still done in the US today. My own will (drawn up by a lawyer), as a matter of fact, has this clause encapsulated within it’s stipulations. Should I die, and someone be pregnant with a child not yet born, my possessions can be split with them equally among my other children. The fact that a family member is designated as proxy does not remove the right the unborn child has to receive an inheritance, and legally holds up in every court in the land.

            Yet, we don’t consider them people? Legally, the argument that’s being made on your side doesn’t fit with already established common law and practice in place for centuries.

            “The same as precedes the deprivation of any right: you must have probable cause to suspect a crime has been committed.”

            This makes a leap that abortion, being illegal, also bears a criminal penalty. The making of abortion illegal, as has been described in public forums including here, would not include a penalty for the woman. Any penalty would be levied against the abortionist. See the Roe v. Wade article here on this site from the other day. This is explained in some detail.

            This explanation, and the legal one on the aforementioned page, undermines your argument that women would not only be made into criminals, and thrown in jail. It wouldn’t happen, and legally couldn’t happen *because* of due process. It doesn’t mean abortion can’t be restricted. It simply means the penalties are directed at the person who performed it, rather than the recipient.

            “What due process would you find acceptable to discover if a woman is pregnant and must remain so even against her own beliefs, or was pregnant but is no longer, and how, and if she committed a crime?”

            You’re asking me, in a round about way, the very type of question I asked you. The same due process, as an answer, that we use already. The same protections and discovery protocols already approved and codified into law would be appropriate, no? If you believe the current laws are already fair, then why exclude them, other than to bias the argument? Since these would be levied against the abortionist, the woman in question wouldn’t be punished.

            “It is not a loaded question nor is it designed that way. It’s a straightforward question. The answers may be loaded, as you recognize.”

            Under most circumstances, if the answers are loaded, then the question which creates them must also be loaded. I get where you’re going, but simple questions can have complex, but not loaded, answers. Loaded questions, OTOH, contain loaded answers. It’s very difficult to separate those from each other in that case.

            “This is equal protection under law: if women do not have the right to choose whether to bear children (perform their role in reproduction) then men do not have the right to choose whether to beget children…”

            This is an error. The right to choose whether people have a choice to procreate is different than using an argument which takes place after the fact. They aren’t congruent examples. Let’s say you and your husband are talking about this. Your definition would mean that he would have to come home and have sex with you every day, with or without your consent. Other men would be legally compelled to have sex with you anywhere, at any time.

            Clearly, this is plain way of stating that the notion itself is absurd. Choosing to create a child is a different set of values, and cases, than destroying a child already crated. It’s simply a bad analogy.

            “This is also equal protection under law: “…we recognized the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted
            governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the
            decision whether to bear or beget a child.” If men have the right to choose whether to beget children, women have the equal right to choose whether
            to bear children.”

            You quote this, but there’s no context as to where it’s from. I could guess it’s from Roe, but you don’t cite the source. Please do.

            “(Please don’t revert to “if she wasn’t pregnant she
            wouldn’t have to choose.” Assume she is pregnant and she will think about whether to bear the child, which involves her body, takes many months, and
            fundamentally affects her person. Because all women do think about it; most of the time they decide to have a child.)

            You politely ask me not to revert to it, but you also don’t state why it’s an invalid line of reasoning. Would not her state of mind, before and after, be cogent? Also, assuming she’s pregnant already does nothing but assume the conclusion, rather than allow for multiple outcomes or situations. This wouldn’t follow properly.

            “That’s an appeal to male privilege, because you’re mistaken.”

            Of course, it’s not really male privilege to create laws which work against them. You can’t make laws affecting them negatively and call it privilege, as a footnote. I’ve never advocated men having more rights than women, and stated the opposite on multiple occasions.

            “You probably think that’s ridiculous. You’re right. It is.”

            Which is why it’s not done that way. But women aren’t being compelled to line up and be impregnated either. That pendulum already swings both ways. The fact that we can see a ridiculous outcome from a hypothetical doesn’t remove the fact that factually and in reality, we already don’t do the ridiculous in these areas.

            “I’m going to presume I don’t have to explain why the government has no authority to direct the functioning of men’s reproductive organs. Nor do they have the authority to direct the functioning of women’s.”

            Specifically, you’re right. They don’t have the authority to compel either person to create children. This, however, is not the argument being made. It’s about what happens *after* pregnancy occurs, with the discussion being specific about the right to life versus bodily autonomy. Again, reference this site and you’ll find several arguments against bodily autonomy and while it fails. There’s a gentleman I’ve been pointed to, named Clint Wilcox, who on his website has also deconstructed this argument. They make them better than I do, and i find their logic to be correct on the matter. Past this, I find that you’re conflating “forcing to be pregnant” into an equivocation based on temporal items rather than the defining of the term for each.

            “By forcing them to beget children. There are no babies without men. Or we could go an entirely different route: force them to not beget children.”

            Which, by your definition, would be without due process. Equal is equal, after all. Again, no one is forcing men or women to create children. It’s not the argument being made, it’s not one anyone wants to make, and using it to justify the part of the debate only adds confusion.

            “That would end nearly all abortions, which is your basis for laws aimed at women, is it not? ”

            Two things, specifically. First, it wouldn’t. Women would still, who don’t want to be pregnant as you’d say, would still act foolish, ignorantly, even prepared against such a thing…and still find themselves pregnant. A woman cheating on her husband, for example, doesn’t want him to know and aborts. A woman who gets pregnant with a guy who wants to actually have the child could abort (and does already) for the same reasons. Changing the landscape with such rules you mention wouldn’t change the *actions* of people. It would only change them to some degree, if not create more of a problem.

            “Why not aim laws preventing abortions at men?”

            This is what I asked. What laws, following your own due process and fairness doctrines, would align? Of course, preventing men from implanting a woman with his seed would slow abortion down. On the other hand, it wouldn’t curtail it, as demonstrated above, and those like yourself who believe that on-demand abortion is perfectly fine wouldn’t budge on the issue. If it were restricted in such a way, using your criteria, then it logically and legally would also follow that the woman would then *have* to carry the child to term. The answer as to why is simply. You’ve already followed your own due process.

            “Allow me to provide the answer: because men are individual human persons with rights that may not be stripped from them without due process of
            law, based solely on their gender.”

            However right this may be, if we consider the unborn child as an individual human person, as it scientifically, genetically, and logically can be demonstrated, then your own answer undermines your position. The action of being born wouldn’t remove the fact that it’s a unique individual, validated by every science we have. It wouldn’t change the fact that such an individual is human, because even the obvious question of “what else could it be?” clears this up.

            Your own due process argument actually makes my case for me. Not being mean, not being snappy, but stating that as fact. If we extend the same due process, as you claim, to individual human persons, then the unborn qualify as well. We can quibble over “person” , which likely is a definition we wouldn’t agree upon. but the first parts of the equation wouldn’t really be up for factual debate.

            “Either people (men and women) may choose for themselves whether or not to become parents, or the government can choose for them.”

            They already can choose, and the government already has no say. Restricting abortion wouldn’t change that answer. The fact that when a woman becomes pregnant, that they are expecting a child and now both are parents at that point (though your argument will be that the child isn’t born and thus i’m wrong…which i disagree. To drive this home, we don’t call an expectant father or the expectant mother something else..the expectant part is the temporal qualifier, but the role of mother and father is established even that early on) cannot be assaulted by the government.

            “To insist we can have it one way for men and a different way for women, because of how their reproductive organs work, is a violation of the 14th Amendment.”

            Then it’s a good thing, for everyone involved, that this isn’t being done and isn’t being suggested.

            Thank you for the pleasant exchange. It’s nice to get back to this, disagreement notwithstanding. It was a good reply.

          • TheDingus

            “You quote Islam, which I can tell you already is a sticky subject.”

            Not at all. Islam, in general, forbids abortion after the fourth month, therefore allowing it before then. It doesn’t matter if some people within Islam disagree; it matters that some people within Islam agree.

            I gave you a link, so if you find the list “suspect” feel free to do your own reading.

            Being pro-choice is a religious belief. The question is: does a woman have the right to practice her own religion? The answer is yes. It’s not equivocal. It’s not, “maybe, but Aalim Ibn Mohammed says…”

            SOME aspects of religious practice MIGHT be curtailed, but there has to be a reason to deny the fundamental right to practice Islam, for example, other than “Some of us don’t agree with certain teachings of Islam.” Your remedy is, don’t pracitce Islam. You have a right to the free exercise of whichever religion you choose.

            “Your “establishment of religion” is flawed because it’s equivocating that legal doctrine with the idea that someone who is religious is also pro life.”

            No: it’s equating the idea that someone who is religious is pro-choice because of their religion.

            I was responding to this: “An important distinction in stating this is that there’s no establishment of religion, specifically.” I agree. Is it only an important distinction when you make it?

            “There is no religion (that we’ve named so far, at least) where abortion is something you are, in fact, compelled to do.”

            Yay for pro choice. Yay for free will.

            There are religions where one is not compelled to refrain from abortion. You argue that people should be compelled to refrain from abortion
            even against their own religious beliefs. It’s not my fault you can’t come up with sufficient justification for stripping people of their religious freedoms. You can’t because there isn’t one.

            “Otherwise, we do outlaw or restrict practices when it puts others in danger or creates a lack of public safety.”

            The outlawing of abortion would put women in danger, creating a lack of public safety.

            The belief that a zygote, embryo or fetus is an “other” is just that: a belief. It is not universally shared. You’re arging from your beliefs and dismissing the rights of others to their own
            beliefs.

            A ZEF does not exist in public; abortion causes no public safety crisis. My abortion did not affect the health or safety of a single solitary member of the public.

            “For example, the HL case specifically stated that while it was allowing the exemption for them, it would not allow for other things to be challenged, such as vaccinations.”

            It did not say that. It said the Court would take each challenge on a case by case basis. By stating that, the HL decision was an unconstitutional abuse of power where the Court granted itself authority to establish which religions they will protect and which they will not, in violation of the establishment clause. (Vatican City must have been ecstatic.)

            I fully expect the ruling will not withstand history for that reason, but I thank those five Catholics for reiterating once again that the right to freely exercise one’s religious beliefs may not be violated.

            “Your religious beliefs don’t give you a blank slate to do what you want, anymore than it does me.”

            No one’s asking for a blank slate. I’m asking if people can exercise their actual religions. (The answer isn’t rocket science. It’s “Yes.”)

            “We are in agreement over what dogma means and entails.”

            No, we’re not. Dogma may mean “a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted… without being questioned or doubted.” I believe everyone should actively question and doubt any belief or set of
            beliefs. (“if you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him.”) The use of the word dogma implies non-thinking, and has a negative connotation to me. Do not tell me what I think words mean, please.

            “I believe that existence is sometimes also made meaningful by the denying of some pleasures, which some may not have a problem with at
            all.”

            You are free to live your life by that belief.

            Liberty is more than “a pleasure.”

            “… is actually better (and more properly) translated from the text as “Condemn not, lest ye be condemned”.

            Either way works for me. Either way, the power is God’s, not yours.

            That we can discuss judgement is clear. That you can therefore impose your judgement or spritual condemnation on me does not follow.

            “Except that specifically having an abortion is neither a precept nor condition of belief for anything you’ve stated, or any religion we
            can name.”

            You make having an abortion the only valid precept or condition for “belief” up out of whole cloth. That one may have an abortion is also a valid precept of religions. I just idientified
            many for which the right to have an abortion is a precept.

            I have the right to my own beliefs, and to exercise them. I have the right to take my own spriitual journey, not someone else’s. In fact it’s a facet of my belief that each individual has a unique
            relationship with God. (“But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy God which is in secret; and thy God which seeth in secret shall reward
            thee openly.”)

            “not caring is a completely different context than saying your religion specifically spells out and calls for it directly.”

            So what? My religion specifically allows it. Please address that. All you’re doing is equivocating.

            “We also discussed that the act itself, should it have a moral factor, would render this argument moot.”

            It does not render the argument moot. You cannot seek redress for a grievance you don’t actually have. You cannot seek redress for harms not done to or suffered by you.

            “Doing something in secret doesn’t change the moral or ethical ties that go along with it.”

            If doing something to yourself in private that you have a right to do in private has moral or ethical ties, they are God’s to judge or condemn, not yours.

            “If religion specifically states this as abhorrent and immoral, then your own argument would be that we can’t curtail their religious belief on the subject.”

            That’s correct, we cannot. Therefore I do not demand that people either accept abortion nor have them, and would be equally appalled if the
            government tried to impose having an abortion on people who do not believe in it. (Consistently dismissing the word “choice” from the pro-choice argument is intellectual dishonesty and nothing more.)

            You’re the only one who wants to establish one possible personal belief as the law for everyone, here.

            To be clear: I am not referring to you having to live in a world where there is abortion; on that score, you just have to stop imagining the distress you stoke in yourself is other’s responsibility to
            alleviate. The remedy is for you to grow up. (I’d advise you to consider a 12 step program – “God grant me the serenity…”)

            “Notice each of them carry a separate moral position, and a specific legal position. How and why those are applied can vary in some form….
            etc.”

            That’s precisly the point. Stripping a person’s rights, life, liberty or property without evidence, without a complaint, a judge, a trial, a
            conviction or a ruling is unconstitutional. Doing so simply on the basis of gender is discriminatory (and outrageous).

            “…if your religion prohibits such behavior, but you violate that tenet, then your beliefs are something we could point to and say you don’t really hold. ”

            No, we can’t. It’s not up to you, the courts or the government to determine whether my beliefs are consistent or valid. See: the HL case, where the completely inaccurate belief that preventing
            pregnancy (implantation) is the same as ending pregnancy was dismissed from consideration because judging the validity people’s beliefs is
            outside the authority of the Court.

            “You wouldn’t, in this case, be exercising any religious belief at all…”

            In your hypothetical, that’s true. In reality, I’m following the precepts of my religion, which allows abortion. Care to address that?

            “If you’re mixing religion and law, then the question is ‘why are you having one?’ ”

            I’m not mixing anything. I’m discussing rights. Freedom of religion is one right. The right to life is another. The question is not yours to ask. It’s none of your business if I am pregnant or not: neither my private sex life nor my medical history
            is your concern. My sex life most certainly isn’t the government’s business, and my medical history isn’t either, absent a public health issue. Abortion is a private health issue. They take place inside
            people’s bodies, in private, not in the public square.

            “…if the reason was for medical necessity, you’d find no barrier which renders the example moot.”

            Untrue. I would have to go to some authority, provide them with my medical records and plead my case, and hope they’re not some misogynistic
            sadist who dismisses anything short of actively bleeding to death as not a good enough reason to have an abortion. (Some Republicans recently
            tried to pass a law that a woman could be denied an emergency abortion even if she died, so don’t say all authorities will have my best interests at heart.) That’s before we get to the cases where
            there is no way to save the woman’s life, even with abortion.

            I am an adult human being with rights and agency. I do not need permission to seek medical care. Do you?

            Snip argument about how my being forced to self-abort by the deliberate removal of legal medically provided abortion is my fault. The answer to your hypothetical is: my husband and family may sue the government for stripping me of my right to life without due process. (I anticipate this will happen in Texas sometime soon.)

            “Again, if the life of the mother is at stake, as you’re saying here, then abortion would be a logical and ethical choice.”

            Read it again. I’m in labor. Labor kills me. There is no point where abortion is an option. I lost my life, which I had a right to. I lost it against my own beliefs. How is that not stripping me of my
            rights?

            Pregnancy and childbirth kill women. That you think that outcome can always be foreseen and prevented is false. That you find it acceptable to
            require people to take that risk against their will is morally repugnant.

            “Your “liberty” being impugned would be a matter of subjective definition. If you were sick for 4 months from another cause, would you still have the same right?”

            How is vomiting repeatedly all day a matter of “subjective” definition? Objectively, it happens. Calling it “subjective” dismisses women – what they experience doesn’t matter, is that your
            argument?

            The question is not, “but if you’re having chemotherapy…” the question is, I was required to remain pregnant, and the result is I am incapable of working when, left to my own devices, I would not be. How is that not depriving me of both liberty and property? Not to mention an assault on my person.

            If I remained sick from some other cause because you refused to allow me to seek treatment, that would also be you stripping me of my rights.
            (If I put Ipecac into your meals daily for three months, would the “subjective” experience of being physically incapacitated by constant vomiting become meaningful? Would that not be an assault on your person?)

            “Would your liberty be taken from you in a case where you wrapped your own vehicle around a tree? Of course.”

            No, I will have impacted it, myself. If you ran into me with your car, yes, it would be taken from me. Again: a matter of whether it is voluntary or involuntary.

            “So far, no abortion supporter has ever done so, but if you can, I would be interested in reading it.”

            Roe, her phsyician and the Does did so, based partly on the denial of their 14th Amendment rights. The 14th Amendment includes the right not to be stripped of liberty without due process. If you haven’t read the case yet, you’re well past due.

            Also, to do so again is not necessary: abortion is legal and women have a Constitutional right to seek them. We’re discussing you endeavoring
            to remove that right from them.

            “but it’s completely possible (even likely, depending on the option) that you’re deprived of neither legal means nor financial gains.”

            It’s completely possible, in fact quite likely, that my money and possible financial gains are taken from me. Care to address that?

            “Legally, morally, or spiritually?”

            All three. Apparently I must clarify something for you: we’re not talking about becoming pregnant. We’re talking about being pregnant. Pregnancy goes on for ~40 weeks and is a function of the woman’s body. “You became pregnant therefore you must remain so” is A conclusion. It’s not the only possible conclusion. If it were, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion.

            “…details are needed, because the blanket statement about this isn’t sufficient to base a nuanced case on.”

            Any more than blanket prohibtions of abortion are legally sufficient.

            “when you equivocate terms like “labor”, which were not meant to encompass the description of what child birth was like, you muddy the argument.”

            Why do you think it’s called it “labor” in the first place? Is the woman’s body doing no physical work in childbirth?

            “If a man fathers a child, and dies before the child is born, but stipulates in his will that his possessions go to the unnamed child,
            then that child is named the benefactor of the estate pre-birth.”

            If the child is never born, what happens to the father’s bequest?

            “…was done more for hierarchy rights for the Crown, for land owners and those higher in society, but eventually was adopted broadly. ”

            In short, it was done to further patriarchy, not in recognition of fetal rights.

            “The fact that a family member is designated as proxy… legally holds up in every court in the land.”

            My body may not be designated the proxy for anyone without my consent.

            “… the argument that’s being made on your side doesn’t fit with already established common law and practice in place for centuries.”

            Abortion was legal in the US until the late 1800s. That you appeal to common law in place for centuries is interesting. By that measure, the
            right to abortion is a slam-dunk.

            “This makes a leap that abortion, being illegal, also bears a criminal penalty.”

            Making abortion illegal deprives women of their rights without due process in the first place. Care to address that?

            What’s the point of making something illegal if there’s no penalty? Women will just self-abort. Part of the reasoning behind Roe was exactly that widespread disregard of anti-abortion laws weakened the authority of law, itself. (See also: Prohibition of alcohol.)

            All that would happen is to make abortion more dangerous, which is punishing women without due process of law.

            To argue “you contracted to illegally kill a human being, but hey, go your merry way” makes the entire argument absurd, and I venture to
            say you know it. Doesn’t that mean I can hire someone to shoot you dead, and only the assasin can be arrested?

            “The making of abortion illegal, as has been described in public forums including here, would not include a penalty for the woman.”

            Other than forcing her to bear and give birth to a child against her will, stripping her of her rights. Or, forcing her to risk infertility, illness and death in self-abortion. But other than those minor details (are they minor because it’s “just” women?), there’s “no” penalty. (Eye roll.)

            You’re all moral cowards. If abortion is murder, arrest women for having them. That’s what we do to murderers, is it not?

            “it wouldn’t happen, and legally couldn’t happen *because* of due process.”

            Nor can forced child bearing happen because of due process.

            “…If you believe the current laws are already fair, then why exclude them…”

            I’m not excluding them. I’m asking how you would apply them to pregnancy. Specifically.

            “The right to choose whether people have a choice to procreate is different than using an argument which takes place after the fact.”

            Conception is after the fact for men. It is not after the fact for women; it’s the start of the fact.

            “…you also don’t state why it’s an invalid line of reasoning.”

            It’s invalid because you equate conception with the entirety of child bearing. Which is, frankly, both absurd and misogynistic.

            “But women aren’t being compelled to line up and be impregnated either.”

            You are compelling women to REMAIN pregnant. .
            Forcing them to become pregnant is already a crime. Forcing them to remain pregnant would also be a crime for the same reason: you don’t
            get to control women’s sex organs against their will.

            “It’s about what happens *after* pregnancy occurs.”

            How do you know IF pregnancy has occured?

            “I find that you’re conflating “forcing to be pregnant” into an equivocation based on temporal items rather than the defining of the term for each.”

            Forced to be, as in remain, not forced to be as in begin. You’re the one conflating the two.

            Temporally is not an “item.” It’s how we experience life. Thus far, we must do so in sequence, but even The Doctor in his TARDIS experiences life temporaly. The ease with which you skip ten months of time on behalf of women is incredible.

            “Again, no one is forcing men or women to create children.”

            Children are created by and inside of women’s bodies over the course of many months. It’s logically ridiculous to simultaneously say “the
            child exists” and “you must remain pregnant so the child may exist.” If it has an individual existence it would be capable of existing, individually. If it cannot, it does not have individual existence. The salient point being, the woman does.

            You wish to use women’s bodies to create children, regardless of women’s own wills and rights. You’re just lying to yourself about it; it is abundantly clear to me and many others, however. If the creation of
            children has occurred at conception, there’d be no reason to control women’s bodies by law. All we’d need is a rather small crib, some formula and diapers, and a hired nurse.

            “Women would still, who don’t want to be pregnant as you’d say, would still act foolish, ignorantly, even prepared against such a thing…and
            still find themselves pregnant.”

            Back to, women who seek abortions are foolish and ignorant. (Sigh.) The fact remains that it is not illegal to be foolish and ignorant.

            That would not matter in the scenario I outlined. Women would have the right to abortion. The onus to prevent unwanted pregnancy would be on men, not women.

            “Changing the landscape with such rules you mention wouldn’t change the *actions* of people.”

            Nor would outlawing abortion.

            It would change men’s ability to impregnate women, therefore reducing the need for abortion, which is your stated goal.

            “What laws, following your own due process and fairness doctrines, would align?”

            Following my doctrines? None; we can’t do it. Men have inalienable rights.

            Following your doctrines, in which people aren’t entitled to rights or due process regarding reproduction, is the question. Care to address it?

            “If it were restricted in such a way, using your criteria, then it logically and legally would also follow that the woman would then *have* to carry the child to term.”

            Given that one of the requirements for a man to be restored to virility is an affidavit from a woman saying she wants to bear his child, we can
            presume she wants to, can’t we? But no, the woman wouldn’t have to do anything against her will. I’m postulating the obverse of what you do: only men would be under any legal stricture, since they are responsible for begining all pregnancies. You think only women should be under legal stricture. Either is unequal protection under
            law.

            “if we consider the unborn child as an individual human person, as it scientifically, genetically, and logically can be demonstrated…”

            IF. I don’t have to, as a matter of religious freedom. I don’t, as a matter of reality.

            Scientifically, the developing ZEF is not individual. Can’t be, or it’d be dead (or born alive, not born a corpse). The woman is. Genetically, it’s unique, but not individual. Half it’s genetic material is the
            woman’s. Logically you’re not even in the ball park, conflating genetic uniqueness with biologically separate existence. Again: my big toe is alive and genetically unique, but it’s not biologically
            separate, and would be dead if it were.

            “If we extend the same due process, as you claim, to individual human persons, then the unborn qualify as well.”

            How do we extend due process to an organism that is INSIDE A WOMAN’S PERSON without first stripping the woman of her right to be SECURE IN
            HER PERSON? Please feel free to answer, though I will state what the Supreme Court already has: we can’t, without due process of law.

            You never answered what due process you would follow to determine if a woman is or is not pregnant. That would have to be determined in
            order to know there’s a ZEF that has rights, would it not?

            It is not a crime to be female, or to have sex, or to be pregnant or not be pregnant, or to be Jewish and not Catholic, so from where would you begin?

            “…(though your argument will be that the child isn’t born and thus i’m wrong…which i disagree.)

            It doesn’t matter if you agree. We both have the right to disagree. It would be nice if you’d acknowledge that I’m not requiring you to
            agree with me; it’s the other way ’round. There’s even a bumper sticker: “Don’t believe in abortion? Don’t have one.”

            “To drive this home… the expectant part is the temporal qualifier…”

            “Temporal qualifier?” We can’t look at actual reality in the present? We must base our reasoning on the possible future, which we have no way
            to determine? I categorically reject that.

            “…the role of mother and father is established even that early on) cannot be assaulted by the government.”

            The role of the mother is conception followed by implantation followed by 40 weeks of gestation followed by successfully giving birth I agree:
            that cannot be assaulted by the government. The imposition of it would constitute actaul assault (unwanted touching).

            “…that this isn’t being done and isn’t being suggested.”

            It’s not being done because it’s unconstitutional. It’s absolutely being suggested, using the pretense that women’s role in reproduction is exactly the same as men’s: the provision of a gamete. That’s such a delusional contention it’s laughable. (Continuing to insist on it is frankly misogynistic, as well.)

          • Cynical_Meliorist

            Part 1 of 2.

            Honestly, these need to be shortened. Tired of making the same arguments repeatedly, and at length.

            “. It doesn’t matter if some people within
            Islam “disagree; it matters that some people within Islam agree.”

            So, the fact
            someone agrees matters, but those who don’t, in fact, don’t matter. Then if
            some agree it’s negative, then your own point, by admission, wouldn’t matter.
            This is just out of hand dismissal and nothing more.

            “Not at all.
            Islam, in general, forbids abortion after the fourth month, therefore allowing
            it before thenI gave you a link, so if you find the list “suspect”
            feel free to do your own reading.”

            I did, and provided
            a link which countered your claims. If it’s suspect, and then shown as such,
            then it’s not on me to do more reading. Your claim was countered with
            appropriate information.

            “Being pro-choice
            is a religious belief.”

            So what religion do
            atheists believe to disagree with it? Agnostics? I’m sorry to tell you this,
            but there’s no religious belief specifically prescribed here. You’re making it
            up as you go along at this point, with regards to what is religion and what
            isn’t. If pro-choice is a
            religious belief, then would not your own arguments that we can’t institute
            religious beliefs apply to your own argument as well? After all, it would be
            religious. You’ve wanted to exclude those from the start.

            You’ve successfully
            been beaten with your own argument, unless you disagree, which then counters
            your claim.

            “SOME aspects
            of religious practice MIGHT be curtailed, but there has to be a reason to deny
            the fundamental right to practice Islam,”

            Error. No one is
            saying they can’t practice it. What is being said is that a person who says
            they belief something, and then does the exact opposite, would not be living up
            to that belief system. Very easy.

            “Your remedy
            is, don’t pracitce (sic) Islam.”

            Error. My remedy is
            to follow the tenets of what you believe, or don’t. It’s simply incorrect
            stating that you’re following beliefs at the same time you’re breaking them.
            Very easy.

            “No: it’s
            equating the idea that someone who is religious is pro-choice because of their
            religion.”

            This is circular.
            Re-read what was placed there. The “establishment of religion” as you
            apply it is incorrect to begin with, and this only creates additional confusion.

            “I agree. Is
            it only an important distinction when you make it?”

            Not at all, but it
            is an important distinction when you’re using the absolute wrong context and
            then equating pro-choice to be religious in nature. By the numbers, your own
            camp is filled with people who reject any ties to this line of thinking.

            “It’s not my
            fault you can’t come up with sufficient justification for stripping people of
            their religious freedoms. You can’t because there isn’t one.”

            Error. I can’t, in
            this case, because no one is doing that. Your entire arguments to date are all
            about people being stripped of rights, yet when it’s even examined in some
            cursory faction, you can’t be bothered to be correct about
            “establishment” items, and then try to use the religious argument
            (which you have, until recently, used as an argument against pro choice) that
            I’m making as proof of your own while saying I’m wrong.

            That is a fallacy
            known as “Borrowing the Argument”. I can’t be wrong, and right, at
            the same time. If I’m right, then your position is incorrect (and it’s
            demonstrated as such). If you’re right, then using my position would make yours
            wrong, because we can’t *both* be right. It just doesn’t work that way.

            “The outlawing
            of abortion would put women in danger, creating a lack of public safety.”

            By what percentage?
            If 650 women died as a result of giving birth, but we determined abortioning a
            fetus was against public health, you’d lose. 1 million+ beats 650, in a court
            of law, public opinion, or even utilitarianism, every time. If something
            benefits roughly a million more than another, it’s the most likely candidate to
            win. That’s pretty much how our system works, like it or not.

            “A ZEF does
            not exist in public; abortion causes no public safety crisis. My abortion did
            not affect the health or safety of a single solitary member of the public.”

            It did, for you.
            Your own safety was at risk, by having an abortion. Also, you’re going back to
            old arguments, which we’ve already defeated. Sorry, don’t have time to restate
            50+ pages of rebuttals. Move on.

            “It said the
            Court would take each challenge on a case by case basis.”

            It said that about
            other abortion drugs or other birth control items. Go back and read the
            decision. They stated *directly* that things like vaccines were NOT up for
            debate. This is an error on your part.

            “, but I thank
            those five Catholics for reiterating once again that the right to freely
            exercise one’s religious beliefs may not be violated.”

            Oddly, this
            violates your own argument. If being pro-choice or pro-life were something you
            defended as being a freedom of religion, then you’d be forced to applaud your
            own loss, since that’s what you’ve been claiming is important…that religious
            exercise and belief trump such things. Your own argument is undermined, again.

            “No one’s
            asking for a blank slate. I’m asking if people can exercise their actual
            religions. (The answer isn’t rocket science. It’s “Yes.”)”

            So, as long as you
            like the result, it’s ok. The moment it’s something you didn’t cherry pick as a
            belief, it’s not. That is being made abundantly clear.

            “The use of
            the word dogma implies non-thinking, and has a negative connotation to me. Do
            not tell me what I think words mean, please.”

            Ok, I won’t. What I
            did was practically use, word for word, the dictionary definition of it. I
            don’t need to tell you what to think it means. I gave you what it *actually*
            means. The fact you believe the word to be negative doesn’t make it so, and
            merely is a point of contention based on a word, and not the belief system
            behind it. This word is likely odious to you *because* you’ve cherry picked
            your religious items, and don’t understand the terms as they’re used properly.

            “Liberty is
            more than “a pleasure.”

            Is it? In what way?
            You’re stating a case. Justify it. Explain, in detail.

            “Either way
            works for me. Either way, the power is God’s, not yours.”

            So, you agree that
            God can condemn you for an act, and that I can use good judgment to discern
            what you’re doing is wrong, but it’s wrong if I actually apply it?

            “You make
            having an abortion the only valid precept or condition for “belief”
            up out of whole cloth.”

            No, Dingus. That’s
            been your argument from the start. I’m saying it’s not a precept or belief
            that’s required *anywhere*. You’re stating it’s fine and that it rises to the
            level of a religious belief. I’ve made the argument that it’s not a religion,
            it’s not a tenet held up specifically in any faith, and your argument trying to
            make it MY argument is again going back to your flawed debating roots. It’s
            your argument, YOU own it.

            “I have the
            right to my own beliefs, and to exercise

            them. I have the
            right to take my own spriitual journey, not someone else’s. In fact it’s a
            facet of my belief that each individual has a unique relationship with God.”

            No one said you
            didn’t. Glad we cleared that part up.

            “So what? My
            religion specifically allows it. Please address that. All you’re doing is
            equivocating.”

            Error. Not only did
            you not cite what was equivocating, but it’s not at its core. There is a wide
            difference between your religion *allowing* it, and your religion *calling* for
            it. Your equivocation is that you’re saying, in whole cloth fashion, that
            because it’s allowed (or in most cases, not prohibited specifically) that it
            *calls* for it. This is an error and is patently absurd.

            “It does not
            render the argument moot. You cannot seek redress for a grievance you don’t
            actually have. You cannot seek redress for harms not done to or suffered by
            you.”

            So, if a woman I’m
            with aborts a child, which does affect me directly if it were mine, would I not
            have a right to redress my grievance? This is nothing more than a dodge on your
            part. Past this, if someone is without a right, or that right is being
            infringed in some way, you can redress those as well. This is basic civics. You
            don’t *want* it to be done, but it can be, legally, all day.

            “That’s
            correct, we cannot. Therefore I do not demand that people either accept
            abortion…”

            You’ve advocated
            that people should accept it, or otherwise if they don’t, they’re stripping
            rights, that they’re misogynists, that they’re evil women hating thugs, and
            religious zealots.

            All you’ve done,
            for like a month, is demand people accept your view, or they’re a monster of
            some sort. Don’t lie about this, when we’re this far into the discussion.

            “You’re the
            only one who wants to establish one possible personal belief as the law for
            everyone, here.”

            I’m saying it’s
            worth the public conversation, and I’ve stated what my position is on the
            matter. I choose to err on the side of caution. You choose to not care about
            anyone other than your own personal concerns. It’s pretty clear cut.

            “To be clear:
            I am not referring to you having to live in a world where there is abortion..”

            You mean, if we
            outlaw it, it’s fine? That’s really the only way this comes about. Or, are you
            advocating that I just get out of this life…that would be pretty grotesque.
            There’s no real way for you to use this and sound like you’re being nice in any
            way.

            “, you just
            have to stop imagining the distress you stoke in yourself is other’s
            responsibility to alleviate.”

            So, when women
            commit suicide after an abortion, we should go on our merry way? How about all
            of the medical and mental problems that come from it? Sure, let’s ignore that.

            “The remedy is
            for you to grow up.”

            Some of us do, and
            realize we’ve done something wrong in our lives. It’s childish to believe
            otherwise…and to make such jabs. Weren’t you all about being nice and us
            debating things with facts?
            You’re slipping into your old pattern.

            “That’s
            precisly the point. Stripping a person’s rights, life, liberty or property
            without evidence, without a complaint, a judge, a trial, a

            conviction or a
            ruling is unconstitutional. Doing so simply on the basis of gender is
            discriminatory (and outrageous).”

            Since we can’t levy
            these charges against men, then where else would we do so? If we follow due
            process, and on demand abortion is removed…well, your own position is that
            due process was followed, so…glad to know we’re on the same page there.

            “No, we can’t.
            It’s not up to you, the courts or the

            government to
            determine whether my beliefs are consistent or valid. See: the HL case, where
            the completely inaccurate belief that preventing pregnancy (implantation) is
            the same as ending pregnancy was dismissed.”

            This, right here,
            shows a decided lack of knowledge about that case. Go read it again.

            “In your
            hypothetical, that’s true. In reality, I’m following the precepts of my
            religion, which allows abortion. Care to address that?”

            Dingus, it was YOUR
            hypothetical. I answered YOUR hypothetical. If you were to do those things, you
            would *not* be following a religious precept. You’d be doing something your
            religious precepts either don’t address or don’t care about, if they didn’t
            have that stance on it. If your faith says don’t do it, and you do it anyway,
            you’re NOT practicing your religion. Either way, your points here is completely
            backwards, and based on your own made up scenario. Own your argument, please.

            “I’m
            discussing rights. Freedom of religion is one right. The right to life is
            another.”

            Interesting that
            you believe faith, something you dismiss or use on a whim, would trump
            something that’s universal and intrinsic in nature. Love the contradiction!

            “I am an adult
            human being with rights and agency. I do not need permission to seek medical
            care. Do you?”

            That isn’t the
            point. If you’re talking about a second life, your rights and agency are then,
            in your own scenario, banked against theirs. You wouldn’t need permission to
            seek care….but “medical care” isn’t what abortion is, and pretending
            it is makes you incredibly disingenuous on the matter. Also, if you were in a
            position where you could not make those decisions yourself (consider your own
            personal story, and how mentally ill at the time you claim to be….), then
            someone else could, and likely would, make decisions of care for you.

            “The answer to
            your hypothetical is…”

            With regards, it’s
            your hypothetical. I added a detail, to illustrate why you were wrong.

            I don’t know what
            you believe is accomplished by continually making your argument mine, and then
            saying I’m wrong. You’ve done this for weeks now, constantly. It’s not only
            wrong, but it’s repetitive in nature.

            “Read it
            again. I’m in labor. Labor kills me. There is

            no point where
            abortion is an option.”

            This is in error.
            The stroke would be the cause of death, not the pregnancy. Also, as I pointed
            out, when reality kicks in, your doctors would have seen this and could react
            appropriate. It’s why stats like maternal death in the US are incredibly low.
            Also, yes…if the life of the mother is at stake, then abortion would be an
            option…you’ll not only find that practically is how it works now, but that
            you’ll find wide, universal support for such a measure even in the pro-life
            community. Your argument is not correct here.”

            “I lost my
            life, which I had a right to. I lost it against my own beliefs. How is that not
            stripping me of my

            rights?

            As stated, if your
            life were in peril, you could abort, thus removing any moral concerns, sparing
            your life and respecting your beliefs. Case closed.

            “Pregnancy and
            childbirth kill women.”

            So does putting
            make-up on while you drive. Should we outlaw cars, or make up? Or approach the
            problem at the actual source?

            “That you
            think that outcome can always be foreseen and prevented is false.”

            I don’t believe
            that, and have stated MANY times I can’t, in fact, see the future…a statement
            you’ve chided me over previously. If i can’t see the future, why make a case
            like I can, when even you admit that’s the truth? You’re arguing out of both
            sides of your mouth again. I do, however, *know* that such complications in the
            US are exceedingly rare, and can base my position on reality and facts known
            widely to all.

            “How is
            vomiting repeatedly all day a matter of

            “subjective”
            definition?”

            That’s not what was
            meant, and a clear reading of my statement would yield that. It’s why I said
            “liberty” was subjective in such cases. Are you being shackled while
            throwing up? Then we’re not talking about liberty. Your “liberty”
            isn’t being impugned. Your health is, certainly, but you’re not being robbed of
            liberty in any legal sense, which is the case you’re making. Wrong use of the
            term.

            “Objectively,
            it happens. Calling it “subjective” dismisses women – what they experience
            doesn’t matter, is that your argument?

            Nope, it’s not. See
            the last paragraph here as to why. Sorry, no women-hating spew here for you to
            grind on.

            “How is that
            not depriving me of both liberty and property? Not to mention an assault on my
            person.”

            Because you’re
            arguing the legal definitions of those words, when there’s no law or applicable
            precedent. Your’re not in jail, you’re not shackled or restricted by law, and
            your property isn’t being confiscated or removed from you. It’s not the same
            thing.

            “. If I
            remained sick from some other cause because you refused to allow me to seek
            treatment, that would also be you stripping me of

            my rights. ”

            Which, even in your
            hypothetical, isn’t being done at all. Sorry, but you can’t make it up when
            it’s not there and claim it’s the end result. It’s not in your own thought
            experiments, and isn’t in reality either. Also, no one stops people from
            seeking treatment. That part is pure fantasy.

            If you were to
            purposely, in wanting to answer, pack meals to make me sick, then yes…you’d
            be guilty of a crime. There’s a difference here you won’t like though. Your
            purposed actions are against the law.

            If I was made sick
            by accident, by fluke, or by something other malice, I couldn’t sue you or seek
            legal remedy. This is an easy line of thinking you seem to have overlooked.
            Unless your argument is that a fetus is maliciously and purposely making you
            sick, you won’t have a point to make here that works.

            “No, I will
            have impacted it, myself. If you ran into me with your car, yes, it would be
            taken from me. Again: a matter of whether it is voluntary or involuntary.”

            To which, if a
            fetus isn’t a person, you then can’t claim they’re not and then ascribe malice
            and damaging actions on purpose. It’s one or the other, really.

            “The 14th
            Amendment includes the right not to be

            stripped of liberty
            without due process.”

            You still didn’t
            answer though…if due process is followed and abortion was outlawed, when
            could we expect to hear your support? It would follow your own rules and
            protocol.

            “abortion is
            legal and women have a Constitutional right to seek them.”

            It is legal, but
            there’s no Amendment with this language in it. It’s based, for your purpose, on
            the 14th…but don’t misread it for something it’s not. If you believe it is,
            then the overdue necessity for reading isn’t on me.

            “It’s
            completely possible, in fact quite likely, that my money and possible financial
            gains are taken from me. Care to address that?”

            I did. What was
            unclear about it?

            “All three.
            Apparently I must clarify something for

            you: we’re not
            talking about becoming pregnant. We’re talking about being pregnant.”

            Then your
            clarification needs to start with the process which leads to it. You’re fine
            with excluding any responsibility beforehand, but I’m not. It’s all part and
            parcel of the same process. There’s no clarification necessary. I’m quite
            comfortable with what we’re discussing.

            “Any more than
            blanket prohibtions of abortion are legally sufficient.”

            This isn’t an
            argument or rebuttal. It’s a reverse of the statement with no reason behind it.
            Blanket prohibitions on such things, as have been pointed out, would still
            allow for things such as medical necessity.

          • TheDingus

            How’s this for short (and unequivocal)? I’ve never met a more ridiculously stupid, intellectually dishonest, egoistically deluded individual in my entire life. That’s saying something considering that I’ve been discussing this issue with ridiculously stupid, intellectually dishonest and egoistically deluded anti-choice people for decades.

            If you want to argue with yourself about how many angels may dance on the head of a pin (redefining the words “angels” and “pins” on a daily basis) talk to a mirror. Ta ta.

          • Cynical_Meliorist

            Part 2 of 2.

            “Why do you
            think it’s called it “labor” in the first place? Is the woman’s body
            doing no physical work in childbirth?”

            That’s not what’s
            being said here, and you’re continuing to make the same assertions you did
            before. If you want to have a discussion free from ad hominems, then likely
            using this kind of language isn’t the way to do it.

            There is a defined
            difference between labor, in the legal and working sense, and
            “labor”, which is what happens in a maternity ward. Both involve
            physicality, but you don’t get paid a wage for giving birth. There’s no
            employer or employee. There’s no contract for services provided. These things,
            legally and by definition, may share a word but that is where the relationship
            stops. It’s nothing more than equivocation to try and compare the two, and it’s
            incorrect. Your assertion is based on trying to make the legal definition the
            same as the birthing one, which even a layman could tell you is wrong.

            “If the child
            is never born, what happens to the father’s bequest?”

            In my case (and any
            case, really), it passes back to the already born children and my wife.
            Legally, that’s not a difficult item. It would be split among the other
            beneficiaries, just like it would otherwise.

            “In short, it
            was done to further patriarchy, not in recognition of fetal rights.”

            Actually, my
            paranoid misanthropist, it was for all children, females included. Queens,
            princesses, a duchess or two. The sex of the child wasn’t what was being looked
            at, merely the fact that there was or would be one. Sorry, no evil woman hating
            here either. It’s not like, 1000 years ago, they could wheel out an ultrasound
            machine and make such decisions. There’s no way for them to have known the sex
            of the child, so it would have benefited females equally.

            “My body may
            not be designated the proxy for anyone without my consent.”

            In context, this
            has zero meaning. Who would want to make you their legal proxy without your
            consent? They can’t, in fact,
            but that’s not what’s being discussed here, and you’re drifting again into
            silly territory. The Proxy would be, for instance, another person who would, in
            modern terms you can understand, have Power of Attorney. It’s not some “i
            won’t be your proxy, woman hater!!!”. Do you not have your husband as your
            proxy, in the event you cannot make decisions for yourself? Or someone else?
            Same thing here.

            I’m sorry Dingus,
            but honestly….not everything is all about misogyny and hating women, and
            whatever other drivel you want to believe. This is just basic, common
            application of the law. Nothing more. Unless your husband making medical
            decisions while you’re not able to is just pure patriarchy at work.

            “Abortion was
            legal in the US until the late 1800s.”

            Legal, or just not
            codified? You don’t show me how i’m wrong here. Please cite your work and
            sources. I’d like to see them.
            You’ll not mind if I don’t take your word for it.

            Now, to get really
            off track, we can do this…I said the following:

            “This makes a
            leap that abortion, being illegal, also bears a criminal penalty.”

            You followed it
            with this response:

            “Making
            abortion illegal deprives women of their rights without due process in the
            first place. Care to address that?”

            So, what you’ve
            done here is take my point, and answer with the same question you’ve peppered
            up and down the post, rather than address my actual point. Are you
            intentionally trying to strawman the argument, or has this question not been
            answered sufficiently? We’ve talked about this very thing enough to where I
            believe it has been. Beyond answering a question with a question, I’m not sure
            why this is still unclear? We’ve stated repeatedly that, should we go through
            the courts, your due process would in fact be upheld. Where is the confusion
            there?

            “All that
            would happen is to make abortion more dangerous, which is punishing women
            without due process of law.”

            If it were made
            illegal, meaning laws were passed, scrutinized, and survived legal
            challenge….then due process, would in fact, have been maintained. At what
            point would you then accept that as the reality of it?

            “What’s the
            point of making something illegal if there’s no penalty? Women will just
            self-abort.”

            In bypassing the
            moral argument, the act being made illegal would be levied at the abortionist,
            not the woman.The point would be to punish the practitioner and not the
            recipient. Stated multiple times, BTW.

            To argue “you
            contracted to illegally kill a human

            being, but hey, go
            your merry way” makes the entire argument absurd, and I venture to say you know
            it.”

            You would be right,
            so it’s good that this was, as a matter of direct fact, not the argument being
            made. Go back and read it. If it’s not clear, as to what I said, ask.

            “Other than
            forcing her to bear and give birth to a

            child against her
            will, stripping her of her rights.”

            Again, not the
            point of the statement you’re using, but also addressed previously.

            “But other
            than those minor details (are they minor because it’s “just” women?), there’s
            “no” penalty. (Eye roll.)

            You’re drifting
            back towards the non-polite version of this, again. Saying death is a minor
            detail is false, and only an attempt to demonize an argument you’ve yet to
            overcome. If we approach this honestly, then such “penalties” are
            statistically infrequent. Death should absolutely be prevented, however, which
            is why abortion in the case of medical necessity is perfectly fine.

            Are you STILL unclear
            about anything in that last paragraph? We’re going on a month of discussions
            about this very point, and you seem to still struggle with it and the obvious
            implications…both to how disingenuous your own argument is, and the simple
            points being made in mine.

            “I’m not
            excluding them. I’m asking how you would apply them to pregnancy. Specifically.”

            This is what we’ve
            been talking about. If this isn’t clear, please let me know.

            “Conception is
            after the fact for men. It is not after the fact for women; it’s the start of
            the fact.”

            Wouldn’t it be
            both, since it took both to get to that point? :)

            “It’s invalid
            because you equate conception with the entirety of child bearing. Which is,
            frankly, both absurd and misogynistic.”

            Except there’s one
            problem. I do not, have not, and will not at some point in the future believe
            that or subscribe to such a belief, regardless of how many times you want me to
            do so. I do not believe one is, in terms of equivocation, just like the other,
            and never have claimed as such. This is another repeated error you’ve made, and
            an argument you continually inject that is not the one I’m making. Your claims
            of absurdity and misogyny are invalid.

            I’m still concerned
            that you’ve not really changed anything about your approach here. We’ve been
            down this road before. I don’t insert arguments for you, and it would be nice
            if you’d stop doing so to me.

            “Forcing them
            to become pregnant is already a crime. Forcing them to remain pregnant would
            also be a crime for the same reason: you

            don’t get to
            control women’s sex organs against their will.”

            An important note,
            but there is a huge issue in your statement. You, by your own words, are
            creating a fallacy, by violating fact-value distinctions. Specifically, it
            looks like you’re creating a problem with the distinction between
            “ought” (as in, it would be, or ought to be) as opposed to what
            “is” (which, in this case, is the fact that we’ve mentioned the lack
            of criminal element…even you noted it earlier…and punishment involved).
            You’re saying something “would be”, rather than having to deal with
            what is, or is not, the case. You would have to flesh out why this facet would
            be illegal, given every other issue that would be in place, including ones you
            suggested.

            “How do you
            know IF pregnancy has occured?”

            I would think, in a
            common sense fashion…the same way we use methods to know that already? Is
            this a point of contention?

            “Forced to be,
            as in remain, not forced to be as in begin. You’re the one conflating the two.”

            Not at all. I’m simply
            not addressing the “remain” part of the equation without addressing
            the beginning step first. I have no wish to conflate the two. I’m specifically
            noting that there is no application of force, in any way/shape/form to start
            with, and that the woman applying lethal force might be something to address.
            It’s not the argument you think it is.

            “Temporally is
            not an “item.” It’s how we experience life.”

            Yes, but in an
            argument where you’re trying to put the cart before the proverbial horse,
            temporal items *define* what’s being talked about. Moving on.

            “The ease with
            which you skip ten months of time on behalf of women is incredible.”

            This argument can
            only be correct if that was done.
            Notice it hasn’t been, and thus you’re wrong again.

            “Children are
            created by and inside of women’s bodies over the course of many months. It’s
            logically ridiculous to simultaneously say “the

            child exists”
            and “you must remain pregnant so the child may exist.”

            Then as stated
            dozens of times, it’s good that no one makes *this* argument. Allow me to
            clarify so that you’re no longer confused, since apparently after a month we’re
            still at the starting gate.

            The child exists.
            Even you admit this. But remaining pregnant is so that the child survives…not
            so that the child may, in fact, exist. Continue to exist, perhaps, but not
            “exist” in such a direct term. Pregnancy, as you might be aware, is
            where the gestation of the child allows it to grow and be born *after* it’s
            created. The fact you believe there’s a logical misstep when there’s not, shows
            that somehow these points have not been made clear. I’ll consider that
            corrected as of now, but if there’s more questions about this point, then we
            should actually find them and answer them.

            “You wish to
            use women’s bodies to create children….”

            Unfortunately, no.
            If a woman never has a child, it doesn’t affect me in the slightest within this
            context. The destruction of a
            life she’s already created, however, bears a moral implication to it. I know
            this isn’t a largely nuanced discussion point, so why are we still talking
            about it?

            Why, in fact, are
            you going back to the same “it’s all patriarchal misogyny!”
            arguments. I thought you wanted to argue facts, not semantics and phantoms?

            “Back to,
            women who seek abortions are foolish and ignorant. (Sigh.) The fact remains
            that it is not illegal to be foolish and ignorant.”

            I note here that
            you don’t actually counter the argument. You just say “it’s not illegal to
            be that way”. No one claimed it was. Did you see where I said we should
            pass laws about this very thing? Of course you didn’t. But would we not be able
            to agree that letting people continue to do dumb things, to continually make
            mistakes and the like….be a detriment to society overall, not to mention
            those involved?

            “Nor would
            outlawing abortion.”

            If this were the
            case, you wouldn’t have to argue it shouldn’t be made illegal, since nothing
            changes.

            “It would
            change men’s ability to impregnate women, therefore reducing the need for
            abortion, which is your stated goal.”

            And thus violating
            your own view of due process. Of course, women can not get impregnated by
            making better choices and being better educated. They can choose to make better
            decisions about who they sleep with, and how they protect themselves…all
            common sense items that you and I both support.

            “Following my
            doctrines? None; we can’t do it. Men have inalienable rights.”

            Looks like an
            argument on both sides then. A male fetus would have rights like a female
            fetus? What’s the problem? :)

            “Following
            your doctrines, in which people aren’t entitled to rights or due process
            regarding reproduction, is the question. Care to address

            it?”

            Is that not what
            we’ve been addressing for 4 weeks now? Why are you continually asking questions
            to which you’ve been given the answer….to the point where it’s literally a
            waste of space to retype it. Feel free to go back and read an entire month’s
            worth of postings to get the idea. It’s stated there numerous times. (Pro
            tip..every person has rights. Again though, rights versus responsibility.
            Rights versus the legal limitations of such rights. The answer is in that area,
            and it’s not like we didn’t cover it at length. Sorry, no woman hating misogyny
            there!)

            “You think
            only women should be under legal stricture. Either is unequal protection under
            law.”

            I think it because
            women can get pregnant. You established this yourself, repeatedly. When asked
            what law we should extend to men and women on this point, you dodged it and
            gave no answer. We’re at a stalemate. I can’t support laws which have no affect
            when passed, and you can’t bear the idea that it might actually have to deal
            with one gender. If there’s a fair way to work that, by all means let me know.

            “IF. I don’t
            have to, as a matter of religious freedom. I don’t, as a matter of reality.”

            Unfortunately, when
            we talk about reality here, you dismiss the entire science of embryology, which
            has established facts you dismiss out of hand. If science, as it already has,
            establishes than a fetus is an individual human life, your argument then has to
            be that it’s ok to destroy that life for your convenience 99% of the time. At
            least be honest about the position you hold. You also argued that religious
            belief, earlier, didn’t basically mean anything….or, at least, the ones you
            disagree with.

            So we’re left with
            a denial of scientific fact, or just whatever argument you like at your whim,
            and that any argument which doesn’t agree is null and void on your whim and say
            so. Sorry, you lose again. Your lack of knowledge on the subject continues.

            “Scientifically,
            the developing ZEF is not individual. Can’t be, or it’d be dead (or born alive,
            not born a corpse). The woman is. Genetically, it’s unique, but not individual.
            Half it’s genetic material is the woman’s.”

            When you define
            individual as something other than it actually being a unique life with it’s
            own genetic makeup and so forth (which you do, right after saying all of that),
            then no…it doesn’t have a Facebook page. It doesn’t drive a car. It doesn’t
            have a bank account. Your definition of “individual” is highly
            erroneous, because it’s based on qualities that you’ve chosen selectively to
            justify a point. You’re assuming the conclusion, as it were.

            It can still be an
            individual life…it’s not the mother’s life too, right? There are two lives
            there, as you’ve already agreed. You can’t backtrack now and use the opposite
            argument after you’ve allowed the other. And yes, half its genetic material is
            the mothers. So is yours. And mine. And everyone elses. So?

            “Logically
            you’re not even in the ball park, conflating genetic uniqueness with
            biologically separate existence. Again: my big toe is alive and

            genetically unique,
            but it’s not biologically

            separate, and would
            be dead if it were.”

            And now to the
            heart of the error. Your toe is human. It’s not a human, in total. It’s a part
            of a whole. A fetus is a developing life, but it’s whole. There’s no part of a
            fetus, or section, or some other subdivision. Your lack of understand about
            what’s being discussed shows here brilliantly. I don’t need to conflate those
            items, by the way. It’s not an intuitive leap by saying something is
            genetically unique (as each fetus is…I pinky swear it, but any biology text
            will work) and something being biologically separate. Of course, your own
            argument is that “it’s in the mother, it’s not separate!!!!!”, which
            is equivocation of the idea of separation. It gestates there, but we don’t
            consider a mother to have 2 heads, 4 arms, 4 legs, and possibly 2 sets of
            genitals. Your argument falters.

            “How do we
            extend due process to an organism that is INSIDE A WOMAN’S PERSON without first
            stripping the woman of her right to be SECURE IN

            HER PERSON? Please
            feel free to answer, though I will state what the Supreme Court already has: we
            can’t, without due process of law.”

            We extend due
            process by following the same due process that Roe used. It’s not complicated.
            Are you unclear about how laws are made, or how due process works in the
            courts? If due process, through the creation of laws, survives through scrutiny
            and passes the legislature and court system….well, there you go. Question
            answered, again.

            “You never
            answered what due process you would follow to determine if a woman is or is not
            pregnant. That would have to be determined in order to know there’s a ZEF that
            has rights, would it not?”

            I did. At this
            point, i’ve answered it 2 or 3 times. Where was that not clear? Does “the
            same process we use now for such things” have some confusing language?
            What is the hang up here?

            Of course, you’re
            trying to insert due process into the mix, where it doesn’t belong, but I’m
            allowing it because the answer is patently obvious (and now stated multiple
            times). Please read what’s been posted before asking these questions.

            “It is not a
            crime to be female….so from where would you begin?”

            Likely in the same
            place you do, or others would? How about a doctors office? Might be some people
            there who know? Honestly, I know what you’re trying to do. You’re inserting
            fantastical items and silly questions to simply derail the debate in a
            direction that, should someone answer, would make it patently ridiculous. It’s
            a horrible way to actually debate. Of course, this ties back in that none of
            those things are illegal, and no one is trying to make them that way. You do understand
            the arguments to this point, yes?

            “It doesn’t
            matter if you agree. We both have the right to disagree. It would be nice if
            you’d acknowledge that I’m not requiring you to

            agree with me; it’s
            the other way ’round.”

            I don’t require
            your agreement. If, however, I’m factually and logically right (and so far,
            you’ve done nothing to remove that as being the case), then your disagreement
            just makes you stubborn and wrong. Disagree all you like. I don’t need your
            approval or agreement to be right. :)

            “There’s even
            a bumper sticker: “Don’t believe in abortion? Don’t have one.”

            Sadly, that’s most
            of your argument. Bumper sticker slogans and made up items about how men hate
            women and the like.

            Remember before,
            when i changed the word “abortion” to “pregnancy”, and
            asked you to address why it’s wrong one way and not the other? I remember your
            answer was…nothing. Not a word.
            No actual explanation why the same logic, the same sentence with a single word
            changed, was evil on my end but fine on yours.

            We must base our
            reasoning on the possible future, which we have no way

            to determine? I
            categorically reject that.”

            And you’d be right
            to. Except that’s not what the argument is. If you’re confused, read it again
            and ask questions to clarify. I’ll wait for your out of hand dismissal once
            that’s been done, and correct you again on the matter.

            “The role of
            the mother is conception followed by

            implantation
            followed by 40 weeks of gestation followed by successfully giving

            birth I agree:”

            You agree, but try
            to disagree at the same time by weasel-wording the statement. Again, we don’t
            have fetus showers, or ask if you’re expecting a clump of cells. We don’t call
            someone an “expecting person of note”. The terms used, like it or not,
            carry meaning.

            “It’s
            absolutely being suggested, using the pretense that women’s role in
            reproduction is exactly the same as men’s: ”

            Is it repetitive to
            say this isn’t the argument, and should I bother doing so? We already agree
            it’s not. Hell, I’ve stated several
            times where things were equal, even, or done the same way involving men. No one
            thinks it’s the same role. Why do you think someone else does, after telling
            you….directly……that it’s not that way?

            “(Continuing
            to insist on it is frankly misogynistic, as well.)”

            Then it’s good no
            one did it to start with!

            Honestly, we’re not
            covering new ground. You’ve just put a shiny new veneer on your old arguments,
            and honestly…you’re going back towards the same snarky, “he must hate
            women everywhere” argument.

          • PJ4

            Wow
            Just when I thought you couldn’t get any more irrational and ignorant
            You went and proved me wrong

            You see, unlike you I have no problem admitting when I’m wrong

            From the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
            Not all religions prohibit abortion.

            Well that’s nice, not all religions prohibit child sacrifice, female circumcision, rape and spousal abuse either.

            Honestly, do you ever stop to think about what you’re writing before you write ????

            Explain why and how Congress may make some law prohibiting women from exercising their own religious beliefs allowing abortion, although it’s plainly stated Congress may make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

            Same way congress can prohibit female circumsion , human sacrifice and polygamy.

            But, you would be all for congress passing a law to force people to pay for your birth control and religious baby killing rituals even if goes against their own religious beliefs

            Hypocrisy, thy name is Dingus!

            From the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, are citizens of the United States… No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

            Notice how it’s in a particular order: life liberty and happiness and it pertains to ANY person, not just citizens born or naturalized in the US
            Yet you were happy to deny your child life

            Explain why any State may abridge female citizen’s immunities and privileges (such as freedom from unwarranted search and seizure, and the right to exercise their own religion) and deprive them of life, liberty and property without due process of law.

            They can’t.
            But they can protect the innocent life that you would see fit to sacrifice
            But of course, you’re pro ritualistic human sacrifice

            Explain why laws applying only to women are not unequal protection of the laws.

            Explain why equal protection doesn’t extend to the child in the womb

          • TheDingus

            Please explain why freedom of religion is “irrational and ignorant.”

            Please explain when, why and how the right to freely exercise religion may be stripped wholesale from entire groups of people without due process.

            Please explain why, because you believe a zygote, embryo or fetus is a “person,” a “child” and an “individual,” everyone must share your belief, even though they obviously do not.

            Please identify the specific religions that permit child sacrifice, genital mutilation, rape and spousal abuse. (Try not to confuse cultural practices with religions.)

            Please explain why the religious beliefs of others would strip individuals of their secular rights to not be murdered, mutilated, raped and abused.

            Please show where your personal belief that ending pregnancy is murder has been codified in law.

            Please explain when and where zygotes, embryos and fetuses have been granted secular rights under law.

            Please explain why women may be treated differently under law than every other human being.

            Please explain why women, and only women, lose their rights because someone else also has rights.

            Please explain why those who do not share your personal beliefs should pay taxes without receiving representation.

            Please explain why the rights are written as “life, liberty AND property,” not “Life or Liberty or Property, whichever comes first.” (It may help to use a dictionary to look up the word “and.”)

            “Any” person includes women, and includes pregnant women. Please explain why only pregnant women may have their privileges and immunities, such as freedom of religion, abridged, and their lives, liberty and property stripped from them, and be placed into involuntary servitude, without due process. Note: it cannot be because other persons have rights, because you’re a person and women don’t have to follow your religion or accept your beliefs over their own, let you into their homes without a warrant, give you their medical records without a warrant, die for you, give up their liberty for you, give up their property for you, or involuntarily labor for you, without due process of law.

            If you believe women have to follow your religion or accept your beliefs over their own, let you into their homes without a warrant, give you their medical records without a warrant, die for you, give up their liberty for you, give up their property for you, and involuntarily labor for you, without due process, please explain what legal or moral authority grants you that power.

            Correct: States cannot strip people of their rights without due process. “You’re female” is not due process; it’s discrimination based on gender and unequal protection under law.

            Equal protection does not extend to “the child in the womb” for several reasons. First, because it cannot be extended without first stripping the woman whose womb it is of her rights. By definition that is unequal protection.

            Second, that there’s a “child” in the womb is your personal belief, not universally accepted, and people have the right to their own personal beliefs, and to freely exercise them. Government imposing a certain set of personal beliefs on people who do
            not share them is a violation of the establishment clause.

            Third, zygotes, embryos and fetuses do not have rights. Even if they did, they would not have more rights than other persons, such as the right to deny another person their rights without due process of law. Please explain how a developing embryo would afford due process of law from within the womb to the woman creating it.

            In reality, zygotes, embryos and fetuses cannot exercise rights or extend due process. Protection and exercise of any rights they might have must be done for them by civil authority if it is stripped from their parent(s). Civil authorities in the United States may not strip women of their rights without due process. Women have a right to be secure in their person, which cannot be violated without probable cause. Their uteri are part of their person. Civil authorities have no legal means to impose continued pregnancy on a woman’s uterus against her will without violating her right to be secure in her person, because “she might have had sex” is not a crime and not probable cause.

            Please explain how an embryo is a person protected by law if its mother is not. Does human person hood arise from sperm, only?

            PS: “You’re irrational and ignorant” is a baseless ad hominem attack, not an argument. Ironically, using ad hominem attacks is irrational and ignorant. (HTH.)

          • PJ4

            Please explain why freedom of religion is “irrational and ignorant.”~

            Please show me where I said that freedom of religion is irrational and ignorant

            I said you were irrational and ignorant and you take that to mean that I believe freedom of religion is…
            Hmmmm…. that’s very interesting…. and quite telling.

            Here we go again
            You can’t argue without your little straw men
            At first it was cute… but now it’s just annoying that you keep insisting that I believe or have said something that I don’t believe or haven’t said.
            Ah well… at least you do it to everyone… you’re definitely consistent on that point.
            I don’t have time to address all of your ridiculous questions, but I can do a few before commencing helping the kids with their homework.

            Please explain when, why and how the right to freely exercise religion may be stripped wholesale from entire groups of people without due process.

            Please quote me where I stated that it could

            However, since you asked (even thought I never brought it up or even implied it), let’s talk about it.

            To be clear: the right to freely exercise religion may not be stripped wholesale from entire groups of people without due process.

            However

            The law can prohibit a specific type of conduct provided that the prohibition is a “neutral law of general applicability,” even if it has a disproportionate impact. That was articulated by the Supreme Court in Employment
            Division v. Smith.

            Now, it’s certainly true that an abortion ban targeting only adherents to pro-abortion faiths or a ban solely on ritual abortions would be unconstitutional absent the “compelling interest test” that was reaffirmed in City of Boerne v. Flores.
            Thankfully, however, that’s not an issue. We’re not just interested in preventing
            Lutherans from killing children; we want to protect life in general.

            Please explain why, because you believe a zygote, embryo or fetus is a “person,” a “child” and an “individual,” everyone must share you r belief , even though they obviously do not.

            Just as the factual validity the theory of evolution doesn’t stand or fall on faith or belief, fetal personhood doesn’t either. It’s not a fact because I believe it–it’s a fact because it’s objectively true.

            (Even when the scientific community didn’t agree pretty unanimously with Darwin as it does now, it still did not undo evolution)

            You cannot stop it from being taught in every school in the US just because you don’t believe in it. It’s just something that is.

            I’ve offered you several medical texts that specifically state that a new individual is created at fertilization.

            You’ve offered me no proof that these embryology/biology texts books are wrong
            I asked you for just one
            It’s been weeks
            You have yet to produce anything
            Gee, I wonder why?

            Please identify the specific religions that permit child sacrifice, genital mutilation, rape and spousal abuse. (Try not to confuse cultural practices with religions.)

            In Ghana, parents who adhere to the Trokosi faith are called upon to offer their children to a life of slavery. These child slaves are subject to forced labor and horrifying sexual abuse. Are you going to argue that Trokosi participants would be protected by the 1st Amendment if they were in America?

            http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/1158115.stm

            If an Indian family in the US decided to give their daughter up to be a devadasi, would they be protected by the first amendment?

            http://www.thehindu.com/features/magazine/slaves-of-circumstance/article5028924.ece

            Would Hindus still want to practice Sutte be protected under the 1st amendment?

            If someone made up a religion today that intends to incorporated pedophilia, rape, and abuse into her religion, would you like to tell her she’s not entitled to her religious beliefs, oh champion of religious freedom??

            Speaking of child sacrifice:
            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nate-phelps/ritual-child-sacrifice-is_b_3510663.html

            Please explain why the religious beliefs of others would strip individuals of their secular rights to not be murdered, mutilated, raped and abused.

            It doesn’t–that’s why we don’t care why an abortionist kills his victims, we just want to stop him. The only one here who has argued for legalized religious bloodletting is you.

            Please show where your personal belief that ending pregnancy is murder has been codified in law

            Gladly.
            But again…it’s not a personal belief.

            Codified:
            http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx

            Please explain when and where zygotes, embryos and fetuses have been granted secular rights under law.

            *eye roll*
            Repetitive much?
            See above link and this:

            http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2014/April/Ala-High-Court-Declares-Unborn-Children-Have-Rights/

            Also, historically, the Ancient Persians granted rights to the baby in the womb.

            Please explain why when women may be treated differently under law than every other human being.

            Please tell me where I ever said they should.
            You’re the one who wants a special privilege afforded to women only to kill their offspring.

            Please explain why women, and only women, lose their rights because someone else also has rights.

            They don’t.
            Please explain why the child in the womb, and only the child in the womb can lose their life because the women happens to be the dominate being

            Please explain why those who do not share your personal beliefs should pay taxes without receiving representation.

            You tell me. It’s people of your ilk who want me to pay for your birth control and abortions.
            I’ve never said that people who don’t share my personal beliefs should pay taxes without receiving representation.
            Obviously this is more of your projection.
            You espouse this belief so you naturally think I do.

            Please explain why the rights are written “life, liberty AND property,” not “Life or Liberty or Property, whichever comes first.” (It may help to use a dictionary to look up the word “and.”)

            Why does this even matter?
            Without life, what does it matter if there is liberty or property?
            It doesn’t.

            ” Any” person includes women, and includes pregnant women. Please explain why only pregnant women may have their privileges and immunities, such as freedom of religion, abridged, and their lives, liberty and property stripped from them, and be placed into involuntary servitude, without due process.

            They don’t have their privileges taken away.
            A woman before she became pregnant did not have the right to take the life of another.

            So nothing would change when/if she becomes pregnant because she would still not possess that “right”

            It should be no one’s privilege to take the life of their child.

            Hmmm you’ve placed yourself in a hard position here.

            Since you’re fond of the dictionary, let’s look up what involuntary servitude means.

            http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Involuntary+Servitude

            The term involuntary servitude is used in reference to any type of slavery,
            peonage, or compulsory labor for the satisfaction of debts.
            Two essential elements of involuntary servitude are involuntariness, which is
            compulsion to act against one’s will, and servitude, which is some form of
            labor for another.
            .

            That means you’d have to admit that the child in the womb is indeed a person for whom the pregnant woman is laboring. If there’s no debt or person for whom she’s laboring, there’s no involuntary servitude.

            Note: it cannot be because other persons have rights, because you’re a person and women don’t have to follow your religion or accept your beliefs over their own, let you into their homes without a warrant, give you their medical records without a warrant, die for you, give up their liberty for you, give up their property for you, or involuntarily labor for you, without due process of law.

            OMG!
            If I’ve said it once I’ve said it a million times:
            Abortion has nothing to do with religion or beliefs.
            Just like slavery has nothing to do with religion or beliefs.

            The rest of what you’re saying is just tripe
            No pro lifer is in favor of a pregnant woman giving up life and
            liberty or property.

            Correct: States cannot strip people of their rights without due process. “You’re female” is not due process; it’s discrimination based on gender and unequal protection under law.

            Never said “you’re female” is due process.
            Why would you even bring this up?
            Do you have anything without your little straw men? I mean really??

            Equal protection does not extend to “the child in the womb” for several reasons. First, because it cannot be extended without first stripping the woman whose womb it is of her rights. By definition that is unequal protection.

            That’s not true.
            It can be extended to both the mother and the child.
            Just like rights can be extended to blacks without infringing on whites.

            Or do you not believe that to be possible as well.

            It wouldn’t surprise me as in my experience most pro aborts I’ve encountered are raging racists.

            Second, that there’s a “child” in the womb is your personal belief, not universally accepted, and people have the right to their own personal beliefs, and to freely exercise them

            Again, it’s not my beliefs.
            It’s science.
            You have yet to disprove me on this front and I wont hold my breath.

            Government imposing a certain set of personal beliefs on people who do not share them is a violation of the establishment clause

            Alright.. let’s take NAMBLA for instance.
            They’re people who do not share the belief that pedophilia/pederasty is wrong.

            Would anti-pedophilia/pederasty laws be a violation of the establishment clause for them?

            Third, zygotes, embryos and fetuses do not have rights.

            They do in AL. And it’s more than likely that other states will follow suite.

            Even if they did, they would not have more rights than other persons, such as the right to deny another person their rights without due process of law. Please explain how a developing embryo would afford due process of law from within the womb to the woman creating it.

            Let’s see what Blackmun had to say about it; he specifically points out the weakness in Roe:
            The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a “person” within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant’s case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the 14th Amendment. Look under the Opinion, Section IX, A

            http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=410&invol=113

            In reality, zygotes, embryos and fetuses cannot exercise rights or extend due process.

            In reality neither can an infant. Are you in favor of infanticide because they too cannot exercise rights or extended due process without a third party?

            Women have a right to be secure in their person, which cannot be violated without probable cause. Their uteri are part of their person.

            But the baby is not apart of her person.
            The baby is a separate albeit dependent person with a unique relationship to his/her mother.

            “She might have had sex” is not a crime and not probable cause.

            When did anyone on here or I ever say it was?
            Oh right… I forgot…. this is more of you needing something to be true in order for your life to have meaning.

            Please explain how an embryo is a person protected by law if its mother is not.

            Both should be protected.

            Does human person hood arise from sperm, only?

            Nope
            A human person arises from both a mother and a father.
            But you seem to have some major daddy issues.

            PS: “You’re irrational and ignorant” is a baseless ad hominem attack, not an argument. Ironically, using ad hominem attacks is irrational and ignorant. (HTH.)

            Baseless? No, I don’t think so.
            Even my colleagues think there’s something not right with you. You keep having to inject straw men into everything.

            You have a need for your stereotypes of pro lifers to be real despite the fact that we’ve repeatedly acted and written to the contrary.

            When we say “no, this is not what we believe or how we act”, it seems to hurt you so deeply that you have to retreat inside your own head where it’s ok that you can still insist you know better.

            I guess to you, no really doesn’t mean no.

          • PJ4

            Just hitting a few points before wrapping this up

            OMG, you took 4 days to
            compile this steaming pile of cow dung that CM completely demolished in 30 mins???
            So pathetic.
            I’m actually sad for you.
            4 days, and all you could come up with were more little straw men and lies.

            Wow.
            You didn’t go to college, did you?

            Wait. I take that back… some guy actually got college students to sign a petition to support ISIS… so… it’s possible you could have gone to college… perhaps you were one of the dumb-dumbs in the video who were duped into supporting ISIS?

            Would not be surprised one bit.

            Or is it only immoral for women to have sex?

            I think that deep down inside, you secretly need him think this. I mean, these are your words not his. You really really need these religiously held stereotypes of yours to be true, don’t you?

            It’s pathetic.

            You keep having to build up these hysterical piles of straw men in order to make your “argument”.
            I mean really, can you quote him directly (I’ll even give you indirectly) saying that it’s only immoral for women to have sex?
            I’ll be over here. Waiting. Most likely forever.

            Perhaps you mean there’s a morality question if women dare to have sex for reasons other than
            procreation.

            Again. Perhaps you need this to be true. If it’s not true, then your whole pro abort world will come
            tumbling down all around you. Maybe that’s why you have to make things up about people. Constantly.

            Rape is immoral. Sex is not.

            Duh.

            Abortion is immoral. Sex is not.

            Furthermore, other people’s sex lives aren’t any of your business. At all. Not even a little bit. Really. And REALLY not the government’s business.

            Who said it was? Oh, right… you people did when you started to expect us, via government coercion, to pay for your birth control and then the ability to kill your baby if said birth control fails.

            (Check out some history of governments controlling reproduction: Mao Zedong; Adolf Hitler;
            Nicolai Ceausescu… the naivete with which the anti-choice community hurtles towards handing the government control of our sex lives is appalling.)

            Interesting that you’ve had to bring up some of the most pro-abortion dictators ever to try to prove a point you never even had.

            The naïveté (not naiveté, Ms Remidal English class) of the pro death community hurtles towards self-aborting with every word you write.

            AFTER nine months they MIGHT have a baby. That’s why they say “expecting” and not “I have a baby!” Again, future tense.

            Might? Really?? What else might it become?

            I think you have might have a future in sci fi novels.

            So when my doctor referred to my son in my womb as my baby every time he saw me, every time I heard his beating heart and every time I saw his little body on the sonogram machine he was talking in the future tense?
            Really?

            That doesn’t means a clump of cells is already a baby. Quite likely the clump of cells stage will never reach the baby stage. (Note: different stages. Note:
            present vs. future.) All made possible by the functioning of the woman’s body.
            ALL OF IT. Put the clump of cells stage into a Petri dish, then tell us what happens. (Or lie about it, some more.)

            You realize that the “clump of cells” stage is less than a week right? Oh I forgot you’re completely ignorant of fetal development

            Ok… I have a proposition to make : abortion legal up till “clump of cells” stage is over. After that stage, abortion is illegal.

            That should give every woman at least one week till body parts start forming.

            No exceptions after the fetal heartbeat as we are well passed the clump of cells stage by that point.

            So good of you to inspire me like that. ;-)

            The following does happen: women are murdered while pregnant, because they are pregnant.

            Which is why we as pro lifers work tirelessly to incorporate legislation to protect both mother and
            child in the womb.

            You people fight that kind of legislation tooth and nail. 

            Misogynist.

            Women commit suicide while pregnant, because they are pregnant.

            Interesting you say this as I have a study here, that says the opposite of what you are claiming.

            http://www.ghpjournal.com/article/S0163-8343(11)00306-9/abstract

            From the study:

            Significantly, they also discovered many parallels with no substantial variations in terms of pregnancy status, such as 56% of all suicide victims had a known mental health diagnosis, 32% had tried to commit suicide before, and 28% had a known alcohol or substance abuse issue at the time of death.

            http://www.hsccs.org/poc/view_doc.php?type=doc&id=13737

            Being a parent, particularly for mothers, appears to decrease the risk of suicide. Even
            pregnant women have a lower risk of suicide than women of childbearing age who
            are not pregnant.

            oh gee Dingus, whatever could this mean???

            How can this directly contradicts your wild beliefs?Whatever are you going to do now???

            I’m certain you wont admit that you’re wrong and that you only have your feelings to support you as opposed to actual facts—you’re too much of a narcissist to admit when you’ve been beaten.

            I also realize that this is a big blow to your lies and that you will undoubtedly ignore the evidence as you have in the past, but it still needed mentioning.

            Women die of complications of pregnancy and childbirth.

            Women die from legal abortion

            Where safe, legal abortion is not available, women die of botched self-induced and black market
            abortions.

            Absolute hogwash.

            http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/08/27/mother-of-woman-who-died-after-abortion-sues-planned-parenthood-hospital/

            http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/02/21/woman-late-term-abortion-death/1935799/

            http://www.justiceforchristin.com

            http://arguing-about-abortions.tumblr.com/post/67667497617/in-memory-of-the-women-killed-by-safe-and-legal

            You still want abortion to be legal. Women will die, and you are fine with that

            Keep telling yourself it’s just collateral damage, or you don’t really mean it, or it’s only a few of them (as you certainly have done, several times): the bottom
            line is that you accept women’s deaths.

            Interesting you need to straw man him again.

            Actually, no, it’s not interesting.. it’s typical and pathetic.

            Where ever does he say that women are collateral damage? Direct or indirect quotes please.

            I’ve only heard the term “collateral damage” used by pro aborts to refer to the child in the womb after
            an abortion.

            Furthermore, because we cannot know which women will die, all women lose their RIGHT to life
            under such a system.

            Because you cannot know which women will die from legal abortion, all women lose their right to life
            under such a system

            Easily: a fetus is not alive by itself. The woman is. The fetus may be genetically human, but is not an individual human person. The woman is.

            Let’s get this straight: you’re conflating embryo (up to week 8 of gestation) and fetus (9 weeks and on). I’m not sure if you’re doing out of ignorance or out because you’re just intellectually dishonest (my bet is the latter)

            The earliest a fetus has been able to survive outside of their mother has been 21 /1/2 weeks.

            So, to be clear, in your sick and twisted mind, in order to be a human being you have to be able to live
            on your own?

            What about a woman on life support?

            What about a woman who cannot get about without a nurse to help her? Do they lose their “personhood” in your mind?
            You say that the the baby in the womb isn’t an individual human, so explain this:

            Human development begins at fertilization, the
            process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo developmentn) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.”
            A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo). — Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.

            Although life is a continuous process, fertilization (which, incidentally, is not a ‘moment’) is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte.”– Ronan O’Rahilly and Fabiola Müller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p. 8.

            “It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and resultant mingling of the nuclear material each brings to the union that constitues the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of a new individual.” –Clark Edward Corliss, Patten’s Human Embryology: Elements of Clinical Development. New York: McGraw Hill, 1976. p. 30.

            I’ve asked you in the past to explain to me what these scientist mean by their statements in these medial
            textbooks but you’ve only ignored them.

            Of course you did.
            You have no medical evidence to back up your criteria for human being.

            At the very least, can you explain why several medical texts on embryology contradicts all your religiously held beliefs on fetal development?

            Can you explain why you must cling to your beliefs despite facts to the contrary?
            I wont hold my breath

            A fetus in the womb has no way to exercise rights;
            Neither can a new born or even a 1 year old. They have to be defended by a third party.

            Unlike you, I see clearly that either the developing embryo has rights (defended by a third party), or the woman does, intrinsically. We CAN NOT extend rights to both.

            There was a time when people thought that they cannot (not can not Ms. Remedial English class) extend rights to both blacks and whites too.

            You’re in very good company.

            I don’t think a zygote or a developing fetus is an individual human person because they cannot
            function as one, not biologically and not in practice. But the woman IS an individual human person. If you disagree, you should say so.

            That’s you’re problem, you don’t think
            You have no facts
            You only have feelings
            I’ve told you time and again that 14 week old twins embrace and fight each other in the womb. That’s
            functioning like an individual person.
            We hear our mother’s voice in the womb.
            We taste or mother’s food.
            We react to the music and sounds around us.
            We even remember sounds while in the womb.

            I asked why you think gestation takes 40 weeks and of course you did not answer. But you know why: that’s how long it takes to CREATE an organism capable of individual life. Reproduction is the PROCESS of creation. It’s not done the moment it begins. That’s male supremacist bovine excrement,
            and nothing more.

            Sigh… abortion is female supremacy over their child they’ve helped to create.
            So pot.. meet kettle. Pro abortion is all about female supremacy, not equality… why don’t you get that?

            AIn’t happening

            Isn’t. Aint isn’t a word Ms Remedial English Class.

            It’s that simple. Women are not going to bear and give birth to babies because you think they should. Because they have to take care of them, not you.

            Actually, they don’t have to take care of the babies.. there’s this thing called adoption..

            Because it’s their body, not yours, and not the government’s.

            But it’s the child’s body that needs protection from some women, like you for example.
            The government has every right to protect the weak.

            I suggest you go have a nice long philosophical chat with a human embryo, since according to you they are living individual people.

            I suggest you go have a nice long philosophical chat with a new born or a 1 year old, or a 2 year old or even a 7 year old, since according to you, only living individuals are capable of such an action.

            See how ignorant you sound?
            No. Of course you don’t.
            I also suggest you stop embarrassing yourself.
            You’re only helping the pro life cause.
            Maybe secretly, that’s been your plan all along.
            :-)

          • Cynical_Meliorist

            Out of the many things you’ve said (and thanks, by the way, for the cover), i think this is one of the most important:

            “I think that deep down inside, you secretly need him think this. I mean, these are your words not his. You really really need these religiously held stereotypes of yours to be true…”

            This, right here, sums up the entirety of the mentality than Dingus has used to this point. Not my words, but hers, which are twisted and incorrect. The idea that without her suppositions on the matter, without her condemnations of positions no one actually holds, without the phantoms of oppression that she swears are being used and aren’t….

            Without those, she’s just angry. I think her anger, and her arguments, reflect a deep need for her to be right, because the truth of the matter if she’s wrong is more than she cares to deal with at all. No amount of therapy can make us change, or make us accept what we’ve done as being wrong. That is something each of us have to internalize and do on our own.

            One day, maybe she’ll find the inner peace everyone deserves, but for now, her nonsensical and deceptive arguments are all we’re left to read.

            Thanks again, good post.

          • PJ4

            Indeed.
            Thank you sir!
            You are most welcome :-)
            I actually thought I was done with her… but her last post was just so full of crap, I had to let her know…

            Honestly… I’m starting to feel sad for her.

          • PJ4

            She just doesn’t get it, does she?
            Ugh…
            Oh well…. it’s better for us that she’s this off kilter.

          • TheDingus

            Don’t know where your other post went, but here is my reply.

            “Sorry, but this is one more time your “analogies” and “parallels” don’t apply.”

            You didn’t answer the question.

            It seems that what you would enforce against others you are excused from, yourself. You don’t even have to contemplate it; it’s just your right to make personal decisions for the sake of your children. (I agree.)

            It’s not an “analogy” that developing embryos are dependent on women. That “dependency “is the very reason you think women should be forced to gestate. (Actually, it’s beyond “dependency:” they wouldn’t exist at all if not for women. Your son exists with or without you, does he not?)

            74% of women who have abortions say one reason is because they already have dependents, with 72% having children. They make the same decision you did: that their other dependents, including their children, come first.

            Yes, it is a parallel. You are free from others making decisions about your personal family life and women are too. The only thing that doesn’t run in parallel is that you believe women should not have the same rights you do.

            “We couldn’t neglect our son. We couldn’t abuse our son. We couldn’t exploit our son sexually or offer him up for other people to do so.”

            And you couldn’t let your son’s dependency threaten your daughter, nor deal with the day-to-day difficulties of being directly responsible for him. You made a decision for the sake of your family. That’s your right.

            I still wonder how you would feel if I stepped in, with the force of law behind me, and told you “it’s much better for children to be cared for by their biological parents in the family home, so it’s immoral for you to make such decisions for yourself and you are not allowed to,” forcing you to live in a dangerous and untenable situation no matter what you think or feel about it.

            (That you won’t answer the question is just you being a hypocrite. But it’s alright: I more than suspect you’d be outraged at being forced to keep your son at home against your better judgement.)

            Lots and lots of people neglect, abuse and sexually assault or exploit their children. Sometimes women in those situations choose not to bring another child into it; I know such women personally. You don’t give a fig leaf about them, their situations or their current children. You believe it’s much better for children to be born, and you will force women to give birth, even if they know it’s a terrible idea and people will suffer for it. Suffering only matters when it’s YOUR children’s suffering, I guess.

            “We could not kill our son, no matter how “depressed” we felt. No matter if we “decided” he wasn’t human (according to Peter Singer he’s not).”

            I seem to be the only one on this forum who can tell the difference between living inside and because of another person, and being a born individual. It’s the darnedest thing.

            That you find it necessary to put depression in quotes says a lot about you. How about this, your son is “autistic” (I bet you’re making that up just to get sympathy) and chooses not to speak. Sometimes he’s mildly annoying and you couldn’t deal with it, so you got rid of him, for convenience’ sake. Correct? Incorrect?

            (Whoever Peter Singer is, take it up with him. I think your born children are living individuals with rights. Even your daughter.)

            “So no, we wouldn’t see those “restrictions” in the same light as you did in your ridiculous analogy, because there’s simply no comparison.”

            Yes, there is: women have the same rights you do. They aren’t stripped of them because a man ejaculated. You can’t be bothered to consider that reality, but it remains a reality.

            “So, no we are saying that you can’t kill your child in the womb, just as I couldn’t kill my 11 year old. They’re both human beings, and they’re both worthy of protection.”

            Yes, I know what you think. I disagree. You think it’s “killing a child in the womb” to end gestation; I think it’s choosing not to create a child. You think it’s a “child” because daddy ejaculated; I think a child is what might come OUT of the womb after 40 weeks of gestation. You think it’s “killing” to decide not to eat and breathe for someone else; I think it’s our right to decide not to eat and breathe for someone else.

            You think a zygote or embryo is “someone else;” I think it isn’t. You think there are two people when a woman is pregnant; I think there’s one person who is reproducing. Not, has reproduced, is reproducing. The conclusion is nowhere near as certain as you pretend, but it is certain that women are living, individual human beings, is it not?

            I get where you’re coming from; you just refuse to get where I’m coming from. It’s part of you stripping me of my rights to pretend that I MUST agree with your beliefs, or at least live according to them, no matter what my beliefs are. Well, I don’t share your beliefs, and have every right not to, and to live by my own.

            Why don’t you deal with the fact that we think and believe different things and have the right to? I fully support your right to, after all.

            “We the unhip, the uncool Hobby Lobby stitchin’ bitches get this point while you, in all your self-proclaimed sagacity do not.”

            You, the self-righteous believers that men create babies and women are incubators get only the point you define for yourselves, and dismiss literally every other point in evidence before you. Meanwhile, after decades of this argument, I have yet to get past the first salient point: why you believe it’s your business what’s going on inside other people’s sex organs, in the first place.

            The Greens of Hobby Lobby, who make so much money off goods made by Chinese women forced to use government-provided IUDs and have abortions, had a perfectly good remedy to their distress at thinking about what their American employees might have in their uteruses: stop concerning themselves with what is so obviously none of their business. They do so easily enough when it’s Chinese uteruses, don’t they?

          • Cynical_Meliorist

            One thing here, just for kicks.

            “I seem to be the only one on this forum who can tell the difference between living inside and because of another person, and being a born individual. It’s the darnedest thing.”

            Actually, no. Such a biological distinction is easily made and recognized.

            This, of course, is nothing more than a boring and easily seen dodge on your part to not address the moral or ethical complications that killing innocent human life presents. Your umbrage at people expressed as if to make them seem clueless about basic biology is laughable when you couldn’t understand the parallels of conception versus implantation. Your reply to that line of questioning and statements?

            “You must think it’s magic!”

            “I have yet to get past the first salient point: why you believe it’s your business what’s going on inside other people’s sex organs, in the first place.”

            The fact that you have to ask this is kind of silly. It’s been explained to you (at the very least, by me…but it shouldn’t be a real guessing game at this stage for the answer). You just don’t like the answer. It, as I stated before, would put you in a position to mentally review your own actions, and those of others, and examine them, and hopefully without using the massive level of rationalization currently displayed.

            Why be honest about your own position and what it entails, when you can just pretend it’s something else entirely AND create arguments and the like from thin air to assign to everyone else anyway?

            Now *there* is a good question.

          • TheDingus

            “Actually, no. Such a biological distinction is easily made and recognized.”

            Easily made; obviously not easily recognized. You consider a fetus living inside and because of another individual be precisely the same, legally and morally, as a born individual. The entire anti-choice argument depends upon erasing any difference.

            Bassett Hound was trying to imply I’d be fine with killng an 11 year old, or, at best, that ending a pregnancy at 10 weeks is exactly the same as taking the separate, individual life of an 11 year old child.

            Sorry I won’t accept such a ridiculous argument. There is a difference: easily made and recognized, as you say.

            Maybe, for kicks, you can say what that difference is?

            “… address the moral or ethical complications that killing innocent human life presents”

            So much is sub rosa in your sentence. One: that having no brain equates to “innocence.” Sure: corpses are “innocent” too. So what? Or is the implication that because a woman does have a brain, and may use it to look ahead to the future, she’s “guilty?” (When it comes to rights, isn’t innocence decided by due process of law, not in your imagination?) Sea stars have no brain; are they innocent, too?

            But, you’ll say, we’re not talking about sea stars, but about “human life.” Which you define as “animate and having human DNA.” I think that’s an absurd definition. By that definition, my left toe is “human life.” Well, I’d cut it off if it was threatening my health, and so would you cut off yours, and you know it.

            Clearly, our toes are not human beings; and not just because they would be dead if not attached to our bodies. You avoid the fact that just being alive and having human DNA is not a sufficient definition of a PERSON. You are asking, what about the POTENTIAL future? Well, what about it? Does it trump the actual human person, in the present?

            I’ve addressed the point time after time: there is not just one human life in this equation. The woman is also a human life; more, she’s a human PERSON, with rights.

            You will strip her of her rights. You keep saying it’s alright to strip her rights, because “baby!” Well, more than half of those babies will be female, also without rights. So what exactly is the point you’re trying to make? Clearly being a human being with rights DOES NOT MATTER, if more than half of human beings can be dismissed from that status, just like that.

            If being a human person with rights does not matter, how come I’m supposed to care about fetuses and their humanity and their rights?

            “Your umbrage at people expressed as if to make them seem clueless about basic biology is laughable when you couldn’t understand the parallels of conception versus implantation. Your reply to that line of questioning and statements?”

            What “parallels” are you talking about? The only one I see is that both conception and implantation arise from and are made possible by women’s bodies. Zygotes don’t create themselves, and they don’t implant into magic incubators.

            They are clearly clueless about basic biology, because they continue to speak about zygotes, embryos and fetuses as if the are alive by themselves, attached to no one. I’ve variously seen women described as life support machines, cars, and bridges, for heaven’s sake.

            What’s I take umbrage to is the fundamental intellectual dishonesty that can simultaneously claim a fetus is an “individual life” but it can’t be removed it from your own body because it’s BIOLOGICALLY INCAPABLE OF INDIVIDUAL LIFE.

            That’s flat out delusion.

            Yet even that wouldn’t matter, but for the fact that a woman IS an individual life. If we were really talking about gestation inside incubators, this argument would be SO over. You will understand instantaneously that NO, people CAN NOT be forced to create babies they don’t want, and YES, people have the right to determine if their DNA will be propagated into the larger world. I mean, instantaneously.

            The anti-choice argument is and always has been about controlling women.

            “You must think it’s magic!”

            Indeed you must, since you go to great lengths to deny there’s any importance to women’s role in reproduction.

            “The fact that you have to ask this is kind of silly.”

            Of course: it’s a given that what’s going on inside my uterus is your business, isn’t it? Well, it’s not.

            “You just don’t like the answer.”

            You’re right: I don’t like the answer, which is that it’s your business because you’ve granted yourself the right to make it so. In reality, you do not possess that right, at all. The government doesn’t have that authority, either.

            “It, as I stated before, would put you in a position to mentally review your own actions, and those of others, and examine them, and hopefully without using the massive level of rationalization currently displayed.”

            I’ve never considered anything I’ve ever done, not even during seven years of therapy? I’ve just “rationalized” everything that ever led to me getting pregnant and choosing not to have a baby. It’s all pure fantasy. By God, I should be whipping my self with barbed wire for not killing myself when

            I should have.

            Charming, as usual.

            No: I just reject your arguments. That’s not rationalizing, especially when your arguments are dishonest, inherently illogical, and putridly misogynistic.

            “Why be honest about your own position and what it entails, when you can just pretend it’s something else entirely AND create arguments and the like from thin air to assign to everyone else anyway?”

            I’m completely honest about my position. I don’t think it’s a crying tragedy when a woman chooses not to have a baby. I don’t think she’s killed anyone. In what way have I been dishonest? You just really, really believe I MUST agree with you. I do not. Can we move past that, now?

            “Now *there* is a good question.”

            To a narcissist.

          • Cynical_Meliorist

            “Easily made; obviously not easily recognized. You consider a fetus living inside and because of another individual be precisely the same, legally and morally, as a born individual. The entire anti-choice argument depends upon erasing any difference.”

            Actually, it’s both easily made and recognized. We’ve done it repeatedly, much to your own vocalized dismay. Your own view that if something isn’t involved in society, it’s therefore useless fails on moral and ethical grounds. Even abortionists and those who represent your movement publicly and philosophically already agree that it’s a human life that’s being killed, but they fall back on the ableism/ageism/location argument you can’t get around in any way. You simply refuse to accept the very argument that your own side makes. It’s just that simple.

            “Bassett Hound was trying to imply I’d be fine with killng an 11 year old, or, at best, that ending a pregnancy at 10 weeks is exactly the same as taking the separate, individual life of an 11 year old child.”

            Morally and ethically, she is right. Again, your side of the debate already acknowledges this aspect, but simply doesn’t care. When you can catch up to the rest of your peers, then we can get back to it.

            “Sorry I won’t accept such a ridiculous argument. ”

            Well, then you’ll have to take that up with Richards, Dawkins, Sanger, Thompson, and quite a few others who already believe and accept that argument. Your problem, not mine.

            “Maybe, for kicks, you can say what that difference is?”

            Didn’t you just get done telling me you already knew? Why repeat myself?

            “What “parallels” are you talking about? The only one I see is that both conception and implantation arise from and are made possible by women’s bodies.”

            Your stated belief, during our exchange, is that life starts AT implantation. Biological sciences already have established for a rather long time that conception is the point where new life starts. Not before, at the point of ejaculation or after implantation. This is what we were talking about, and what you clearly didn’t understand, and then want to take me to task for “not understanding biology”. Clearly, my grasp is a bit better than yours, but if you need a refresher course, there is plenty of literature out there to deal with the subject.

            “They are clearly clueless about basic biology, because they continue to speak about zygotes, embryos and fetuses as if the are alive by themselves, attached to no one.”

            Ambiguity argument. The plain fact of the matter is that they are an individual life. There’s no getting around that argument. You want to believe that if you can phrase it in a manner which makes it seem like the fetus is some magical creature that can do everything on it’s own, you’ll get a leg up on the argument. Sadly, that’s not the case and you’ll find no one who believes that. We are well versed in what the gestation process is all about, and have told you several times that it’s not “magic”, or unicorns or whatever else you wish to apply. The point being made is that there are 2 distinct lives involved. Physically, yes, the fetus is inside the mother. That doesn’t make them 1 physical being, or otherwise we’d consider mothers to have 2 heads, 4 arms, 4 legs, and possibly 2 completely sets of genitalia. Now who’s making the silly argument?

            “What I take umbrage to is the fundamental intellectual dishonesty that can simultaneously claim a fetus is an “individual life” but it can’t be removed it from your own body because it’s BIOLOGICALLY INCAPABLE OF INDIVIDUAL LIFE.”

            To further demonstrate your ambiguity argument, this statement here is patently and absurdly false. You’re equating “individual” as something other than what’s implied. The concept isn’t really hard to wrap your head around. Are there not 2 distinct life forms involved in this process, or are you thinking otherwise? Again, modern biology would be happy to instruct you in the difference. You simply wish to muddy the waters with such arguments, in the idea that you can show someone else is being foolish, when it’s you who fails to grasp such an easy concept.

            “Yet even that wouldn’t matter, but for the fact that a woman IS an individual life.”

            The only delusion, as you wish to frame it, is that there isn’t 2 different life forms involved. Please, argue otherwise. Would love to see how that works itself out. No one is saying that a woman isn’t an individual, but your flawed interpretation which relies on an ageism/ableism/location argument is logically false, and one that after being told it for 2 weeks, you still can’t overcome.

            “Indeed you must, since you go to great lengths to deny there’s any importance to women’s role in reproduction.”

            Laughably dishonest. Clearly, no one has done that. What part of the role of gestation has been dismissed? Can you even point to where that’s been done?

            “Of course: it’s a given that what’s going on inside my uterus is your business, isn’t it? Well, it’s not.”

            Unfortunately, moral concerns give people the right to comment and decide, socially, about such things at appropriate and specific times. Of course, this argument goes back to the one you skipped over before, about how if you saw someone doing something immoral and told them it’s wrong, that according to you they’re a monster and being a judgmental jerk. The grasp of concepts between making discerning judgments and condemning people still escapes you.

            “You’re right: I don’t like the answer, which is that it’s your business because you’ve granted yourself the right to make it so. In reality, you do not possess that right, at all. The government doesn’t have that authority, either.”

            Patently absurd in one, and factually false on the other. I’ve granted myself no “right” to do such a thing. We’re having a conversation and debating a topic, of which you’re not winning and feel the need to lash out. Were I to believe that I already had this right, me talking to you about it would be an exercise in futility, and I could then use your tactic of telling people to shut up and let me do whatever I want. It would be my right, after all. Secondly, the government *already* has that right…in fact, they are the purveyor and delegate such things. The government was the one who made abortion illegal, and then legal, and maybe illegal in some places but not others. Did you believe (as you like to say) that laws happen by magic? The rights you, as a citizen, possess can be hampered, removed, changed or ignored by those in government for whatever reason they see fit and can legally worm into.

            “I’ve never considered anything I’ve ever done, not even during seven years of therapy? I’ve just “rationalized” everything that ever led to me getting pregnant and choosing not to have a baby.”

            Your self flagellation comments aside, I don’t know. If all I had to go on was your writings here, your dismissal of basic scientific concepts, your prejudices and your projections, it’s not hard for someone to visualize that you’re rationalizing everything. Otherwise, you wouldn’t have to tell me what I think and then argue such a point, even after having been told dozens of times at this point that your own arguments are fictitious and pure fantasy. You seem to have rationalized a great deal of things away, and based on not only my conversation with you, but yours with other people here, it’s not hard to frame your point of view in such ways.

            “No: I just reject your arguments. That’s not rationalizing, especially when your arguments are dishonest, inherently illogical, and putridly misogynistic.”

            You reject them because you can’t seem to work out why they are what they are, and have no actual logical rebuttal for anything. Oddly enough, you’ve not actually shown anything I’ve said to be dishonest. You’ve claimed it….and then taken *your* point of view and *given* it to me as, then argued it as if I’ve made the statement myself. *That*, maam, is what inherently dishonest arguments look like on their face. Past this, you’ve not logically given me a single rebuttal to this point, so please don’t try and give me the “you’re being illogical” bit when you don’t even understand the arguments being made. The last part…well, again, more fantasy that you’ve concocted. If you can’t make me look like a woman-hating jerk, any claims you make are just vapid and empty. This has been played out (and noted to you) repeatedly.

            “I’m completely honest about my position.”

            As flawed as it is, maybe…but you’re avoiding the very basic idea that while you might be stating your position from a place you think is correct….well, my last paragraphs sum up dishonesty on your part rather well.

            ” I don’t think it’s a crying tragedy when a woman chooses not to have a baby. I don’t think she’s killed anyone.”

            And no one thinks a woman not having a child is a bad thing. The moral and ethical problems come into play when a new life is created and then destroyed without sufficient backing, such as a life of the mother situation. Of course, your idea that “she didn’t kill anyone” comes from your ambiguous and weak argument about interactions with society and other such -ism- arguments, which have no weight in this way. Of course, I could point out that it’s logically incorrect to run with the idea that just because you can’t believe it, or don’t, that it must not be true. Or, maybe you don’t believe it since it doesn’t fit the current legal definition of murder and other such items, which then leans heavily on the idea that the law contains such moral force…which is also factually incorrect. Again, you offer nothing more than opinions with no actual moral backing or grounding.

            ” In what way have I been dishonest?”

            You mean other than the dozens of times you’ve told *me* what I think, when the exact opposite is what I’ve stated? Or, do you mean where after doing that, you argue against me as if *I* was the one who made *your* statement…again, after being told what you’re saying is the exact opposite? How many examples do you need of this before it finally settles in?

            ” You just really, really believe I MUST agree with you. I do not. Can we move past that, now?”

            I don’t think you have to do anything of the kind. I just don’t like you stuffing words into the mouths of others and arguing it as if they were the one who said it. You have every right to disagree with me. You also have every right to be completely wrong about it, and have the right to offer no compelling evidence of any kind for your suppositions. All of those are your rights, which you’ve exercised frequently.

            “To a narcissist.”

            Yes, asking why you have to totally misrepresent your opponents position, straw man them on an epic level, and then fake outrage and innocence on the concept is being a narcissist. Clearly, your therapist glossed over what that means too.

          • PJ4

            Bam!

            Oh man, I’m not sure I’ve ever seen such a delusional pro abort
            I mean really, take away her little straw men and she’s left with nothing

            She doesn’t even know ages being dishonest
            Smh
            She completely barking

          • Cynical_Meliorist

            I agree.

            It bears repeating, whether she believes it or not, that I don’t wish her (or anyone else really) ill, regardless of how vehemently we disagree. If anything, I believe that her false claims of subjugation and the like to be the real delusion. The remainder is nothing more, in my humble opinion, than projection and events in her life that she’s rationalized as being one thing rather than another.

            Maybe, one day, her eyes will be open to that, or at the very least that it’s possible she’s not right. I just can’t say I’ll hold my breath for it.

          • PJ4

            Indeed, nor do I wish her any ill
            But I’m willing to bet she needs believe the exact opposite
            She really seems slightly unstable
            But then all those pro abortion banshees that frequent the RH site (and as of late SPL) seem that way
            They’re all misinformed, angry and callous
            Some are outright abusive
            All of them live in straw man land
            Ah well..I prefer them that way ;-)

        • Cynical_Meliorist

          After going back and reading my post from a month ago, I just wanted to point out that I stated the OP had a right to be angry, that we shouldn’t shame or degrade people and so forth. Either you just fired off the response without thinking that through, or you disregarded my position when doing so.

          Just wanted to clear that up. Please re-read what I posted to the OP, and I think that’ll settle it. :)

    • Lori Navrodtzke

      Faye–I applaud you on making the choice to carry and parent your child. I do hope and pray you are somehow teaching your child to have compassion for others, although based on this post I wonder if you are able to do that.

      I had an abortion on Feb 24, 1984. I was 17 years old, 10 weeks pregnant and the father of my child was my 26 year old, married youth pastor who had sexually taken advantage of me. I was scared, confused and had no one to talk to. He threatened to kill himself if I didn’t abort. At that time there were no ultrasounds, and there was no internet to easily get information about fetal development. There were a few Crisis Pregnancy Centers around but I wasn’t aware of their existence. I believed the Planned Parenthood I went to for a pregnancy test and the clinic I went to afterwards would give me information and another alternative if there was any help available–they gave me nothing.

      Did I believe I was ending a human life? Yes. Did I fully understand what I was actually doing? No. At least not until I saw a cannister behind the dr begin to fill up with blood during the “procedure”. And that is an image that will NEVER leave me!

      I did not end up with the perfect partner, financial security, etc you allude to in your post. I married an alcoholic, divorced 17 years later, abused alcohol myself, developed an eating disorder, suffered from depression and anxiety, pulled away from my family, and never had any other children because I believed I didn’t deserve to be a mother after what I had done. I thought about killing myself more times than I can remember, lived with shame, guilt and regret and felt judged by the pro-life community and church.

      In 2004 I finally began to work with a pastoral counselor who offered understanding and compassion. He helped me to grieve the loss of my child (which is THE most difficult thing I’ve ever had to do), accept responsibility for my decision to have my child killed, and be honest with my family about what happened. I have been working for a CPC since 2007 where I meet with women who are considering abortion, facilitate groups to help women who are post-abortive heal, and teach people about what abortion is and why it is wrong (because it kills an innocent human being).

      I am grateful the God I serve is a forgiving, loving, gracious and merciful God because after 20 years of living in a hell on earth I was able to be redeemed and made whole again. I am grateful for people who came into my life who extended God’s compassion and helped me heal. And now I feel honored and privileged to be used by God to extend compassion and love to others who are considering abortion or who have already made that choice.

      • Faye Valentine

        I was alone, too. My boyfriend at the time threatened to kill himself, too. He was 19, I was 20. I told him he could just leave us both and pretend like he never knew me, and I’d never ask for a dime from him. He opted to stay with me and still try to get me to abort (he didn’t even tell his family until I was 7 months pregnant, and only then because I called his mom and started to tell her myself) and made our lives varying degrees of living hell for the better part of a decade.

        But I had Biology in high school (and went into further study of the subject my first year of college), and abortion was out of the question. The closest I came to abortion was almost slitting my wrists in the bathtub. If my child was going to go, I would go with her. I didn’t, though, because I knew that still wouldn’t be fair to her.

        I didn’t know about CPCs.

        I still don’t understand how anyone can do that to their own child.

        • Lori Navrodtzke

          Well Faye, all I can say is I am so very grateful I will not stand before you on judgement day. I will stand before a forgiving God with confidence knowing the blood of Christ has redeemed my sin.

          In the meantime I will continue to work in the pro-life movement educating people about the evil that is abortion, as well as reaching out to those women and men who have been hurt by this decision.

          And I will pray that God would soften your heart and bring you to a place of understanding.You will be a much better advocate for the unborn when you can understand why someone would make this choice and then speak truth into their life so they make the right choice.

          God bless.

          • Faye Valentine

            All that stuff about “God” just sounds so empty and self-soothing. This *always* happens when I express my frustrations and outrage to the post-abortive. I’m angry because I feel the situations are so unfair, they get defensive, I reiterate, then God starts getting invoked profusely and I just give up because it’s utterly meaningless to me.

            I guess I’m just doomed to live the rest of my life in a state of chronic butthurt. Oh well.

          • Lori Navrodtzke

            Faye–you don’t need to live in a “state of chronic butthurt”. It sounds like you have had a difficult life and I have the utmost respect for you, that you chose to give birth to your child. Honestly, I wish I had been stronger and stood up for my child. I would imagine that the reason God gets invoked when speaking with those who are post-abortive is because without His forgiveness and redemption there would be no way to deal with having intentionally killed your own child. I know that for me, without God I would have killed myself. I understand that you are an atheist. I would just encourage you to consider the possibility that God is real. A couple of good books are “Case for Faith” and “Case for Christ” both written by Lee Strobel who was also an atheist. I know that God is real and that my relationship with Him is real. I also know that you would find a way to look at life very differently if you gave Him a chance.

        • lady_black

          To begin with, you allowed him to stay. Why did you do that?

      • TheDingus

        I’m deeply sorry you fell for the shame and guilt the anti-choice movement pushes on young women making the best choice they can for their given circumstances.

        But I doubt the abortion is what caused you to marry an alcoholic, divorce 17 years later, abuse alcohol yourself,
        develop an eating disorder, suffer from depression and anxiety,
        pull away from your family, and never have any other children. You sound like the abused child of an alcoholic, to me.

        When you understand that you had a right to consider your self first, even if your parents really didn’t, that’s when you’ll really begin to heal.

        You do not need forgiveness or mercy for doing the best you could for yourself.

        BTW, you’d probably be equally horrified at the blood draining out of you when you have your period if it came out all at once, too. Shame at being female is deeply ingrained in women.

        • Lori Navrodtzke

          Well thank you for the support you are trying to give me. However, you are wrong in your assessment. I was not an abused child. The family I grew up in was wonderful–no abuse, no drinking, no drugs, mom stayed home, parents were very involved, etc. No alcoholism anywhere in my family and my parents always put my sister and I first

          The anti-choice movement as you call it did not place guilt and shame on me. I felt guilty and ashamed for the choice I made because it was a choice to intentionally end the life of my child and that’s wrong. I am now very active in the pro-life movement.

          I have healed from the abusive situation I was in that got me pregnant, and I have healed from the abortion because I’ve allowed myself to grieve the fact that I lost my one and only child to a “procedure” that I chose to have.

          And I do need forgiveness and mercy, not just because I chose to have an abortion but also for all the other sins I’ve committed (which is part of being human). We all sin and that sin separates us from God. His forgiveness and mercy is given freely to those who acknowledge that need and I am forever grateful for that.

    • MamaBear

      Faye, nobody is going to hate you for this. We all understand these feelings, deal with them ourselves. But, I’m sure you will agree that stopping the killing, the abortions, should be top priority. To do that we need to reach out in compassion and mercy, to win over the hearts and minds of not only those still innocent, with the goal of keeping them so, but bring the guilty to repentance and healing.
      Ironically, some of our best messengers for the prolife message are those who have had abortions or worked in it who have repented and now want to stop it. I can talk until I’m blue in the face about how the unborn child is already a human life, but I will never have the same impact on a young scared expectant mom deserted by her partner, as someone who went through the same struggle, whether it is the person who resisted abortion and can assure them they can get through this or the person who had the abortion and tells them they still deeply regret it.
      Incidentally, that “perfect life” because of abortion is pro-abortion propaganda. Post-abortive women have higher rates of depression, suicide, drug and alcohol abuse, and broken relationships than women who have not had abortions.

      • Faye Valentine

        “Incidentally, that “perfect life” because of abortion is pro-abortion propaganda. ”

        No, it really happens, I’ve seen it. They just forgot to add in the step about just asking some god to forgive you and then you get to have a perfect life with your perfect partner and kids only with him and a nice house that you can get because you waited to have living children until you were financially stable and you don’t have to live with a scumbag who knocked you up with zero regard for the consequences who continues to ruin your life for a decade, and even screws as much crap up on his way out for you as humanly possible.

        And all that wonderful stuff can be yours for the low low price of killing your kid and then deluding yourself into thinking it’s okay because you’ll see them in heaven or something later and some god made everything a-okay for you.

        I don’t get that. I have to live with the reality of what actually happened. I have to live with the 10 years of hell my kids’ biological paternal donor put us through. I have to live with the fact that because of my ex, my husband who loves and respects me and I him very very much, might never have the joy of having our own biological children together, even though he wants to have children with me very very badly (and the feeling is quite mutual). I don’t get that chance to have a perfect life, and people who killed their first children do. And that’s not fair, no matter what “god” says.

        • MamaBear

          I am so sorry things are that bad for you. Life is rarely fair. I strongly suspect, no matter how “perfect” that these women make their lives look to others, that they are hiding a lot of guilt and pain, even if they do not admit it. We do know statistically, there are more suicides, depression, and relationship problems, but statistics show results for large groups, not individuals.
          I totally understand your resentment and do not judge you for it. I struggle with resenting that people can smoke like a chimney, heavily drink, and be quite obese, and yet be healthy into their eighties, while I did all the right things and have only a 10% chance of making it to my late sixties, provided I stay in these miserable treatments. (Yesterday was monthly treatment day – so today I’m grumpy, feel lousy from side effects, and really really hate very big needles.)
          However, I have learned that I cannot have a happy life if I live in resentment, but as I said, it can be a struggle. And it pops back up when you least expect it and you have to deal with it again. For me, faith in God is a big part of how I handle it. And I regularly remind myself that God never promised that our lives here on earth will be fair. I have chosen to not let resentment of how unfair life is rob me of the joys of today, for then I would be wasting the time I do have.
          I do not know how your “ex” is preventing you and your husband from having children together, but I can truly sympathize with the pain it must cause. Especially when you see others who made morally bad choices and things seem to be going so well, while you still struggle because you chose what is right.
          You are right that life is not fair. But allowing those who do wrong repentance, and offering forgiveness are not about fairness. They are about healing, one person at a time, hoping that our nation will someday heal and abortion will end.

          • Faye Valentine

            Thank you for your understanding.

        • lady_black

          You don’t really BELIEVE that, do you?

    • Infinite Grace

      “These people?” Good Lord – literally. Must be awfully comfy up there on that high horse of yours. In case you haven’t heard there’s this thing called redemption, and other things like mercy, forgiveness, Grace… You can Google it.

      • Cynical_Meliorist

        Speaking about mercy and grace, while coming off as condescending, isn’t really helping your case much. Just pointing that out.

      • Faye Valentine

        I’m an atheist. So, there’s that.

        • Mitzi

          I think good for you Faye you should be able to say what you think just like everyone else even if you disagree. ((Hugs))

    • Mitzi

      I second that Faye. Although I feel a lot of women are misinformed and coerced when it comes to abortion the ones that use it like birth control to keep their desired life in order do not deserve anything. Not even pity.

    • TheDingus

      “It hurts that I have to live with so much turmoil in my life because I
      did the right thing instead of killing my child, and a bunch of other
      women can just have their kid killed, say, “Oopsies! Oh well.”

      If you’re living with turmoil in your life because of a decision you made, perhaps you didn’t do the right thing?

      If you can’t handle being an adult who is empowered to make difficult decisions for yourself, that doesn’t give you the right to force other women to have unwanted babies.

      Newsflash: you’re going to be enraged for the rest of your life. That’s what happens when you give up agency over your own body and your own life. YOU CHOSE THAT. Stop blaming other women and take responsibility. (I shudder to think the messages you’re sending to your poor daughter.)

      Pretty sick of women who make this decision being reduced to brainless, murdering twats, too. You might want to try a different tactic. Because women are people. No, really. Just people. Actual, living, thinking, breathing, feeling people, who have to make their way in the real, difficult world. Try thinking beyond “they biologically exist! My work is done!” Too hard to grasp?

      • Faye Valentine

        Yeah. Tell my daughter to her face about how I should have killed her _x_ amount of years ago (as you have done here), then sit and wonder why your side keeps shrinking. Derp.

        My daughter is a brilliant young lady, who is doing quite well for herself at present. As opposed to the incinerated mass of carbon ash she would be now had I done “the right thing”, by your standards. Once again, that contrast in and of itself should tell you why you and your cohorts are losing this fight.

        I have been and am quite capable of maintaining agency over my own body and my own life WITHOUT having to resort to killing my own offspring. I don’t blame anyone for anything at this point in my life. My troubles started with my own bad choices (“bad choices” here *NOT* including allowing my child to live rather than killing her in utero).

        “Because women are people.”

        Yep. And so are their actual, living children in utero. Making the choice to have those children killed=homicide.

        “Actual, living, thinking, breathing, feeling people, who have to make their way in the real, difficult world.”

        Ableist much? The child in utero is every bit as actual and alive as their pregnant mothers. Not being able to feel doesn’t make you less of a person. The temporary inability to think does not make you less of a person. The world *is* difficult, but not *so* difficult that it should be viewed as an acceptable course of action to kill your own offspring to *possibly* make it *less* difficult for you.

        “Try thinking beyond ‘they biologically exist! My work is done!’ Too hard to grasp?”

        Not at all. People are capable of rationalizing all sorts of heinous b.s. if they just think long and hard enough about it to come up with “reasons” that supposedly make what they’re doing a-ok. See: jews/blacks/women “aren’t really people”.

        • TheDingus

          I would not say that to your daughter. I would tell her that she’s worthy of a good life free from hurt and turmoil, just like you are.

          The most I would tell her is, she doesn’t have to follow in your footsteps. (Sorry, but if you really care about her, you’d tell her the same.)

          My mother did tell me face to face she didn’t want me and if she could’ve aborted me she would have. (BTW, this hardly came as news; what with the hot irons and the holding my head under running water to shut me up when I cried as a toddler.) She was pretty much as enraged as you are for being trapped in a loveless, abusive marriage, being poor, and being required to care for children she didn’t really want.

          You know who I’ve come to feel sorry for? Her. Like I feel sorry for you. She should have had a choice. She should have had actual agency over her own body and her own life. I’m willing to bet (say 55/45) that she wouldn’t have aborted me; but if she’d been able to decide for herself, both our lives would’ve been much different. (That’s why I find your stance confounding: you COULD choose and you’re STILL pissed off. How messed up is that?)

          It doesn’t bother me at all to contemplate having become a small pile of incinerated carbon ash, or a dark spot on a tampon. I’d have been as insensate then as I was before they lit the flame, you know.

          Instead, I know how abusive angry trapped women can be. And I quote: “I will never be anything more than a seething cauldron of rage…”

          You think you’re “quite capable of maintaining agency over” your own body and your own life? Didn’t you just write this: “It hurts that I have to live with so much turmoil in my life…?”

          Well, unlike your “friends” in the anti-choice movement, I won’t tell you what a good girl you are for allowing yourself to live in hurt and turmoil, nor ignore the reason for the hatred and anger you feel towards people you don’t even know. I’ll tell you instead that you don’t have to live like that. YOU matter. Your SELF, not your uterus, which is but a part of yourself.

          God help you when your daughter moves out. Will you still be jealous of other women because you’re life hurts and is filled with turmoil, and you imagine theirs doesn’t and isn’t? Is the answer really to make sure they are filled with hurt, turmoil and rage, too?

          Do you want that for your daughter? Misery, turmoil and anger because she’s female?

          OK, now to the anti-choice rhetoric. Women are people FIRST. Part of THEIR person hood is the ability to procreate. There are not two individuals in a pregnancy; there is one individual who is in the process of procreating. And they don’t have to continue that process, no matter how much it enrages you.

          If the fetus is an individual, take it out of the woman’s body and let it get on with it’s life.

          If you take it out of the woman’s body and it turns out not to be able to live at all, it’s not an individual, is it?

          Even if, for the sake of argument, we grant you your biological delusion that babies create themselves in magic incubators attached to no one, we’d still be left with considering the rights of two people, not just one. That’s easy: one person does not have the right to use another person’s body against their will. It’s called assault; it’s called rape; it’s called slavery.

          For sure, total strangers don’t have the right to force a person to donate their bodily functions to someone else.

          For absolutely, positively sure, the government doesn’t have the slightest authority to seize citizen’s bodies and force them into servitude for someone else.

          The woman is a person. You don’t get to say that and then not consider for one second what that means.

          • Faye Valentine

            “I would not say that to your daughter.”

            I’m sure you wouldn’t. That’s a crappy sales pitch, and nobody in their right mind would buy it. But please, *do* go on, and tell us all how you would dress it up to make having your mother kill you sound like a good thing that you would want for yourself in your right mind.

            ” I would tell her that she’s worthy of a good life free from hurt and turmoil, just like you are.”

            Umm…okay…so…where does being killed in utero factor into that? I mean, I’m all on board and right there with you for the “We are worthy of a good life free from hurt and turmoil.” bit. It’s just hard trying to reconcile that with SHE WOULD BE F-ING DEAD NOW HAD I KILLED HER IN AN ABORTION, YOU IDIOT.

            “The most I would tell her is…”

            Interesting admission made here…that you would have to actively and knowingly withhold the meat of your position to make it palatable to someone in their right mind.

            “…she doesn’t have to follow in your footsteps. (Sorry, but if you really care about her, you’d tell her the same.)”

            Oh, that has already been done. We’ve had the frank birds-and-bees talk that I wish I would have been given at that age, and the emphasis was placed on information (as uncomfortable as it was) which would have helped me a great deal. We haven’t gotten into methods of contraception yet, but in another couple years she will certainly be learning about the different forms and how they work, so that she will know how to procure and use whatever type she wants when she is an adult who has found the proper circumstances to engage in such behaviors. We have already gone over what constitutes the proper circumstances ad nauseam.

            But killing her child/my grandchild has entered into the discussion precisely nowhere. My life isn’t terrible because I have children. My life is terrible because I made a crappy choice in partners my first time around. The kids are the only good thing that came out of that.

            “My mother did tell me face to face she didn’t want me and if she could’ve aborted me she would have. (BTW, this hardly came as news; what with the hot irons and the holding my head under running water to shut me up when I cried as a toddler.)”

            I’m sorry that your mother was a screwed-up individual who abused you and took her own issues out on you. I’m sorry you seem to have internalized that abuse and find yourself deserving of it for the “crime” of merely being brought into existence through no fault of your own. I’m sorry your mother brought your own sense of self-worth down so low that you believe it would have been and should have been acceptable for her to kill you when she expressed a desire to have done so. I hope you’re getting help for this. I know someone who went through similar punishment for a similar reason by his own mother. He came to reject the notion that his life was not valuable, and is an incredible voice for children in utero today. I hope you get the help he has found and come to reject this horrible notion, that your life wasn’t valuable enough to protect and nurture when you were very young. Because that’s from where that kind of abuse stems. The same mothers that could have their children poisoned in utero, or scraped out in pieces, and incinerated? If you’re not valuable there, you’re not valuable anywhere. If you were just going to be a biohazard at the abortionists 2 years ago, why start caring about you now? Abortion really is the ultimate form of child abuse.

            “She was pretty much as enraged as you are for being trapped in a loveless, abusive marriage, being poor, and being required to care for children she didn’t really want.”

            For starters, I’m out of the loveless, abusive marriage. I realize now that I could have been much sooner. I’m currently remarried to an absolutely WONDERFUL man who breaks his back for our family and treats me with nothing but the utmost love and respect. I still feel some hurt and anger towards my abuser, but that’s something it’s going to take time to work through. My relationship circumstances have changed. Having aborted my children could never be undone, and taking out the anger and frustration of my bad relationship on those innocent children would have been just as wrong as aborting them.

            Being poor now sucks, but that’s something that won’t be an issue in the next few years due to our financial plan. Caring for the children in the meantime is a challenge, but what kind of monster would I be for punishing them for just existing, when our financial woes came originally from our own bad decisions?! What kind of sick person would do that?

            “You know who I’ve come to feel sorry for? Her. Like I feel sorry for you.”

            Your position is the result of a sick mind raised by a sick individual. Your Stockholm Syndrome is showing.

            “She should have had a choice.”

            She did. Her time for choices was *before* she helped to create you. And you should have had a right to live once your life had started. Don’t believe her. You *are* worthwhile and deserving of living, no matter what she has told you.

            “Like I feel sorry for you.”

            Don’t. I’m in a *much* better place now, and only getting better all the time. My biggest source of pain right now is the fact that I went along with whatever my ex wanted me to and I signed off on the tubal ligation he wanted so that I’d be sexually available to him whenever he liked in whatever fashion he chose. But even this will pass as our finances improve. :)

            So please, don’t feel sorry for me. I feel more sorry for the person who believes they are so unworthy of life, their mother should have thrown them away like garbage, literally.

            “Instead, I know how abusive angry trapped women can be. And I quote: ‘I will never be anything more than a seething cauldron of rage…’.”

            Yes. To those who DESERVE it. Your mother deserves nothing but ire and scorn, and I’d be happy to give her some for you. Taking out your own frustrations and anger on your own innocent children is disgusting, monstrous behavior, completely deserving of rage.

            “You think you’re ‘quite capable of maintaining agency over’ your own body and your own life? Didn’t you just write this: ‘It hurts that I have to live with so much turmoil in my life…?’.”

            Yes. But regaining and maintaining agency over my own body and my own life doesn’t include taking someone else’s. The doors of universities are not barred to pregnant or parenting students. The first time I broke away from my now-ex-spouse, I had an infant in-tow. Motherhood does not remove one’s faculties. What about this do you not understand?

            “Well, unlike your ‘friends’ in the anti-choice movement, I won’t tell you what a good girl you are for allowing yourself to live in hurt and turmoil…”

            With the f-ed up mother you had, I’m sure the concept of self-sacrifice for someone else’s good is a completely foreign concept to you anyway. I’m not surprised you cannot fathom it. :D

            “…nor ignore the reason for the hatred and anger you feel towards people you don’t even know.”

            The *reason* is that these people are building happy, successful lives on the broken bodies of their children. That should infuriate *ANYONE*. I don’t have to know someone to know that they have mistreated/harmed their own child, and that that is deserving of anger.

            “I’ll tell you instead that you don’t have to live like that. YOU matter. Your SELF, not your uterus, which is but a part of yourself. I’ll tell you instead that you don’t have to live like that. YOU matter. Your SELF, not your uterus, which is but a part of yourself.”

            Oh, I know I do! I absolutely know that I matter, and the kids will tell you that, too. They tell *me* that all the time! It’s actually quite a wonderful feeling. Your mother was really missing out.

            I don’t know why you felt the need to bring up my uterus. It’s my brain that I’m quite infatuated with, actually. ;)

            “God help you when your daughter moves out.”

            I don’t believe in God, but I’m sure that will be difficult. I’m going to worry about her a lot. But I’m sure she’ll do fine. She’s a strong, independent, intelligent, mature young woman, and I’m sure she will only grow further in those ways between now and the time she is ready to start on her own. She wants to be an astrophysicist. I think she can do it! But I’ll be there to help, certainly.

            (I’m sure she’ll stay just as interested in pro-life work as she is now, though. Because to be an astrophysicist, you have to be allowed to live long enough to become one. Right?)

            “Will you still be jealous of other women because you’re life hurts and is filled with turmoil, and you imagine theirs doesn’t and isn’t? Is the answer really to make sure they are filled with hurt, turmoil and rage, too?”

            I’m not jealous of ill-gotten goods. The children they sacrificed can never be returned to them, and I still have mine. The heart of my anger is simply a lack of justice for the deceased.

            “Do you want that for your daughter? Misery, turmoil and anger because she’s female?”

            Of course not! I want her to make wise decisions when it comes to choosing a mate and engaging in sexual behavior. But keep in mind, I also don’t want death for my grandchild. ;)

            (P.S. – I also want my *son* to engage wisely in sexual behaviors only when the circumstances are right. Females get pregnant, but it takes 2 to procreate, and men are every bit as responsible for their offspring as women are.)

            “OK, now to the anti-choice rhetoric. Women are people FIRST. Part of THEIR person hood is the ability to procreate. There are not two individuals in a pregnancy; there is one individual who is in the process of procreating. And they don’t have to continue that process, no matter how much it enrages you.”

            I’m sorry. I didn’t realize tenure was required for full admittance to the human race. lol

            Any OB/GYN worth their salt will tell you that when they see a pregnant mother for a prenatal check-up, they are treating two patients rather than one.

            It’s true that a pregnant mother can prematurely have her pregnancy ended thereby killing her child/offspring, and that is legal. But that’s just why I fight such injustice, and my side is winning, slowly but surely. :D

            “If the fetus is an individual, take it out of the woman’s body and let it get on with it’s life.

            If you take it out of the woman’s body and it turns out not to be able to live at all, it’s not an individual, is it?”

            That’s like saying that in order to prove that I’m a separate entity from my car, I should remove myself from it on the freeway traveling at 80 mph.

            Separate organ systems, separate genetics, chemical homeostasis, etc. The fact that continued gestation is the level of care required by a child in the embryonic/fetal stage does not make them a part of their mother and completely negate the biological facts of the matter. Being attached to a bridge by a cord when I bungee jump doesn’t make me a part of the bridge.

            “Even if, for the sake of argument, we grant you your biological delusion…”

            Oh boy. This is gonna be good.

            “… that babies create themselves in magic incubators attached to no one…”

            I don’t think I’ve said that. Mothers =/= “magic incubators”, they’re mothers. “Attached to” =/= a part of someone.

            “… we’d still be left with considering the rights of two people, not just one.”

            One which is the minor child of the other, thereby creating a responsibility to care for the vulnerable party.

            “That’s easy: one person does not have the right to use another person’s body against their will.”

            …Unless they are minor children incapable of caring for themselves in such a way. Parents with default custody are FORCED to use their bodies to change dirty diapers, breastfeed, etc. The parent/child relationship is quite different than any other, despite your crappy mom and the general opinion of your side. I have to admit, I’m still baffled at how you are determined to stick up for your crappy mom’s abuse of you. It’s sad.

            “It’s called assault; it’s called rape; it’s called slavery.”

            Actually, in this case, it’s called “parenthood”.

            “For absolutely, positively sure, the government doesn’t have the slightest authority to seize citizen’s bodies and force them into servitude for someone else.”

            Except “the draft” is a thing.

            “The woman is a person. You don’t get to say that and then not consider for one second what that means.”

            The woman is a person. The pregnant woman is a mother. Trust me, I’ve spent the last almost 13 years considering EXACTLY what that means. And the two people who matter the most would tell you I’ve done a pretty good job. I’m sorry yours didn’t.

          • TheDingus

            I just told you, but you missed it. Again: I wouldn’t know. I had no mind, much less a “right mind.” Arguing from the conclusion is meaningless.

            Would I tell your daughter that you had the RIGHT not to have her? Yes. Would I tell her that you SHOULDN’T have had her? No. That was your choice, which you have already made. What you think “the meat of my position” is and what it actually is, are two different things.

            I certainly hope you never have to choose between your daughter and forcing her to have your possible grand child. Your daughter is going to come in second, in that one, isn’t she? Good luck teaching her she comes first, except for the being female part.

            She wants to be an astrophysicist? Neat. What did you want to be before you had an unwanted baby?

            Skipping around… “I’m sorry you internalized that abuse.”

            Oh for pete’s sake, it’s like talking to people from a different planet. I relied on my mother’s care when I was 1, 2, 3, 4 etc. years old. I had NO OTHER OPTION but to internalize her abuse. Well, that’s not quite true, I could have become catatonic, I suppose. Some do. You’d probably blame them for that, too.

            “I’m sorry your mother brought your own sense of self-worth down so low
            that you believe it would have been and should have been acceptable for
            her to kill you when she expressed a desire to have done so.”

            It wasn’t just my mother; it’s an entire society that acts as if we had no use but being female, and can be used accordingly. Which is exactly what you think, and exactly the society you want, too.

            My mother had her own issues with self-worth. Why would you suppose her children wouldn’t detect that literally at her breast?

            I left that house the instant I could, age 17. I couldn’t, at age two, for example.

            I got help for it. Now I’m an advocate for living, breathing, thinking, feeling girls and women. (Not as easy as being a theoretical advocate for insensate embryos.)

            (BTW: you’re not winning. You just think you are because you spend a lot of time hanging out with others who share your beliefs. The majority
            of people still support Roe, at levels equal to or higher than ever.)

            “Your position is the result of a sick mind raised by a sick individual. Your Stockholm Syndrome is showing.”

            Not at all. If I’d had Stockholm Syndrome I would’ve had the baby and spent the next who knows how many years acting out because of how rough my life is, just like her (and you).

            My mind is not sick. It’s healthy. Perceiving reality is a healthy thing.

            “She should have had a choice.” “She did.”

            No, she didn’t. My father poked holes in his condoms, as he was happy to tell her later. He knew she didn’t want another baby from the get go; but he did. So he used her body as if he owned it. Just like you think you should be able to do.

            She was also living in a time in which providing sex to your spouse regardless of the impacts on you was expected. (Sounds like you know all about that.)

            “Your mother deserves nothing but ire and scorn, and I’d be happy to give her some for you.”

            You’re wrong. She deserved love, compassion and respect. I wished she’d gotten far more of all three before she died, too early.

            “Motherhood does not remove one’s faculties. What about this do you not understand?”

            I’m not the one who thinks women loose their faculties when they conceive, you are. Such as the faculty to project into the future and make decisions regarding their own lives, and possibly the lives of their already living children.

            “Mothers =/= “magic incubators”, they’re mothers.”

            You mean you understand that women give life to fetuses, they aren’t alive by themselves? But you keep saying how they’re individually alive. So, I remain puzzled.

            You’re definition of a “mother” is someone a man ejaculated into. Mine is, someone who has given birth to a living baby.

            “”Attached to” =/= a part of someone.”

            I have some questions for you: are ovum part of women?

            Is the uterus part of a woman, and does the placenta become part of it? (Careful with that one: if it didn’t become part of the uterus, there would be no babies, ever.)

            “Separate organ systems, separate genetics, chemical homeostasis, etc.”

            As I said, fine. If they have their own life, let them get on with it. They don’t have the right to use other people against their will.

            All that folderol about parents caring for living children is just that, folderol. They do not have to if they decline to. They can literally give their children away. You do know that, right?

            BTW, women are not cars, and they are not bridges. They aren’t inanimate objects of any type. So you might want to drop those type of analogies.

            “I didn’t realize tenure was required for full admittance to the human race.”

            “Tenure?” Being able to live spontaneously, being able to breathe, having a brain, being able to perceive, think, feel, learn, and act: those are the requirements of full admittance into the human race.

            You act like that’s outrageous. It’s not. No brain = death, and not, or no longer, a member of the human race.

            “I’m still baffled at how you are determined to stick up for your crappy mom’s abuse of you. It’s sad.”

            I’m not sticking up for her abuse of me. I recognized long ago that it would not have happened had she had agency over her own life. I’m not excusing her abuse, I’m explaining it. Child abuse is cyclical, and is passed from generation to generation. You learn it when it’s visited on you as a POWERLESS child. You just want adult women to also be powerless. You actively want to extend these cycles, over and over, pretending no suffering will arise from it.

            You’re wrong.

            Look: let’s cut to the chase. You continue to behave as though believing women should have a CHOICE is the equivalent of believing women should never have children. Most of the time when they conceive, they remain pregnant; a lot of that time they’re joyous too. No one is trying to stop that. No one.

            We’re saying, trust women. And shame on you for refusing to.

  • TheDingus

    Not interested in a bunch of creepy, lying stranger’s “mercy and love.” Keep you judgement in either direction away from me, please. It’s none of your business what goes on in my life or my body.

    You don’t love me; you love my uterus. Slice it anyway you like, that’s the bottom line. In the end, my privacy does not matter; my liberty does not matter; heck, my very life does not matter to a single one of you. Unless I agree to be a brood mare.

    I’ll stick with God’s mercy and love. She gets that I’m not a brood mare. (As per usual, the arrogance on display here is simply astonishing.)

    • MamaBear

      Why is it that pro-aborts hate and disrespect women so much? ONLY pro-abortionists call pregnant women things like “brood mare.” Is that what you guys honestly think of pregnant mothers? I hear it so often from your side that it must be. Pro-lifers believe that the life of mother and child are both worthy of respect.
      By the way, before you assume that you will get love and mercy from God, remember He is also a God of justice for even the unborn human soul, and He said “thou salt not kill.”

      • TheDingus

        A brood mare is a female equine used by people to create more equines.

        I’m saying women ARE NOT brood mares. You think they can and should be used to create new humans. YOU think women are brood mares, not I.

        I don’t see pregnant women as being used as breeding stock IF they can DECIDE not to be. If they can’t decide not to be, they are indeed breeding stock.

        As I said, I’ll take God’s mercy; keep yours to yourself. (Did you notice how you left “extended to women” out of your list? I did.) In the instance of deciding not to reproduce, I don’t think God’s “mercy” it’s on offer, not because such a “sin” is irredeemable, but because God’s mercy is not necessary. God is Spirit, not gender; as much female as male. God gets it. God created Death as well as Life, and gave us particular agency over both.

        The commandment is “thou shalt not murder.” If you eat, you kill something living every day. You also have the right to defend your own life, even if someone else dies because of it. It’s not “thou shalt not kill” – you literally have to kill, to live. It’s “thou shalt not murder.”

        Deciding not to GIVE life is not murder. Did you “murder” one of the 14 people who died of kidney disease today, because you didn’t give them your kidney?

        God forgives mass murderers and serial killers, but not women who don’t want to give birth?

        See, I don’t think God is that unjust, or that misogynistic. If God
        didn’t think there should be male and female, God would’ve made us
        hermaphrodites, or allowed one gender to reproduce by parthenogenesis.
        God’s certainly capable of that. If God didn’t think there
        should be choice, females wouldn’t have working brains, or will.
        Instead, God made us people with brains and will.

        Can there be forgiveness without free will? Can there be forgiveness without trespass?

  • ojfl

    No it’d ors not, love the sinner, hate the sin.

  • Cynical_Meliorist

    “How’s this for short (and unequivocal)? ”

    Finally, you told the truth about something!

    “I’ve never met a more ridiculously stupid, intellectually dishonest, egoistically deluded individual in my entire life. ”

    Your mirror called, and said it wants this comment back.

    From your very first post, that list (and then some) were all you gave us. Massive projection. Massive assumptions. Reprocessing arguments into the biggest straw men I’ve ever seen. You couldn’t even keep your own discussion points straight, much less mine.

    “That’s saying something considering that I’ve been discussing this issue with ridiculously stupid, intellectually dishonest and egoistically deluded anti-choice people for decades.”

    Somehow, I doubt the sincerity of this, given a few things. First, your arguments aren’t nearly polished enough for having been done for “decades”…if that were the case, you’d have better arguments. Oddly enough, all of the delusions and and intellectual dishonesty came right from you.

    I even asked you, repeatedly, to show where I was wrong. Where you said I was dishonest, I asked you to post it.

    You didn’t, because you couldn’t. The few times you even bothered, the results were laughable. Your own copy/paste of my words actually justified the point, and anyone with rudimentary English skills would have seen that.

    “If you want to argue with yourself about how many angels may dance on the head of a pin (redefining the words “angels” and “pins” on a daily basis) talk to a mirror. Ta ta.”

    I define those words precisely as they are intended. In this example, you’d make angels be whatever you want, and change pin between needles and bowling just to suit your purpose.

    Maybe, if you keep arguing this for a few more decades, you’ll come back with better points and actually have something to say later.

    Toodles!

    • PJ4

      TheDingus is a clear and obvious example of playing chess with a pigeon

      As a master of fact, I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a better example

      Arguing with a liberal is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter how well you play chess, the pigeon just knocks over all the pieces, craps on the board, spews some unintelligible profanities, and struts around like he won.

      • Cynical_Meliorist

        I have always liked the pigeon analogy. :)

        • PJ4

          Heh…and theDingus’ last remark made me think of that right away.
          I love when liberals prove our points ;-)